Nahim Ahmed v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the respondent) on 6 November 2024 to refuse his application for a second trainee licence. The appeal was listed for determination without a hearing, with the agreement of the parties.

The appellant had been granted one previous trainee licence. It was valid from 29 April 2024 to 28 October 2024. On 14 October 2024 the appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

On 15 October 2024 the respondent notified the appellant that consideration was being given to refusing his application. He was invited to make representations.

The appellant responded by letter dated 27 October 2024. He stated that he did not receive an adequate uptake of pupils to carry out his required training.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 6 November 2024:

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 9 November 2024. In his notice of appeal, the appellant does not explain why he considers that the respondent’s decision is wrong. He gave more detail of the limited uptake by pupils which limited his time to gain sufficient experience to pass the part 3 test. He also argued that there are backlogs in booking test dates, which made it difficult for him to obtain a test date.

The respondent in its response dated 14 July 2025 reiterated the above reasons for refusal. In addition, it noted that since passing his driving ability test the appellant has failed the part 3 test twice and cancelled one more such test booked for 11 December 2024.

The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).

The appellant’s right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal will make a fresh decision on the evidence before it and may make such order as it thinks fit.

It is for the appellant to show on balance of probabilities that the respondent’s decision was wrong.

The essence of the respondent’s decision is that the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence and has not provided sufficient evidence of loss of pupils or training time.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has taken into account all the evidence submitted to it in advance of the hearing and considered all the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has not persuaded it that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way and accordingly dismisses the appeal.