First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 513 (GRC)

 Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0900

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Transport

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Heard on: 9 May 2025

Decision given on: 9 May 2025

Before

 

JUDGE TAFT

 

Between

 

NAWAZISH ALI

Appellant

and

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Represented himself

For the Respondent: Did not appear

 

Decision: The appeal is Allowed

 

Substituted Decision Notice: The Appellant shall be granted a second trainee licence, in accordance with Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, from 9 May 2025 to 8 November 2025.

 

Mode of hearing:      The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing using Cloud Video Platform (CVP) The Appellant was able to attend. The Respondent has indicated that it does not intend to appear at hearings of this nature for the foreseeable future. The Tribunal considered Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended), noted that the Respondent was given notice of the hearing and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.

 

 

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 from 25 March 2024 to 24 September 2024. He was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Registrar') made on 14 October 2024. The Appellant now appeals that decision.

Legal Framework

2.      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').  The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years. 

 

3.      If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act:

'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.'

 

4.      This is commonly known as 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.

 

5.      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." 

 

6.      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."  

 

7.      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." 

 

8.      Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar's decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give 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 Decision

9.      On 24 September 2024, the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was considering refusing his application for a second trainee licence. The Appellant had sought a six-month extension, which would have expired on 24 March 2025.

 

10.  The Appellant made representations on 3 October 2024 that his trainer was out of the country when he received the first licence and that he suffered from an eye condition that impacted most of the training time left.

 

11.  On 14 October 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant that it refused his application for a second trainee licence. The notice of refusal 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.

The Appeal

12.   The Appellant's notice of appeal dated 25 October 2024 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:

a.      The Appellant's assigned trainer was out of the country from 25 March 2024 to 24 April 2024, which deprived the Appellant of practical training time.

b.      Between 18 June 2024 and 2 September 2024, the Appellant was incapacitated due to a serious eye infection, which prevented the Appellant from undertaking practical training.

 

13.  The Registrar's statement of case dated 27 March 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

a.      The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his ADI 21 AT training record form were not all completed within the first three months of the licence period, which was before the medical evidence submitted suggests that the Appellant developed the eye condition.

b.      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)).

c.       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 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 (para 6(ii)).

d.     Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled four tests booked for 30 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 26 February 2025 and 1 April 2025. 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)).

e.      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

14.  The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 36 pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the registrar and his record of training.

 

15.  The Appellant submitted a letter from Mirza Taufiq Baig, his instructor, who confirmed that he was out of the country so the Appellant was unable to begin his training until 24 April 2024. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that his instructor was busy with other students on his return and so unable to offer the Appellant as much time as he would have liked.

 

16.  The Appellant submitted confirmation of eye tests on 18 June, 27 June and 8 July 2024. He further submitted letters from his Consultant Ophthalmologist to his GP which confirm a diagnosis of right eye non-necrotising anterior scleritis. A letter dated 22 July 2024 regarding an appointment on 19 July 2024 describes the Appellant reporting that his "vision is unchanged". A letter dated 21 August 2024 regarding an appointment on 5 August 2024 describes the condition as "resolving". A letter dated 2 September 2024 confirms that symptoms had recurred after stopping steroids.

 

17.  Before the Tribunal, the Appellant explained that whilst the eye condition did not affect his vision, it did cause severe pain that affected his sleep. He explained that whilst the symptoms initially improved, they worsened again, after which steroids were reintroduced. He says that whilst he was able to do some training between June and September, he was not able to gain any additional practical experience over and above the 20 hours detailed on his ADI21AT form. After that, his symptoms worsened. He was able to do some training but not as much as he would like. He was then out of the country for most of December. During January and February, he was not able to do any training at all. This explains why the Appellant cancelled tests in December, January and February.

 

18.  Since then, he has improved and is now able to do some lessons. The Appellant has had difficulty booking tests and was offered one in April but cancelled it as it was in an unfamiliar area. The Appellant says he has a test booked in his own area for 28 June and would like to gain more practical experience to enable him to pass that test.

 

Tribunal's Findings of Fact

19.  The Appellant passed his Part 1 Test on 11 December 2023 and Part 2 test on 14 March 2024. The Appellant's first trainee licence was granted on 25 March 2024 for a period of six months.

20.  The Appellant's record of training begins on 24 April 2024 and ends on 11 September 2024. The record contains entries for 2 hours each on 24 April and 6 May but then nothing until early June. There are then 8 hours recorded in June. I accept the Appellant's explanation that he was not able to complete the required training within three months because of his trainer's lack of availability.

 

21.  The Appellant was then affected by his eye condition, which reduced his ability to train and obtain practical experience between June and November 2024. The Appellant was not able to train or obtain practical experience at all between December 2024 and February 2025.

 

Conclusions

22.  The Tribunal considered the Appellant's points of appeal.

 

23.  The six-month period of trainee licences is set on the basis that this is considered to be an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test. Trainee licence holders can apply for a suspension of their licence if circumstances prevent them using it to prepare for the Part 3 test. It is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test - only to receive payment for providing lessons.

 

24.  The Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of six months from 25 March 2024 to 24 September 2024. However, there were good reasons why he was not able to complete his training within three months - the availability of his trainer - or adequately prepare for his test - his eye condition.

 

25.  Whilst the Appellant could have applied for a suspension of his licence, I accept his explanation that he did not do so because he was able to complete some training during the period of his first licence.

 

26.  The Registrar's decision failed to take into account the evidence presented by the Appellant in the form of the letter from his trainer and medical records. The decision to refuse a second licence was wrong.

 

27.  By applying for a second trainee licence the Appellant has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of. Had the second trainee licence been granted, this would have expired before the consideration of this Appeal. However, I have accepted the Appellant's evidence that his medical condition continued to affect his ability to train and obtain practical experience during this time and that it was the reason for three of the four cancelled tests.

 

28.  The Tribunal therefore allows this appeal and substitutes a decision granting a second licence of six months from today, 9 May 2025, to allow the Appellant to obtain further practical experience before his second attempt at the Part 3 test.

 

 

 

Signed                                                                                  Date: 9 May 2025

                                                                 

Judge Taft