Amjad Nafees v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1076 (GRC)
Introduction:
[1]This is an appeal brought by Amjad Nafees against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors dated 26 February 2026 refusing his application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.[2]The appeal was listed for a hearing on the papers. The Appellant had originally requested an oral hearing however the appeal ultimately was listed for a hearing on the papers on 16 July 2026 and therefore proceeded in the absence of the Appellant.[3]The Tribunal has considered the appeal bundle, the Appellant's written representations and notice of appeal, the Respondent's statement of case, and all material before it.Background:
[4]The Appellant has passed Parts 1 and 2 of the Approved Driving Instructor qualification process but has not passed Part 3, the instructional ability test. He has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.[5]The Appellant's case is that he was unable to obtain the full benefit of the trainee licence regime because of a period of back pain requiring treatment and physiotherapy together with delays in securing a Part 3 test date. He contends that those matters were outside his control and justify the grant of a further trainee licence.[6]The Registrar's position is that the Appellant has already enjoyed approximately twelve months of licensed experience under two trainee licences and has not demonstrated circumstances sufficient to justify departure from the ordinary approach to third licence applications. The Registrar further contends that refusal does not prevent the Appellant from continuing to prepare for, and undertake, the Part 3 examination.[7]It is noted that the Appellant has his second attempt at the instructional ability test booked but awaiting an available date.Chronology:
[8]The Appellant passed the Part 1 examination on 28 December 2024 and the Part 2 driving ability test on 3 January 2025.[9]Following those passes, he was granted trainee licences enabling him to provide paid driving instruction whilst progressing towards qualification.[10]The Registrar records that he enjoyed the benefit of two trainee licences amounting to approximately twelve months of licensed experience between January 2025 and January 2026.[11]On 18 January 2026 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.[12]By correspondence dated 22 January 2026 the Registrar notified the Appellant that refusal was being considered on the basis that he had already been granted sufficient time to gain the experience necessary to complete the qualification process.[13]On 1 February 2026 the Appellant submitted written representations. He explained that he had suffered back pain requiring treatment and physiotherapy, that the condition had affected his training, and that he had experienced difficulty obtaining a Part 3 test date despite seeking one from August 2025.[14]The Registrar considered those representations but refused the application on 26 February 2026.[15]On 26 March 2026 the Appellant sat the Part 3 instructional ability test and failed. He remains eligible to take a further attempt.[16]The present appeal followed.Issues Joined Between the Parties:
[17]The principal issue is whether the Appellant has established circumstances sufficient to justify the grant of a third trainee licence notwithstanding the ordinary statutory expectation that trainee licences are temporary measures designed to facilitate progression towards qualification rather than provide an ongoing alternative to registration.[18]More specifically, the parties disagree as to:a. whether the Appellant's medical difficulties materially reduced his ability to benefit from the trainee licences already granted;b. whether delays in obtaining a Part 3 test date materially disadvantaged him;c. whether those matters, separately or cumulatively, amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a third licence; andd. whether a further trainee licence is necessary given the alternative means available to prepare for and undertake the Part 3 examination.Legal Framework:
[19]Section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid instruction in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor is registered as an Approved Driving Instructor or holds a current trainee licence.[20]Section 129 establishes the trainee licence regime. The purpose of that regime is to enable prospective driving instructors to gain practical experience whilst progressing towards qualification. It is not intended to provide an indefinite alternative to registration.[21]The Tribunal determines the appeal on its merits and is entitled to consider all the available evidence before it. The question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, the Registrar's refusal should stand or whether the licence should be granted.[22]The burden rests upon the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the circumstances relied upon justify departure from the ordinary position. In a case such as this, the quality and weight of the evidence is of central importance.Discussion:
[23]The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant experienced back pain and that physiotherapy material was provided in support of that assertion. The Tribunal also accepts that the medical evidence demonstrates a genuine condition requiring treatment.[24]Equally, the Tribunal accepts that there appears to have been a delay between the Appellant seeking a Part 3 test date and a test eventually being arranged.[25]The difficulty for the Appellant is evidential. The central issue identified by the Registrar was not whether the medical condition existed but whether it had been shown to have deprived the Appellant of a material part of the opportunity afforded by the trainee licence regime.[26]Had an oral hearing taken place, the Tribunal would have wished to explore a number of matters in greater depth. In particular, the Tribunal would have wished to test the extent of any lost training opportunity, the number of instructional hours allegedly lost, the practical effect of the medical condition on day-to-day work, the evidence surrounding attempts to obtain earlier test dates, and the connection between those matters and the Appellant's progress towards qualification.[27]Unfortunately because the appeal proceeded on the papers, the Tribunal did not have the opportunity to test the evidence through questioning or assess oral explanations which might have expanded upon the written material. The result is that a number of important evidential questions remain unanswered.[28]The Tribunal has considerable sympathy for the Appellant. The material before it suggests that he pursued qualification in good faith, that he experienced genuine medical difficulties, and that no allegation of misconduct or abuse of the licensing regime has ever been made.[29]However, sympathy cannot replace evidence. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the circumstances relied upon are sufficiently established and sufficiently exceptional to justify granting a third trainee licence.[30]The evidence before the Tribunal does not enable it to conclude that the Appellant was deprived of such a substantial portion of the benefit of his previous licences that an exception should be made. Whilst the medical documents support the existence of a condition, they do not quantify the amount of training time lost or demonstrate the extent to which the Appellant was prevented from gaining the practical experience ordinarily available during the licensed period.[31]Nor is there sufficient evidence enabling the Tribunal to assess the extent to which the delay in obtaining a Part 3 test date materially hindered progress towards qualification, as opposed to being one of a number of factors affecting the Appellant's circumstances.[32]Against that background the Tribunal attaches weight to the factors identified by the Registrar: The Appellant has already enjoyed approximately twelve months of licensed experience; he has undertaken the Part 3 test and failed it once; he remains entitled to undertake a further attempt; and qualification may continue to be pursued without holding a trainee licence.[33]The Tribunal therefore concludes that the evidence falls short of establishing the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify departure from the ordinary approach to third trainee licence applications.[34]It is noted that the Appellant has his second attempt at the instructional ability test booked but is awaiting an available date.Conclusion:
[35]The Tribunal recognises that the Appellant may have encountered genuine difficulties through no fault of his own and has considerable sympathy for his position. Nevertheless, the Tribunal must determine the appeal on the evidence before it.[36]In the absence of sufficiently persuasive evidence demonstrating that the Appellant was materially deprived of the benefit of the trainee licences already granted, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the grant of a third trainee licence is justified.[37]The Tribunal therefore accepts the Registrar's reasoning and concludes that the refusal decision should stand.[38]Accordingly, the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal. Judge Brian Kennedy 17 July 2026.