Oleur Rashid v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1174 (GRC)
Mode of Hearing
[1]This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 10 April 2026. The Appellant attended, but by audio only, having technical difficulties joining by video and audio, and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine 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.Decision under Appeal
[2]Decision under Appeal The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 3 February 2026 to refuse his application for a third trainee driving instructor licence made on 2 December 2025, pursuant to s.129(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not provided evidence of lost training time during the period of his second trainee licence and that he could have delayed applying for a third trainee licence; that he had been allowed to submit completion of his required additional training time late due to his unfortunate personal circumstances; that he had already been granted 2 trainee licences (12 months in total – 2 December 2024 to 1 December 2025) to gain sufficient expertise to pass his Part 3 test, considered to be more than an adequate period of time – the sole purpose of a trainee licence - (plus more than 8 further months until determination of this appeal); that it was not intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took an applicant to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test.Notice of Appeal
[3]Notice of Appeal The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal on 15 February 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, (incorporating her representations to the Respondent in advance of the Respondent making the decision under appeal): - that his third, and final permitted, attempt to pass his Part 3 test was booked for 8 September 2026; - that ‘exceptional, time-limited personal circumstances’, namely, the death of his father shortly after the commencement of his first trainee licence period , requiring him to assume a significant family supportive role, followed, in February 2026 by his brother being diagnosed with a Stage 4 cancer, had ‘materially limited his ability to complete [his Approved Driving Instructor – ‘ADI’] qualification within the standard time frame’ [presumably meaning within the time period of the validity of his trainee licence periods]; - that his said personal circumstances had caused a temporary, but significant, deterioration in his mental health, that led to impaired judgement, and ability to plan and manage his trainee licence periods proactively; - that he accepted responsibility for not ‘pausing’ his trainee licences, or seeking regulatory guidance, but the period involving his said personal circumstances was sustained rather than being a disregard of regulatory obligations or a lack of commitment; - that his said personal circumstances had now materially changed for the better; - that independent advice submitted by him corroborated the earlier impact of his said personal circumstances and the said subsequent improvement; - that the decision under appeal was disproportionate in light of the said exceptional, evidenced, temporary circumstances; - that he wished to be granted a third trainee licence to complete his Part 3 test with full commitment from himself and without him suffering loss of earnings.[4]In his oral evidence, the Appellant submitted that, in hindsight, he should have delayed his application for a third trainee licence in light of his said personal circumstances. He stated he had cancelled his Part 3 test appointment for 15 July 2025 on the advice of his trainer who had told him he was not ready for the test. He accepted that holding a trainee licence was not required to take a Part 3 test and accepted that refusal of his application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to taking the test. He stated further, however, that if he did not have another trainee licence, he would not have access to a vehicle, raising the prospect of financial difficulties, having given up the running of his father’s restaurant business following the death of his father. He submitted there was evidence of lost training time. He stated that his mother still cried a lot at night, his father having died on 3 November 2024, shortly before the start of his first trainee licence period.Response of Respondent
[5]Response of Respondent The Respondent, in his written Response, dated 22 June 2026, reiterated the reasons contained in the decision under appeal, not least the sole purpose of a trainee licence and that the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences from 2 December 2024 to1 December 2025 (plus an additional period of more than 8 months pending the outcome of this appeal); that the Appellant had made application for a third trainee licence on 2 December 2025 and had produced no evidence of lost training time during the period of his second trainee licence. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training, if necessary, to prepare for his third and final attempt at a Part 3 test (he having failed his Part 3 test attempts on two previous occasions, namely, on 28 November 2025 and 14 April 2026), 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 some ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test, and who achieved ADI status without ever having held a trainee licence; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an ADI; that it was not the intention of Parliament that an aspiring ADI should be granted a trainee licence for however long it took him to pass his Part 3 test and that 12 months (together with the Appellant’s existing trainee licence remining valid until determination of this appeal), was a very reasonable period to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction.Decision of Tribunal
[6]Decision of Tribunal This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third 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.[7]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.[8]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. In particular, I have decided, on the balance of probabilities, on the Appellant’s oral evidence, that lost training time was a live issue in this case.[9]Accordingly, the appeal isallowed, having regard, in particular, to the personal circumstances faced by the Appellant during the periods of his valid trainee licences[10]The decision of the Respondent, made on 3 February 2026 is set aside. The Appellant is granted a third licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.[11]The Appellant is advised that allowing his appeal is a highly unusual course, dictated by his somewhat unique personal circumstances, namely, his need to sort out his father’s affairs following his tragic death; the serious illness of his brother and his need to support him and his mother leading the Appellant to have incurred lost training time and the fact that the Appellant presented as being forthright, honest and credible.[12]The Appellant is specifically advised that his appeal is not allowed on the basis that he needs a third trainee licence to order to be able to charge pupils for driving instruction, nor that to refuse his application for a third trainee licence might result in financial hardship, having regard to the sole purpose for which a trainee licence is issued.[13]Further, the Appellant is advised that should his third, and final, permitted attempt to pas his Part 3 test, scheduled for 8 September2026, fail, no further appeal can succeed as a trainee licence may only be issued in order that he can gain the practical experience required to take a Part 3 test.