Mamoona Begum v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors on 11 April 2025 to refuse her application for a trainee licence.

Between March 2017 and November 2021, the appellant was issued with five trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act).

A trainee licence was granted to the appellant valid from 9 September 2024 to 8 March 2025. On 6 March 2025 the appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

On 20 March 2025 the respondent notified the appellant that consideration was being given to refusing her application because it was considered she had had sufficient time to gain experience to pass the final part of the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) qualifying examination. She was invited to make representations.

The appellant made representations on 27 March 2025 stating that she had been unable to book a Part 3 examination due to extended waiting times; and because her trainer had assessed her readiness for the exam and found her performance to be below the required standard, which she wished to address before attempting the exam. The appellant also advised that she was caring for her mother, who had significant health issues. The appellant stated that she remained committed to progressing in her training.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 11 April 2025:

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 22 April 2025. Her grounds of appeal are the same as the representations made to the respondent dated 27 March 2025.

The appellant elected to have her appeal determined on the papers without a hearing. There was no objection from the respondent, and I considered that it was possible to properly determine the issues without a hearing on the basis of the evidence contained in the appeal bundle.

The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).

Pursuant to regulation 3, the qualifying examination consists of three parts: a written examination (part 1); a driving ability and fitness test (part 2); and an instructional ability and fitness test (part 3).

A candidate is permitted three attempts at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing part 1, failing which the candidate must retake the whole examination. Once a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence.

The purpose of the trainee licence is to enable a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct, which is part of the qualifying examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

The appellant has a right of appeal against the respondent’s decision pursuant to section 131 of the Act. On appeal the tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

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

The respondent asserts in the decision of 11 April 2025 that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of her first licence but fails to provide details of the alleged failure. In the respondent’s statement, it is said that the training objectives on her ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the licence period.

Given that this is not set out in the decision notice, the appellant does not deal with this in her grounds of appeal. She does however address the issue in an email dated 8 July 2025. She states that she intended to apply for a trainee licence for trainee driving instructors who are being supervised by their trainer, but that during the application process, the wrong option was selected, meaning that she had in fact applied for a trainee licence for someone who had received 20 hours of additional training. She states that as a result, at the end of her first trainee licence she submitted a 20-hour training declaration instead of the supervision declaration which would have matched her intended licence type. There is no evidence of when this declaration was completed or if it was sent to the respondent and when. The appellant goes on to state that once she realised the error, she submitted a completed ADI 21AT form.

There are two completed forms contained in the bundle. The first is a Licensed Trainee Supervision Record. It is not dated, and the training record which has been completed contains dates of instruction received, but the dates consist of the day and month only. It is not clear that this is a training record which relates to the period of the licence. If it is, then it is the wrong training record, as the appellant was required to complete an ADI 21AT form.

The second form is a completed ADI 21AT form, which is dated 22 November 2024. The start date of the appellant’s trainee licence was 9 September 2024. If the ADI 21AT form was submitted when it is dated, it would have required with the requirement to submit the declaration within the first three months of the licence.

There is no evidence that the ADI 21AT form was submitted to the respondent within the first three months of the appellant’s licence and the appellant has not discharged the burden of showing that she complied with the conditions of her licence.

Even if I am wrong on that, it would not be material. The respondent states that the appellant had the benefit of five trainee licences between 2017 and 2021. It does not appear that she was able to pass the Part 3 test despite having two and a half years, i.e. five times the length of a single licence, with a trainee licence.

The appellant has had the benefit of one trainee licence since passing her Part 2 exam on 1 August 2024. She has explained that her trainer assessed that she did not meet the required standard and she wishes to address that before attempting the examination. She does not provide any details of why her trainer assessed her as not meeting the relevant standard and does not give any indication of whether it is realistic that if granted a further trainee licence, she would be likely to meet the required standard.

I have taken into account what the appellant says about being responsible for caring for her mother. The appellant has failed to explain how those responsibilities impact her, save to say that it hasn’t allowed her to ‘utilise my training to its full potential’.

Holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualifying as an ADI and nor is it a prerequisite to sitting part 3 of the examination. Aside from giving professional instruction under a trainee licence, there are other ways in which the appellant could gain the skills needed to pass part 3. For example, she could attend a training course; study and practice with an ADI; or give tuition on her own provided that she does not receive payment for such tuition. These are alternatives which mean that some trainees obtain pass the qualifying examination and obtain registration without ever having held a trainee licence. There is nothing to suggest that the appellant has explored any of these options.

The appellant had the benefit of one trainee licence for a period of six months. In addition, because her application for a second licence was made before the expiry of the first, she has had the benefit of an additional period of nearly eight months while her appeal has been pending. This is in excess of the six months she sought. Despite this, there is no evidence that the appellant has utilised that time or is ready to sit the Part 3 examination, as her test record shows that no test date has been booked.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that a further licence is necessary to enable her to prepare for the part 3 test.

For all of these reasons, I find that the respondent’s decision to refuse to grant a second trainee licence was correct and I dismiss the appeal.