First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 519 (GRC)

 Case Reference: FT/D/2024/0946

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Transport

 

Heard by Cloud Video Platform

Heard on: 9 May 2025

Decision given on: 12 May 2025

Before

 

JUDGE TAFT

 

Between

 

NAUMAN AHMED RAFIQUE

Appellant

and

 

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Did not appear

For the Respondent: Did not appear

 

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed

 

Mode of hearing:      The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing using Cloud Video Platform (CVP). Neither party attended. The Tribunal considered Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended), noted that both parties had been given notice of the hearing and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. The Appellant was contacted by telephone when he did not appear at the commencement of the hearing and advised that he did not wish to attend the hearing. The Respondent has indicated that it does not intend to appear at hearings of this nature for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

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"), initially for one six-month period from 18 September 2023. He was then granted a second trainee licence until 17 September 2024. He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Registrar') made on 22 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 third trainee licence. The Appellant made representations on 6 October 2024 that he had to cancel training and was unable to take his Part 3 test because his son had to attend hospital after suffering burns.

 

10.  On 22 October 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant that it refused his application for a third trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as:

a.      The evidence presented did not substantiate practice time lost during the second licence period.

b.      The Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences 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

11.   The Appellant's notice of appeal dated 4 November 2024 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:

a.      The Appellant's son suffered burns and was admitted to hospital. The Appellant was unable to prepare for his test because of time spent with his son at hospital appointments.

b.      The Appellant was unable to book a test.

c.       The Appellant had a test booked for November.

 

12.   The Registrar's statement of case dated 21 March 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

a.      Most of the hospital appointments took place before the issue of the Appellant's second licence, so he would have been aware of the circumstances at the point of applying.

b.      The Appellant had already had the benefit of two licences, totalling twelve months.

c.       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.

d.     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 had the benefit of a second licence, so had had a total of twelve months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third 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.

e.      Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled seven booked tests. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.

f.        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.

The evidence

13.  The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 33 pages, including the Appellants full trainee licence history from the registrar.

 

14.  The bundle also contains confirmation of hospital appointments for the Appellant's son on 6 February, 9 February, 13 February, 28 February, 11 March, 13 March, 22 March, 28 March, 3 April, 16 April, 14 May, 4 June, 25 June, 10 September, 13 September and 6 November 2024.

Tribunal's Findings of Fact

15.  The Appellant passed his Part 1 Test on 4 April 2023 and Part 2 test on 24 April 2023. The Appellant has had the benefit of two trainee licences totalling a period of twelve months from 18 September 2023 to 17 September 2024. That licence has continued to date by way of his appeal.

 

16.  During that time, the Appellant's son has had several hospital appointments as detailed in paragraph 14 above.

 

17.  The Appellant failed his Part 3 Test on 16 April 2024. He then cancelled tests scheduled for        28 August 2024, 5 November 2024, 26 November 2024, 7 January 2025, 28 January 2025, 24 March 2025 and 8 May 2025.

Conclusions

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

 

19.  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.

 

20.  The Tribunal has every sympathy with the Appellant's family circumstances, during what was no doubt a distressing time. However, the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months from 18 September 2023 to 17 September 2024. Additionally, by applying for a third 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 (i.e. a further period of over seven months). Had the third trainee licence been granted this would have expired before the consideration of this Appeal.

 

21.  The Appellant passed his Part 1 test on 4 April 2023 and so the two-year period within which he must have passed both the Part 2 and Part 3 tests expired on 3 April 2025.

 

22.  The Appellant has therefore had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period exceeding both:

a.      the 6-month period for which a third trainee licence would have been granted; and

b.      the fixed statutory maximum period within which he must pass the Part 3 test.

 

23.  Further, the Appellant did not take up the option of applying to suspend his licence if his additional caring responsibilities meant that he was not able to devote time to prepare for the Part 3 test.

 

24.  The Appellant has not discharged his burden of satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar's decision was wrong. Absent any further evidence from the Appellant, the Tribunal considers that he has had sufficient additional time to prepare for his Part 3 test as might be needed when taking account of the time taken at his son's hospital appointments as detailed in the bundle of evidence.

 

25.  The Tribunal therefore dismisses this appeal.

Signed                                                                                  Date: 9 May 2025

                                                                 

Judge Taft