SHAFQUAT akbarAppellantTHE REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondentDRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.REASONS
Background to Appeal
[1]This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 12th March 2026 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.[2]The Appellant was a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/licences (‘the Act’) for a six-month period, then another, but was refused a further licence at the end of the relevant period.[3]The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had not passed the final part of the ADI qualifying examination within the relevant period and as insufficient evidence of loss of training time was supplied that the Appellant had had long enough to progress, and the application to issue a third trainee licence was therefore refused.[4]The Appellant appeals the Registrar’s decision.
Appeal to the Tribunal
[5]Appeal to the Tribunal The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 24th march 2026 indicates that he has invested heavily into becoming an ADI, as it is a profession he is committed to. He asserts that there were long waits to get test dates and due to a family bereavement he had to leave the country for an unspecified period. He asserts that his franchise company were not consistent in their supply of pupils and this impacted on his ability to train.[6]In his appeal to the Registrar the Appellant quotes potential Human Rights violations in suggesting that the decision not to provide a third licence is not proportional.[7]The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the decision letter sets out their position. The Registrar points out that the Applicant has failed to provide any proper indication of a lack of training opportunity, and as a result no further licence is appropriate.[8]The Registrar indicated the Appellant has failed his Part 3 exam once. No further test date is given.
Mode of Determination
[9]Mode of Determination The case was determined on the papers, both parties agreeing that the same was appropriate. The Tribunal considered the papers and came to the conclusion that such a determination was fair and appropriate, and in accordance with the Tribunal Rules and the wider interests of justice.[10]The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence consisting of 23 pages.
The Law
[11]The Law The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s. 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1902/pdfs/uksi_20051902_en.pdf .[12]A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination… as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct ’.[13]In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.[14]If a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor and many people qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.[15]The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s. 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.[16]When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of approved Driving Instructors and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html. Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf. as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.
Conclusion
[17]Conclusion The Tribunal considered carefully all the papers before it.[18]In fixing a period of 6 month to allow for trainee instructors to progress Parliament must have had in mind that we are all subject to differing life events that affect our ability to undertake certain tasks. Sometimes those events are so unusual or have such a bearing on an individual that it will be entirely appropriate to find that a longer than normal period of time should be allowed to complete a task. Here the Appellant indicates little loss of training opportunity but relies upon it being difficult to get Part 3 tests. He has had 2 licences already, so had 12 months training time, double the norm, and due to the appeal a further period on top. He has also attempted his Part 3 already, obviously feeling he was ready to at least try to pass the same.[19]The licence is granted to allow an individual to train, here the Appellant has had that opportunity and more. He has raised that the franchise were not consistent in providing pupils but not provided any details of the same, or about any complaints he levied with the franchise to correct things. In any event he has had significantly longer than the norm, which more than makes up for any shortcomings there may have been in relation to pupil supply.[20]In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s initial decision was correct, and the appeal fails.[21]The proportionality arguments also fail as the grant of a licence is simply providing an opportunity to train. It does not guarantee a livelihood, a guarantee of passing the exams or more. It is simply the opportunity to train. Here the Appellant has had that opportunity and more. There is nothing that suggests any infringement of the Appellant’s Human Rights.[22]Whilst the Tribunal therefore finds that the Appeal must be dismissed, this does not preclude the Appellant from taking his Part 3 examination. The Tribunal wishes the Appellant well in any exam to come, if the Appellant opts to take it. (The fact that the Appellant can still take the exam if he wishes is a further reason why the proportionality arguments fail.)[23]This appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon 24. DATE: 12th August 2026