Ali Akif v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 585 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00585 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0603

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Hearing Heard on the papers

Date 16 April 2026

Transport

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE ARNELL

TRIBUNAL JUDGE KIAI

Between

ALI AKIFAppellant

REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondent

DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondent

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar’s decision 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 A six-month period from 16 September 2025 to 15 March 2025. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 14 May 2025. The Appellant now appeals that decision.

[2]The case was listed for a paper hearing. Neither party attended the hearing. Having considered the evidence before us, we were satisfied that the Tribunal could properly determine the issues in the absence of the parties, within rule 32(1) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

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

Legal Framework

[4]The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and 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.

[5]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.’

[6]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’).

[7]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.

[8]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.

[9]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."

[10]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."

[11]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."

[12]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.

[13]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

[14]In the Appellant’s representations to the Registrar (dated 23 March 2025), the Appellant explains: “Unfortunately my trainer Adam has passed away and I couldn’t’ get enough training and time to practice for my part 3, I would like to request to grant me an other [sic] trainee licence so I practice and gain more experience to pass my part 3, it would be much appreciated’.

[15]The Registrar’s decision letter, dated 14 May 2025 states that he has considered the representations, but has refused the application because the Appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence and the Appellant had already been granted one trainee licence of 6 months duration which was considered to be more than adequate

[16]The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 26th January 2025 relies on the following grounds of appeal: ‘I have been unable to complete sufficient training due to ongoing health issues… I also faced personal difficulty following my first attempt at the Part 3 test, where I scored 30 marks and narrowly missed passing by just one mark. Soon after the test, I was deeply saddened to learn that my trainer, Adam, had passed away. This unexpected loss placed further emotional stress on me and affected my focus on training. Despite these setbacks, I have resumed training with a new instructor and remain committed to becoming a fully qualified ADI. My Part 3 test, originally booked for 13th May 2025, has been rescheduled by DVSA to 7th August 2025. Lastly, in light of my upcoming surgery on 3rd June 2025 and the anticipated timing of my second surgery, I kindly request that, if possible, the start date of the new PDI licence be set from 1st July 2025’’.

[17]The Registrar’s statement of case dated 16th October 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: i. the Appellant’s application failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form (D5) were not completed within the first three months of the licence period. He also failed to notify DVSA of a change of sponsor. ii. 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; ii. 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. The Appellant has already had a trainee licence which covered a period of 6 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, 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; iii. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability twice and cancelled one more test booked for 7 March 2025. Regrettably, DVSAL cancelled one test booked for 13 May 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; and iv. the refusal of a third 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.

[18]In Case Management Directions dated 9 December 2025, Judge Scherbel-Ball directed ‘1. The determination of this appeal on the papers be adjourned. 2. By 5pm on 22 December 2025, the parties shall send to the Tribunal and each other a document which addresses (insofar as each party is able to do so) the following matters:a. Whether the parties agree that the Respondent was correct to state at paragraph 6(ii) of his Response in this appeal that “by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, 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”.

b. If either party maintains that the statement in paragraph 2.a above is correct, they are to state (and provide supporting documentary evidence) the date on which the Appellant’s first trainee licence expired and the date that the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

c. If either party contends that the statement in paragraph 2.a above is incorrect, then

(i) the Registrar should explain how this incorrect statement came to be made,

(ii) both parties should make submissions on the implications (if any) it has for the Appellant’s lawful ability since March 2025 to have given paid instruction (including in the case of the Respondent, by reference to the relevant statutory framework, and

(iii) both parties should inform the Tribunal whether the Registrar has informed the Appellant on any other occasion that his first licence had been extended and he was therefore able to lawfully provide paid instruction.

d. An update on the Appellant’s current health condition

e. An update on the Appellant’s third and final attempt to pass the test of instructional ability, often referred to as the “Part 3 test”. In particular, this should address (i) whether any test has been booked, (ii) if so, when it was booked, (iii) any current booking date for any such test to be taken. If no test has been booked, the Appellant should explain why it has not been booked’.

[19]The Appellant failed to respond to the Tribunal’s directions.

[20]The Registrar responded in the following terms:

