Ahmed Usman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1084 (GRC)
Mode of Hearing
[1]This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on today, 20 July 2026. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal proceeded and determined this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent. In doing so, the Tribunal was satisfied that this complied with the overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Tribunal) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’), and with Rule 36, in that the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.[2]The Tribunal, ‘standing in the shoes of the Respondent’, determined this appeal de novo and considered afresh the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence.Decision under Appeal
[3]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 12 February 2026 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence, made on21 November 2025, pursuant to s.129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of the first trainee licence issued to him for the period 2 May 2025 to 25 November 2025 (a period, the Respondent submitted, was more than adequate to enable the Appellant to gain practical experience to take a Part 3 test), namely, that his training objectives on completed Form ADI 21AT were not completed within the first three months of his first trainee licence and were completed by someone different to the person named on the said trainee licence. The Respondent submitted that, in making, the decision under appeal, they took account of representations made by the Appellant in a letter received on 27 January 2026. The Respondent stated in their Response document dated 5 June 2026 that these representations referred to his difficulties arising from having changed his driving school during the period of his 1st trainee licence and a lack of understanding of the administrative requirements involved following achage of training provider. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not provided evidence to support his assertion that he had experienced difficulty getting training; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it might take a trainee to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to achieving registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that a trainee licence was not required to take a Par 3 test; that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence was not a bar to him taking a part 3 test and that his existing trainee licence remained valid until this appeal was determined.Notice of Appeal
[4]In his Notice of Appeal dated 23 February 2026, the Appellant advised that his 2nd attempt at a Part 3 test was booked on hold [he having failed his 1st attempt on 23 January 2026]. He did offer an explanation as to why he had failed to comply with the conditions of his 1st trainee licence, namely, that his original driving school had closed – something that was out of his control; that he had transferred to a new driving school in June 2025 [having experienced some difficulty in obtaining a new school], where he then completed a further 23 hours of structured training, making 33 hours in total; that he did not realise he had to notify the Respondent of his change of driving school and he remained committed to becoming an ADI. The Appellant further submitted in his Notice of Appeal that he wanted a second trainee licence to complete further supervised practical training and to develop the requisite standard of competence as a qualified driving instructor.Response of Respondent
[5]The Respondent, in his said written Response, dated 5 June 2026, confirmed that the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence had been refused because the Appellant did not comply with conditions of his first trainee licence in that he failed to complete his training within the first three months of his first trainee licence. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training, if necessary, to prepare for his second attempt at a Part 3 test, by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test. The Respondent also confirmed that the Appellant had booked a second Part 3 test, on hold, awaiting a date. Significantly, the said Response simply did not adequately address the implications, if any, of the assertions made by the Appellant that limited his ability to make most use of his existing trainee licence.Appellant’s Oral Evidence
[6]The Tribunal found the Appellant to be credible, honest and trustworthy and had no hesitation in accepting his evidence, particularly on the balance of probabilities, in deciding to allow this appeal.[7]In his oral evidence, the Appellant reiterated the written submissions made by him in his Notice of Appeal. In addition, he submitted that it had not been easy to find an alternative driving school and that he had not been aware of the need to inform the Respondent of his change of driving school until receiving a letter from the Respondent that his 1st trainee licence was due to expire but that he had advised the Respondent when he applied for his 2nd trainee licence on 25 November 2025, maintaining that, as a teacher, communications from the Respondent were not clear. He did, however, accept the purpose of a trainee licence; the intention of Parliament in that regard, albeit submitting he had strived to get the necessary experience. He submitted that he needed a 2nd trainee licence to continue his par 3 training. This was not accepted by the Tribunal. He went on, however, to state that he had tried to offer lessons for no charge but found potential pupils to be sceptical of such an offer and had experienced difficulties in getting pupils without holding a 2nd trainee licence. He submitted that it was his new trainer who advised that he should get a 2nd trainee licence to complete further supervised practical training and develop the requisite standard of competence. He further stated he was aware of the alternatives of getting further training but there was a difficulty with role playing rather than instructing an actual student.Reasoning
[8]Clearly, in practical terms, the Appellant reiterated that, due to his particular circumstances, he had been unable to use his trainee licence to the utmost extent during the six-month period for which it was issued. The Tribunal accepted this as a fact.Decision of Tribunal
[9]This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.[10]An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.[11]In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.[12]Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.[13]The decision of the Respondent, made on 12 February 2026, is set aside. The Appellant is granted a second trainee licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.