[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Rahman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 269 (GRC) (04 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/269.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 269 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport

		Heard by: Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 27 February 2025
		Decision Given On: 4 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is refused.

REASONS

Introduction

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 7 August 2024 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.
2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act"). These licences ran for two consecutive six-month periods and were valid between 3 July 2023 and 2 July 2023. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 25 June 2024. This application was refused by the Registrar on 7 August 2024. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar's decision.

The hearing

3. The case was due to be heard at an oral CVP hearing listed for 14.00 on 27 February 2027. The Appellant did not attend that hearing at all between 14.00 to 14.15. A call from the Tribunal's clerk to the Appellant only reached the Appellant's voicemail. A message was left for him. The Registrar does not normally attend these hearings but has previously informed the Tribunal of his practice in this regard.
4. There was initially some potential confusion as to the correct listing time of the hearing. The Tribunal's Case Management Directions dated 10 December 2024 stated that the hearing would take place at 10am on 27 February 2025. On 3 December 2024, the parties had also been notified that the hearing would take place at 10am, although confusingly the attached CVP Hearing Joining Instructions stated that the hearing would take place at 14.00. However, if there was any confusion about the time of this hearing (which neither party raised), this was resolved by the Tribunal's email to the parties of 14 February 2025 which asked the parties to disregard the previous notice of hearing and confirmed the hearing would take place on 27 February at 14.00. The GRC team could not identify any records showing that the Appellant contacted the Tribunal in relation to the hearing time.
5. In addition, the Registrar emailed the Appellant on 25 February 2025, inviting him to withdraw his appeal. This was because the Registrar's records showed that he had failed his test of instructional ability for a third and final time, and accordingly his trainee licence had been automatically terminated in accordance with r.14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 on 25 February 2025. The GRC could not find any record of any response from the Appellant.
6. As a result of the Appellant's failure to attend the hearing, I have considered whether to proceed with the hearing in light of the overriding objective and the provisions of r.36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the "GRC Rules"). I should only proceed with the hearing if (i) I am satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing, (ii) I consider that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing and (iii) that decision accords with the overriding objective.
7. R.34(1) of the GRC Rules provides that the Tribunal must give each person entitled to attend a hearing reasonable notice of both the time and place of the hearing and any changes to the time and place of the hearing. R.34(2) states that the period of such notice (where the hearing considers disposal of the appeal) must be at least 14 days, except with consent or in urgent or exceptional circumstances.
8. The GRC's email of 14 February falls just short of providing the prescribed 14-day time period for a notice under r.34(1) of the GRC Rules. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to continue with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant for the following reasons:

a. First, I consider that in the circumstances of this case, the small change of time of the hearing from 10am to 14.00 which was notified on 14 February to allow this already long overdue appeal to be determined would be "urgent or exceptional circumstances" sufficient to justify a short abridgement of time under r.34(2) of the GRC Rules.

b. Second, alternatively, having regard to the overriding objective, I would also, if necessary, exercise my case management powers under r.5(3)(a) of the GRC Rules to shorten the notice period set out in r.34(2). Neither party, and in particular the Appellant, raised any objection to this change of time of hearing despite having had almost two weeks to do so. The notice of 14 February informed the parties that the hearing might proceed in their absence. In these circumstances, it would certainly not comply with the overriding objective to hold that the Appellant had not received adequate notice of the hearing of this appeal.

c. Third, in light of the conclusions reached above, I consider that the requirements of r.36(a) and (b) are satisfied. The evidence shows that the Appellant has been notified, alternatively that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the Appellant of the hearing. Moreover, it is plainly in the interests of justice to proceed with the appeal. The interests of justice require the parties to engage promptly with the Tribunal in respect of listing and attendance at hearings. It also requires consideration of the Tribunal's scarce resources, the interests of other Tribunal users, and the overriding objective. Having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of justice plainly merit proceeding with the hearing. This includes because of the lack of merit in the appeal which is now academic for the reasons set out in paragraph 19.e below.

The Appeal

9. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 21 August 2024 relies on the following grounds:

a. First, after his first attempt at passing his Part 3 test of instructional ability, the Appellant had to wait a long time to get a test.

b. Second, after waiting for five months for a further test, the Appellant was twice given dates on short notice which he could not accept as his wife was due to give birth.

c. Third, during his wife's pregnancy, the Appellant could not undertake enough training because he had to look after his other two children.

10. The Registrar has filed a Statement of Case dated 6 September 2024 in which he resists the appeal. The Registrar says that:

a. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of trainee 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 an alternative to the system of registration.

b. The purpose of a trainee licence is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the exams but to allow a confined period of experience of instruction. Six months is ordinarily a very reasonable period in which to reach the necessary standard and in particular to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences, and by virtue of his appeal in respect of his latest application, his second licence has remained in force, which allows him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal.

c. Since passing his driving ability test, the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and has cancelled five more such tests booked for 17 April, 26 June, 12 September, 17 September and 24 September 2024. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard of driving for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.

d. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test. 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 training.

The law

11. 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 section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
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 is made up of: 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 Part 3 test must be booked within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.
14. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.
15. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). 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 evidence

16. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 19 numbered pages. I have carefully considered the parties' submissions and all the evidence.
17. That evidence also includes a printout from the Appellant's records from the Registrar. This shows that the Appellant passed his theory Part 1 test on 24 August 2022 and passed his Part 2 test on 10 January 2023. He failed two Part 3 tests on 20 November 2023 and 19 August 2024. He also cancelled five Part 3 tests on 17 April, 26 June, 12 September, 17 September and 24 September 2024. The Registrar has confirmed that as of 6 September 2024, a third Part 3 test was due to take place on 18 November 2024.
18. By email dated 25 February 2025, the Registrar invited the Appellant to withdraw his appeal because their records showed that he had failed his test of instructional ability for the third time on 24 February 2025. Only three attempts at the Part 3 test are permitted. The Appellant has not responded to this email or disputed this.

Discussion and Conclusion

19. I have given careful consideration to all of the evidence and arguments made in this case. I would dismiss the appeal for the following reasons:

a. First, the Grounds of Appeal do not adequately explain why the Appellant was not able to gain sufficient training within the year for which he had a trainee licence. I reach this conclusion even allowing for his parental duties.

b. Second, there is no adequate explanation for why the Appellant cancelled five tests in a five-month period. The imminent birth of his third child would not explain so many test cancellations.

c. Third, the public policy reasons set out by the Registrar in his Response at paragraph 10 above are valid reasons for not granting a third licence in these circumstances.

d. Fourth, the two-year period for the Appellant to book his final Part 3 test following his passing of the Part 1 test on 24 August 2022 has long since passed.

e. Fifth, in any event the appeal is academic and has no prospect of success as the evidence shows that the Appellant has very recently failed his Part 3 test for a third and final time. His trainee licence ceased to have effect on 25 February 2025. The purpose of a trainee licence is to allow experience to be obtained to pass the Part 3 test but this is no longer possible in light of this third failure.

20. Accordingly, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar's decision was wrong. On the contrary, I consider the Registrar's decision of 7 August 2024 was correct. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

Signed: Judge Scherbel-Ball

Date: 27 February 2025