‘In response to paragraph 2.a After reviewing paragraph 6(ii) of the response, the Registrar has found it to be incorrect. As the appellant applied for their second licence on 20 March 2025, which was after the expiry date of their first licence – 15 March 2025. Therefore, the appellant does not have continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward until determination of the appeal. Summary of key dates • 05 September 2024 - Application for 1st trainee licence received • 16 September 2024 - 1st trainee licence valid from • 15 March 2025 - 1st trainee licence expired • 16 March 2025 – Notification that trainee licence was revoked sent to driving school • 17 March 2025 – Application declaration was signed and dated • 20 March 2025 – Completed application for 2nd trainee licence received • 20 March 2025 – Representations request sent • 14 May 2025 – 2nd trainee licence refusal decision sent (no longer had continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward) • 13 October 2025 - Finalised bundle sent (had continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward) In response to paragraph 2.b After reviewing paragraph 6(ii) of the response, the Registrar has found it to be incorrect. In response to paragraph 2.c 2.c.i - This was due to an administrative error. 2.c.ii – Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act") prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor's name is in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act. According to relevant statutory framework (Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988) the Appellant no longer had continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward from 15 March 2025 as they no longer held a trainee licence. In the Representation request letter sent on 20 March 2025 and the decision letter sent 14 May 2025; the Appellant was informed that they could no longer have continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward. On the 13 October 2025 the bundle was sent, which informed the Appellant that they had continuing rights to instruct for payment or reward. To date, we have not received any correspondence from the Appellant to confirm they are entitled to instruct despite having previously been told on 16 March 2025 and 14 May 2025 that he was unable to instruct for payment. 2.c.iii – Having checked our records the only occasion the Registrar had informed the Appellant that he had continuing rights from his first trainee licence (which expired on 15 March 2025) to instruct for payment and reward, was in the bundle dated 13 October 2025. In response to paragraph 2.e 2.e. A check of our systems on 19 December 2025 showed that no Part 3 test has been booked nor is the appellant awaiting an available date’

The evidence

[21]We considered a bundle of evidence containing 57 electronic pages, along with Judge Scherbel-Ball’s directions and the Registrar’s response.

Conclusions

[22]We have considered all of the evidence before us.

[23]The Registrar contends, in the statement of case dated 10 October 2025, that the Appellant’s application failed to comply with the conditions attached to his first licence. Specifically, the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form (D5) were not completed within the first three months of the licence period, and he failed to notify the DVSA of a change of sponsor.

[24]The Appellant has not challenged these assertions at any stage. We have in particular, not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the Appellant notified the DVSA of a change of sponsor.

[25]We note that paragraph 15(5) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 provides:

“(5) Every licence is subject to the condition that, in the event of the licence holder arranging to have the supervision or supplementary training referred to above, or any part thereof, undertaken by a different approved driving instructor from the person named in his application, he must submit to the Registrar full details of any consequential changes to the particulars submitted under regulation 13(2)(g) above resulting from the new arrangement together with the consent (in any form permitted under regulation 13(2)(g)) of the new approved driving instructor to that arrangement.”

[26]The Appellant has neither asserted nor provided evidence to show that he complied with this requirement. He therefore failed to comply with a clear condition of his licence, although we acknowledge the difficult circumstances in which this occurred. His appeal is dismissed for this reason.

[27]For completeness we address the further points raised by the Appellant. We have considered the medical evidence relating to the cyst and skin tags. However, we do not accept that these conditions, on the evidence provided, amount to exceptional circumstances. The medical conditions are not serious, and no medical evidence has been supplied to indicate that they were sufficiently serious to impede the Appellant’s ability to work. We similarly acknowledge the unfortunate circumstances arising from the death of the Appellant’s trainer, but again no supporting evidence has been produced to show that this negatively impacted his ability to work.

[28]There is no entitlement to repeated renewal of trainee licences until an individual passes the Part 3 test. The six-month duration of such licences reflects the expectation that this is a sufficient period in which to prepare for the Part 3 test. Furthermore, it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence either to prepare for or to sit the Part 3 test.

[29]We note that the Appellant has already held the benefit of a trainee licence for a six-month period. We have also considered the length of time he has been awaiting this appeal. Although it was initially asserted that the licence had remained in force, allowing him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of this appeal, it is now accepted that this was incorrect. The Appellant therefore has not had the benefit of that extra time. However, he was not “deprived” of that opportunity; he did not apply for an extension prior to the expiry of the licence, and therefore it was not extended. No explanation has been provided as to why he failed to apply in time, despite having ample opportunity to do so. We are not aware of any exceptional circumstances.

[30]We note that the Appellant was due to take the Part 3 test on 7 March 2025, but he cancelled that test. No reason for the cancellation has been provided. The Registrar cancelled the test on 13 May 2025. Based on the limited evidence before us, it is not apparent that he was deprived of the opportunity to take that test, when he cancelled the first test himself. The position has since evolved. The Appellant took the ADI Part 3 test for a second time on 7 August 2025 and was unsuccessful. No further tests have been booked. This again supports our conclusion that he has had the opportunity to take the test – a trainee licence is not required to prepare for or to sit the Part 3 test.

[31]In passing, we note that the Appellant passed the Part 1 test on 10 May 2024. He must pass Part 3 within two years of that date, leaving him only three months in which to do so - he has no test currently booked.

[32]We are not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. In all the circumstances, I uphold the Registrar’s decision and dismiss the appeal. Signed: Judge Kiai Date: 6 February 2026