Malvern Kapswarah v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1195 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 11 August 2026 at 14.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative of the Respondent appeared.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 3 March 2026, to refuse his application for a second trainee driving instructor licence made on 15 December 2025, taking account of representations made by him on 6, 8 and 18 January 2026, namely, that he did not know that his mandatory training requirements had to be completed within the first 3 months of his first (and still valid, pending determination of this appeal) trainee licence; that he had booked a Part 3 test on hold and remained fully committed to becoming an ADI, on the ground that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of his first, and still valid, trainee licence as the required additional training record was incomplete, that is, he had not returned, fully completed, including all of his training objectives, in his ADI21AT training record; that he had already been granted a trainee licence for 6 months, from 23 June 2025 to 22 December 2025, for the purpose (being the sole purpose of being granted a trainee licence), to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test, that, the Respondent submitted, was more than an adequate period of time to reach the Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) qualifying standard; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued to an aspiring ADI for so long as it might take the trainee to pass his Part 3 test - a position that is correct in law; that the system of trainee licences could not become an alternative to registration system as a fully-qualified ADI; that holding a trainee licence is not required to take a Part 3 test and refusal of the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence was not a bar to him taking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts) and that the Appellant’s existing first trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal (as his application for a second trainee licence had been made before the expiry of her first trainee licence), providing him with a total trainee licence period of almost 14 months – two months longer to date than if his application had been granted. This was undoubtedly a more than reasonable period to allow the Appellant to reach the instructional ability qualifying standard and to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction to pass his Part 3 test.[3]The Appellant submitted an appeal on 16 March 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds: - that he had booked a further, second attempt, to take a Part 3 test to take place on 22 April 2026 [that the Appellant regrettably failed again]; - that during the period of his existing, and still valid, trainee licence, he had completed 22 hours of additional training with an ADI (exceeding the minimum requirements), a submission confirmed in writing by one Felix Yebra, an ADI who had completed the Appellant’s application for his second trainee licence; - that his Form ADI21AT was fully completed and submitted to the Respondent (albeit two hours late), that amounted to a minimal, technical breach of the conditions of his trainee licence, rather than a substantive failure to comply; that there had been no compromise to supervision, professional standards or road safety; that the slight delay in submitting his training record was due to ‘exceptional, short-lived circumstances’ [that he rather vaguely and unconvincingly stated, in his oral evidence, related to pressures of also working as a driver in another employment and with ‘a lot going on’ due to his children growing up], and the breach not being deliberate and did not reflect a disregard for the regulatory framework; that he had ‘acted in good faith’ with a clear intention of full compliance throughout; that the Respondent had a discretion, that is, that it was not mandatory to refuse to grant him a second trainee licence and that the decision under appeal was disproportionate in the circumstances. [This betrayed a lack of understanding, explained to the Appellant at the outset of the hearing of this appeal, that the Tribunal would be considering his application for a second trainee licence entirely afresh and making its own decision]; that he wanted a second trainee licence to ‘finish his training’ and to be ready to take his Part 3 test, with continuity of development and practical experience, while also allowing him to continue instructing existing pupils, ensuring responsible supervision and avoiding unnecessary disruption to their progress; - that refusal of his application for a second trainee licence would have ‘an immediate and significant impact on his pupils. The Appellant, in his Notice of Appeal, stated an objection to the ‘suspension’ of his trainee licence. This submission was of no substance since the Appellant’s existing trainee licence remained valid until this appeal was determined and became effective.[4]The Respondent, in his Response document dated 2 July 2026 reiterated the reasons for his decision set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, the Respondent also submitted that supplementary training requirements included training in all matters specified in Part 5(15)(3)(a) of the Motor Car (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, and that the Appellant had covered only 11 of the listed 20 training objectives. The Respondent advised that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test twice (on 29 September 2025 and 22 April 2026, respectively). Significantly, the Respondent advised that the Appellant had previously held two trainee licences from 4 September 2023 to 3 September 2024. The Tribunal took the view that this was evidence that the Appellant should have been fully familiar with the conditions attaching to holding a trainee licence. The Respondent also pointed out that if the Appellant felt he required further training, to prepare to take a Part 3 test, there were up to three other alternatives available to him, namely, to attend a training course; study and/or practise under an ADI, or provide unpaid tuition, pointing out that these were all alternatives used by some trainees who achieved ADI status without ever having held a trainee licence at all.[5]In his oral evidence, the Appellant accepted that he did not need a trainee licence in order to undertake a Part 3 test, that refusal of his application for a second trainee licence was not a bar to him taking a Part 3 test and that his existing, first, trainee licence remained valid pending the outcome of this appeal. He advised that his third, and final, attempt to pass his Part 3 test was booked to take place on 29 October 2026. He submitted that the only issue in this appeal was the slightly late submission of his training record. Had this, in fact, been the only issue, the Tribunal could possibly have taken a much more benign view of this appeal. However, this submission was not strictly correct: the Appellant’s training record, as submitted, was significantly incomplete and not in compliance with the conditions of his first, and still valid, trainee licence. Further, the Appellant stated in his oral evidence that he wanted a second trainee licence in preparation for taking his third, and final, attempt to pass his Part 3 test and to help him financially [a purpose that is decidedly not the purpose of a trainee licence] and to be able to continue his training [a submission that did not have substance in determining this appeal].[6]This appeal concerns 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.[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, although the Appellant seemed to, in error, think that the Tribunal had such a role as he wished to strongly criticise the handling of his application for a second trainee licence by the Respondent.[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.[9]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.