Mohammed Abheder v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 33 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00033 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0685

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Date 9 January 2026

Transport

Hearing by CVP

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE KIAI

Between

mOHAMMED ABHEDERAppellant

REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondent

DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondent

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar’s decision of 13 June 2025 is upheld.

REASONS

Introduction

[1]The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for one six-month period spanning 18 November 2024 to 17 May 2025. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 13 June 2025. The Appellant now appeals that decision.

[2]What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and law. It does not seek to provide every step of my reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

Legal Framework

[3]The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act.

[4]The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee 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.’

[5]In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

[6]The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

[7]If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

[8]By section 129(3) of the Act:

"The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued."

[9]By section 129(8)(c) of the Act:

"before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period."

[10]By section 129(6) of the Act:- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of."

[11]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.

[12]When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision 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.

The Appeal

[13]The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 27 June 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: ‘I feel my appeal was not considered appropriately, as reason for refusing did not consider that I had tried to amend date on my first licence and did not considered [sic] my circumstance. I appealed as I applied for training licence of which i did not use the first 3 months of my licence due to my mother having a full knee replacement surgery and as her sole carrer [sic] I had to start my first licence late by 3 months. The surgery appointment was given as [sic] short notice and was done after posting my licence. I had tired [sic] to change the date on the licence. I was told it had already been processed and I should get it on the date I mentioned on the form. i had told them of my circumstance and they told me that I could get an extension which gave time. My mother had her surgery in early December and was bed bound for 3 months with issues and this led me to delaying my purchase of my car and enrolling late with the driving school. Therefore I could not benefit from my first licence and due to my situation i request humbly to get it extened [sic] for 3 months or 6 months if they can’t offer the 3 months. i refute the claim made by ‘Steven’ that am using this to circumvent from passing my part 3 test. “it was not parliaments intention that candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination”. It is purely due to my mother heathy that I have missed half my first licence time limit’.

[14]The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated his desired outcome of the appeal is to be granted ‘at least 3 months Extension or 6 Months if they cant give 3 months [sic]’.

[15]The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 13 June 2024 states the reasons for the refusal as:a. The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the first licence.

b. The Appellant had already been granted one trainee licence of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time.

c. It was not Parliament’s intention that the candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

[16]The Registrar’s statement of case dated 01 December 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:a. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration (para 6(i)).

b. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal (para 6(ii)).

c. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled one more such test booked for 13 March 2025 (Annex A). Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (para 6(iii)).

d. The refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all (para 6(iv)).

The evidence

[17]I considered a bundle of evidence containing 37 electronic pages, including the Appellant’s full trainee licence history from the registrar.

[18]The Appellant also attended the hearing and gave evidence. He explained that not long after he applied for the licence, his mother received an urgent hospital appointment. He is her sole carer. He asked to delay the licence but was told this would not be possible, he was told that he would be able to apply for an extension at the end. He was very disappointed that the application had been refused, in light of the reassurance that he had been given. He did not work for the first three months of the licence as he was caring for his mother.

[19]In response to questions from myself he explained that he did know that he was permitted to work whilst he waited for his hearing, however he had not done very much work as he did not think it was fair on the students. He was worried that his case would be listed and dismissed by the Tribunal and he would no longer be permitted to teach his students. Not having the extension meant that he did not have peace of mind.

Conclusions

[20]I have considered the Appellant’s points of appeal. I accept the Appellant’s personal circumstances. I accept that his caring responsibilities for his mother will have impacted his ability and availability to train during the period of his trainee licence.

[21]Nevertheless, despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six-month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test, and it is not necessary to hold a Trainee Licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test.

[22]I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of six months from 18 November 2024 to 17 May 2025. Additionally, by applying for a second trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the second trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of (i.e. a period of almost 8 months).

[23]I further note that had the second trainee licence been granted, this would have expired in the middle of November 2024, ie before the consideration of this Appeal. I note the Appellant’s explanation that he took on a minimal number of students during this period, because he didn’t think it would be fair if he suddenly had to stop teaching (meaning that his students would have to find a new instructor). However, this does not change the fact that he did have that time and could have utilised it. It was his decision not to take on further students.

[24]I do not believe that I have the power to extend the licence beyond the 6 months that the Appellant would have been granted if his appeal had been allowed from the outset (ie up until 16 November 2025). If I am wrong about this, I find it would be proportionate not to extend the licence any further because the Appellant has had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period of almost 8 months. Notably exceeding both his stated desired appeal outcome of an extension of 3 or 6 months. The fact that he chose not to work very much during this period, was his decision to make.

[25]In all the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Signed Tribunal Judge Kiai Date: 8/1/2026