Farrah Shahed v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the respondent) on 31 January 2025 to refuse her application for a third trainee licence.

Both the Appellant and the Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

The Registrar has notified this Tribunal that he will not be represented at most trainee license appeal hearings for the foreseeable future.

Two attempts were made by the court clerk to call the Appellant. She did not answer the phone.

Rule 36 allows the Tribunal to continue in the absence of a party if it is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing, or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party, and it is in the interests of justice to do so.

I took account of the overriding objective and was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. Both parties were aware of the hearing date and time. To postpone the hearing, of which I am satisfied the Appellant was aware, would extend the period of her trainee license by default until further hearing. It would not be in the interests of justice to allow an extension to the Appellant’s trainee licence (well beyond what was requested in the appeal and even further beyond what was requested in the original application to the Registrar) in this way.

I therefore proceeded to consider the position on the papers before me.

The Appellant had been granted two trainee licences. Subsequently the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.

On 10 January 2025 the respondent notified the Appellant that consideration was being given to refusing her application. She was invited to make representations. The Appellant responded by a letter dated 17 January 2025. Copies of this correspondence have not been provided to the Tribunal

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 31 January 2025:

The Appellant provided no evidence to support loss of training time.

The Appellant appeared to be using the licence as a source of income.

The Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences for a period of 12 months, which is considered more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test.

The Appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 10 February 2025. In her grounds of appeal, the Appellant stated that she considered that the grounds for refusal were unfounded and procedurally unfair “given that DVSA was fully aware of my need to change sponsors and the substantial mitigating factors affecting my ability to complete the required training within the initial licence period”. She said that the mitigating circumstances were that she was initially sponsored by AA but they failed to provide her with sufficient training and pupils, forcing her to change sponsor in November 2024 which caused an administrative delay beyond her control which affected her ability to meet the training requirements. She asserted that the respondent failed to take this into account when considering her licence renewal.

The appellant also cited a lack of test availability saying that she had paid to book a test on hold in September 2023 and did not get a test until July 2024, of which she was only given 3 weeks notice. She also said she was not given the opportunity to change a test date in November 2024, despite having made the respondent aware she was changing sponsorship and only having 4 weeks to prepare “not having able to train or pupils”. She argued that there were systemic issues with test backlogs and the respondent was aware of this but failed to apply discretion appropriately in her case.

The Appellant stated that “the refusal of my trainee license directly prevents me from working, causing financial hardship and mental distress. I have invested significant time and money into training, and denying my licence on administrative grounds undermines fair employment rights”.

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 been provided, under her previous two licences, with more than adequate time to sit the required tests to become an ADI. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences, and because the application for her third licence was made before the expiry of his second licence, she has had the benefit of a continuing licence while his appeal has been pending, which has been valid for a significant period of time. The Appellant can continue to provide instruction, so long as it is without payment, if she considers that she needs further experience before sitting the test. She can also sit the part 3 test without a trainee licence.

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.

It appears to the Tribunal that the Appellant has been using her trainee licences as her main or only source of income, as she states that refusal of a third licence prevents her from working. The Appellant has continued to have a licence while the appeal was pending so this argument does not persuade the Tribunal. It was also not persuaded that this amounted to interference with fair employment rights, because the Appellant is self-employed in this context, rather than an employee.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of trainee licences covering a period of over 12 months. This should have been adequate time to prepare. Further I note that the Appellant has had the benefit of a further period of over 6 months up to today.

The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act.

The Appellant can continue to study and practice and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence.

The trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.