Javayria Saeed Baig v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 11.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 4 February 2026, to refuse her application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 15 December 2025. Her grounds of appeal essentially reiterated the representations made by her to the Respondent, in writing, on 10 January 2026, taken into account by the Respondent, namely difficulties experienced by her in obtaining a date for her final permitted attempt to pass her Part 3 test, that were outside her control; that she wanted a third trainee licence to continue instructing while completing her training and taking her final permitted attempt the Part 3 test (that she confirmed orally in the hearing of her appeal, was now to take place on 17 December 2026). She confirmed in the hearing that she had cancelled one Part 3 test booking, on the advice of her trainer, as he had experienced a family emergency; that if she could not continue to teach [by which she had to have meant teach for reward], she could not undertake extra tuition, for which she had to pay and gain sufficient experience to pass the Part 3 test. She also submitted in her appeal document that if her appeal was unsuccessful, she would be unable to refund, in full, at such short notice, pupils who had paid in advance, leading to financial difficulties and disruption for her and them.

The Respondent decided, in making the decision under appeal, there no evidence provided by the Appellant of lost practice time; that she had already received the benefit of two trainee licences, covering a 12 month period from 23 December 22 to 22 December2025, for the purpose of gaining sufficient expertise in driving tuition to pass a Part 3 test, a period that was claimed to be more than adequate (a period that was extended by virtue of the Appellant making her application for a third trainee licence before the expiry of her second trainee licence by a period of almost an additional 8 months); that it was not the intention of Parliament that trainee licences be issued for as long as it takes an applicant to pass their Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system could not be an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of a trainee licence application was not a bar to taking a Part 3 test.

In his Response dated 22 June 2026, the Respondent reiterated the sole purpose of a trainee licence, namely, to afford an Appellant the opportunity of gaining sufficient practical experience to pass a Part 3 test, and reiterated the various grounds advanced in refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence. In addition, the Respondent advised that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 13 June 2025 and 30 October 2025 and that if the Appellant wished to further prepare to undertake her final attempt at a Part 3 test, she could, as an alternative, undertake a training course, or study or practice with an ADI or provide unpaid tuition and that precedents existed for such alternative processes invoked by some aspiring candidates who had achieved ADI status without ever having held a trainee licence.

In his oral evidence, in addition to the contents of paragraph 2 above the Appellant stated that she wished to remain with one trainer but had tried other trainers and wanted a third trainee licence to continue providing lessons and to get extra training, for which she had to pay.

The Appellant confirmed that she had nothing further to add.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass he Part 3 test and that no evidence of lost practice time had been provided by the Appellant (and had, in fact, received the benefit of a trainee licence for an additional period to date of almost 8 months)

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.