Sonny Sabharwal v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 20^th March 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Footnote: ¹) (‘the Act’) for a six-month period, and then another, but was refused a further licence at the end of the relevant period.

The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had not passed the final part of the ADI qualifying examination within the relevant period and as insufficient evidence of loss of training time was supplied that the Appellant had had long enough to progress, and the application to issue a third trainee licence was therefore refused. Whilst details of flights were supplied the Registrar indicated the licence could have been returned during that period, so the application must still be refused.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 23^rd March 2025, indicates that the Registrar’s decision is wrong. In a supplemental form he indicates he has made a commitment to training and development and provided details of the same. He indicates that he lost one month of training having had to travel abroad to visit an ill relative. He had had health issues and difficulties in his personal life. He stated, “Despite all of this I have kept the highest professionalism in order to continue training/working towards my Part 3 exam…”

Character testimonials/references were provided indicating that the Appellant is well thought of by his pupils and driving school. His driving school indicate he has received over 50 5star reviews.

Diary entries and an hours worked bar chart show the Appellant has used his licence extensively.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the decision letter sets out their position. The Registrar points out that the Applicant had sufficient time to progress.

The Registrar indicates that the Appellant has been licenced to instruct as a trainee since 26^th February 2024. He has failed his Part 3 test twice. A final attempt is booked for the 24^th September 2025.

The Appeal was determined on the papers both sides having agreed to the same. The Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal Rules came to the view it was appropriate to determine the case on the papers. There was adequate information provided, the licence position was already lengthy and a further delay was simply inappropriate.

The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 34 pages.

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 s. 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (Footnote: ²).

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: 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 whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor and many people qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

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.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of approved Driving Instructors and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision (Footnote: ³) 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 Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

In fixing a period of 6 month to allow for trainee instructors to progress Parliament must have had in mind that we are all subject to differing life events that affect our ability to undertake certain tasks. Sometimes those events are so unusual or have such a bearing on an individual that it will be entirely appropriate to find that a longer than normal period of time should be allowed to complete a task, here the training to become an ADI.

The Appellant provided evidence of a months absence from the country, and of some health related issues. However, he indicates he hasn’t let that affect his professionalism. Further he has received a high number of positive reviews, his diary has been busy and he has trained considerably over the 3 month period provided. It looks as if he has taken full use of his licence. It may be that losing a month was relevant to one extension of the licence, but it is difficult to see where more is required.

The licence is provided to allow an individual to train to be an instructor. Here the Appellant has had that time. There is no basis for a further licence. Even if that were wrong, bearing in mind the Appellant has been licensed since February 2024 he has had the equivalent of 3 licences already.

The Appellant’s appeal must fail as a result. This decision takes effect immediately.

DATE: 28^th August 2025