MD Afruzzaman v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1018 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 01018 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1126
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 6 July 2026Date 10 July 2026
Transport
Heard by CVP
Before
TRIBUNAL Judge SOPHIE BUckley
Between
Md AfruzzamanAppellantREGISTRAR FOR APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentIn person for AppellantDid not appear for RespondentDecision: The appeal is dismissedREASONS

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 15 October 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

Legal framework

[2]The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.[3]A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.[4]A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:
‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’
[5]In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).[6]Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.[7]If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.[8]A trainee licence is granted subject to the conditions set out in regulation 15(2)-(5). The relevant condition in this appeal is regulation 15(3) which, where it applies, provides that the licence holder must undertake not less than 20 hours supplementary training during the first three months of the licence. “Supplementary training” is defined as including all of the relevant matters specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Part 1 of Schedule 2 lists 20 matters that must be included in supplementary training. Those 20 training objectives are listed on form ADI 21AT, the Instructor Training Declaration form.[9]Under regulation 15(3)(b) it is also a condition that the licence holder provide, by no later than the day following the expiry of 3 months, evidence, in the form specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2, that he received the supplementary training.[10]Part 2 of Schedule 2 provides, inter alia, that the evidence submitted shall include the matters included in the training, the dates on which training was given and the number of hours spent on each matter.[11]The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.[12]When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

Factual background to the appeal

[13]The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 10 December 2024. He failed his first attempt at Part 2 on 17 January 2025 and passed Part 2 on 21 January 2025. He failed his first attempt at Part 3 on 29 September 2025 and failed his second attempt at Part 2 on 16 April 2026.[14]The Appellant has had one trainee licence which was valid from 31 March 2025 to 30 September 2025. The Appellant applied for a second trainee licence on 2 September 2025. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, this means that, at the date of the hearing, the Appellant has been the beneficiary of a trainee licence for 1 year and 3 months.

Appeal to the Tribunal

[15]The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are, in essence, that he had complied with the conditions of the licence because that he had had more than 20 hours training and had met the requirements of the trainee licence. He said as follows:
“I sent in form ADI21AT after applying for a further trainee licence to enable me to carry on with my training on the job while waiting for my PT3 test. I asked my sponsor to fill in the form for me as proof of my additional 20 hours of training after being granted my first trainee licence. He was not experienced in filling in the form and didn’t realise that he could put the same date down for several of the 20 headings and as he was only putting 22 hours down he just picked 11 of the headings, despite giving me training in all of them. I had training from him in all of the 20 headings in the 3 months after getting my trainee licence. I asked my current trainer, who is an ex ADI Examiner for the DVSA, what to do and he advised me to explain that I did have training in all of the headings within the time limit but not to submit another form before seeking advice from yourselves. Apart from my sponsor I took training from Mr Kevin Page (Prn 176344) and Mr Saiful Kabir (Pr482153) I did cover more than 20 hours and meet the dvsa requirements for trainee licence. However my sponsor said I don' t have to send those documents, I didn' t send them. That was my unintentional mistake I sent those form later to Dvsa , However they didn't accept those form due to my case went to GRC. I already been to part 3 test once and the examiner mentioned I need more experience. I have been unable to get another test for PT3 due to the unavailability in my area. I am on hold and am awaiting a date. I am still having regular training with both my sponsor and my new trainer in preparation for my test.”
[16]The Registrar, in his response to the appeal, states that the Appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of their first trainee licence, as he returned training record form ADI121AT but has not completed all training objectives. He said that the reasons for refusing the application for a second licence were: 16.1. The appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of holding a trainee licence. Part 5 (15)(3)(a) of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 states that a minimum of 20 hours of training must be completed within the first 3 months of the validity of his licence. The appellant only completed 22 hours of training within the 3-month time frame. Additionally, Part 5 (15)(6) of the same regulations states that supplementary training includes training in all matters specified in part 1 of schedule 2 of the same regulations. The appellant has only covered 11 of the 20 objectives listed in this schedule. 16.2. The appellant has not provided any explanation as to why he failed to comply with the conditions. 16.3. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. 16.4. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. By virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. 16.5. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 16.6. The refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.[17]Since the response was submitted the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test for a second time.[18]Although the response says that the Appellant ‘only’ completed 22 hours, this is more than the required 20 hours. The issue of non-compliance relates to the fact that the Appellant only produced evidence that he had been trained in 11 of the 20 objectives specified by Part 1 of Schedule 2.

Evidence

[19]I read and took account of a bundle of documents. I also heard submissions from the Appellant.

Discussion and conclusions

[20]The Appellant’s trainee licence was issued on 31 March 2025. It was a condition of the licence that the Appellant not only undertook training in all 20 of the specified relevant matters in the first three months, but also that he submitted evidence by no later than the day after the expiry of three months that recorded the matters included in the training and the number of hours of training spent on each matter. The evidence submitted by the Appellant in form ADI 21AT on 2 June 2025 only recorded the hours of training which were spent on 11 of the 20 required matters. It did not record any training in relation to the remaining 9 matters.[21]The Appellant’s explanation for this in the hearing was that the instructor was not experienced in completing the forms, and that although he had trained the Appellant in all 20 matters, he said that as long as you completed 20 hours you did not need to tick all the boxes. In his grounds of appeal the Appellant said that that instructor had not realised that he could put the same date down for several of the 20 headings and as he was only putting 22 hours down he just picked 11 of the headings, despite having given the Appellant training in all of the matters.[22]The Appellant’s position was that he was trained by this instructor in all 20 relevant matters, and that a random 11 were left off the form.[23]The Appellant relies on a further ADI21AT which was completed on 29 September 2025. That was completed by a different instructor. The form includes all the matters which are missing from the previous form and only two matters that were omitted from that form. Although the instructor’s certification was signed on 29 September 2025, the dates of training range from 1 April to 1 May 2025.[24]As stated, although two matters that are on both forms, the remaining training is complementary. Where a matter appears on one form, it does not appear on the other. The Appellant’s assertion was that he was trained in all 20 matters by the first instructor, and that the instructor left those matters off the form in error. It seems surprising that the second instructor happened to train the Appellant on the very matters that the first instructor later happened to leave off the form.[25]In any event, it is not just a condition that training happens, it is also a condition that the licence holder provide, by no later than the day following the expiry of 3 months, evidence, in the form specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2, that he received the supplementary training. The Appellant did not comply with that condition. The evidence was not provided until 29 September 2025. Even on the evidence before me today, and even if I accept that the training was carried out as recorded, the Appellant was in breach of a condition of the licence.[26]The Appellant also relies on a training log with Kevin Page driving school. That training occurred between July and October 2025 so was not in the relevant three month period.[27]Six months should be ample time to gain sufficient practical experience for the instructional ability test. If the Appellant wishes to maintain his practical experience until his next attempt, he is permitted to do this without a trainee licence in other ways as outlined by the Registrar.[28]I have found that the Appellant has not complied with all the conditions of the trainee licence. In those circumstances, he has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision not to grant a second trainee licence was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed. Signed Sophie Buckley Date: 6 July 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal