Mahfooz Sayed v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1173 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for an oral hearing by video at 15.00. The Appellant did not appear to prosecute his appeal. The clerk spoke with the Appellant by telephone. The Appellant indicated that he was not familiar with joining the hearing of his appeal by video but, in any event, now indicated that he was content that his appeal be determined on the papers only without a hearing.The Appellant had not returned a completed Case Management Questionnaire and while he did return a completed Certificate of Compliance, he did not indicate that he was content that his appeal be determined on the papers only without a hearing. The Tribunal decided it could determine this appeal on the papers, without a hearing, and that it was in the interests of justice to do so, having regard to the Tribunal’s statutory obligations under the Overriding Objective. The Respondent was not represented.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 6 March 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 24 January 2026. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, on 7 February 2026, namely, that his vehicle had a mechanical breakdown, lasting several weeks; his trainer had been unavailable for four months and that he, the Appellant, had developed health issues, that temporarily prevented him attending further training sessions or re-booking a Part 3 test ‘within the remaining time available’ (presumably meaning the time available before the expiry of his valid trainee licence until the promulgation this appeal), on the grounds that the Appellant had not provided evidence to support the claims he made in his said representations, nor had he demonstrated lost training time; that he had already been granted two trainee licences, covering a period of 12 months in total, from 10 February 2025 to 9 February 2026, to gain sufficient expertise in driving instruction to pass a Part 3 test, a time period that, it was submitted, was more than adequate; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it might take a candidate to become an ADI; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence did not prevent him undertaking another, final, permitted attempt to pass a Part 3 test; that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal (as his application for a third trainee licence had been made before the expiry of his second trainee licence), providing him, in practical terms, with a total trainee licence period of just over 18 months.[3]The Appellant submitted an undated appeal against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in addition to his written representations in response to the Respondent’s intention to refuse his application for a third trainee licence: - that he had booked a further Part 3 test for 30 March 2026, [that he, unfortunately, failed]; - that, for the reasons set out in his said representations, factors that were outside his control, his ‘ability to undertake continuous training’, during his trainee licence the period had been significantly disrupted, the said mechanical problems lasting ‘several weeks’, while his trainer was not available for approximately four month, being abroad, and having a busy schedule of his own upon his return, significantly limiting, he submitted, access to supervised Part 3 training.[4]The Respondent, in his Response dated 13 July 2026, reiterated the sole purpose of a trainee licence and the other grounds recited in the decision under appeal and submitted, in addition, that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 10 November 2026 and 30 March 2026 and that the Appellant could obtain further training, if he wished, in preparation for his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test by undertaking a training course, or studying or practising with an ADI or provide unpaid tuition, pointing out that precedent existed whereby applicants succeeded in becoming registered as fully-qualified ADIs without ever having held any trainee licence by using such alternatives.[5]This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.[6]The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been granted two trainee licences (albeit, in practical terms, he had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 18 months) that was more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test and that he had not provided evidence to support his stated claims to lost training time.[7]An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as 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.[8]In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written evidence and submissions received and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.[9]There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case but a distinct lack of supporting evidence from the Appellant to support his claims.[10]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.