Maryam Bi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 239 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00239 (GRC)Date 20 February 2026
First-Tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport Regulations
Maryam BiAppellant:Registrar of Approved Driving InstructorsRespondent:Date and type of Hearing: Hearing on the papers on 11 February 2026.Before: Brian Kennedy KCDecision: The Tribunal dismisses the appeal.Promulgated: 11 February 2026.Introduction
Between
Maryam BiAppellantRegistrar of Approved Driving InstructorsRespondentDate and type of Hearing: Hearing on the papers on 11 February 2026.Respondent
[1]This is an appeal against DVSA’s refusal to issue a third trainee driving instructor licence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. I have reviewed the bundle, the Respondent’s decision, and the Appellant’s submissions. The refusal was lawful and rational; the appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s Arguments[2]The Appellant contends that cancellations—including one by DVSA—impeded progress; a third licence is needed for real-world practice to prepare for the final Part 3 attempt; refusal is unfair and disproportionate given her efforts and earning needs; and the scheme’s purpose should not penalise events beyond her control. · Facts and Context[3]The Appellant has held two six-month trainee licences, passed Part 2, failed Part 3 twice, cancelled two further tests (18 Nov 2025; 06 Jan 2026), with one DVSA cancellation (02 Mar 2026). She applied for a third licence before expiry, and her final Part 3 attempt is listed for 07 Apr 2026. Reasons and Law[4]The trainee licence is a temporary, transitional permission to gain experience toward registration; there is no entitlement to renewal. Given two failures, two self-cancellations, and only one DVSA cancellation, DVSA was entitled to conclude that sufficient progress had not been shown and that a further licence would frustrate the statutory purpose. Training can continue without paid instruction. With a final attempt already booked, the functional need for a trainee licence is spent. Decision[5]The Respondent acted within the statutory purpose and exercised discretion lawfully. The appeal is dismissed.

Authorities

[1]Road Traffic Act 1988, ss 123–131 (ADI Register).[2]Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (trainee licence purpose; six-month limit; attempts framework).[3]Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (reasonableness).[4]Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 (statutory purpose).[5]British Oxygen Co v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 (policy, no fettering).[6]Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 (duty of inquiry).[7]R v SSHD, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 (fairness; reasons).[8]R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (licensing discretion).[9]R (Khatun) v Newham LBC [2005] QB 37 (relevant/irrelevant considerations).[10]McCool v Rushcliffe BC [1998] 3 All ER 889 (breadth of licensing discretion). Judge Brian Kennedy KC 12 February 2026.