Hussein Amine v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing, by CVP, on 28 August 2026 at 11.00am. The Appellant attended in person and gave oral evidence.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 10 April 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by letter received on 9 March 2026, on the grounds that there was no evidence of the Appellant having lost training time; that the Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences for the period 24 February 2025 to 23 February 2026, that was considered to be a more than adequate period of time for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience in driving tuition to pass a Part 3 test and so become entitled to have his name entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’); that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took a trainee to pass his Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative registration as a fully-qualified ADI. The Respondent also maintained, correctly, that in making his decision, refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts); that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal became effective providing him, therefore, in effect, with a total trainee licence period of almost 19 months.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 6 April 2026, the Appellant, in addition, stated that he wated third trainee licence to allow him more time to practice and strengthen his knowledge in order to pass his Part 3 test. However, the grounds advanced by the Appellant did not, in fact, address the central reason advanced by the Respondent for the decision under appeal.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant accepted that his 2nd trainee licence remained valid until the determination of his appeal became effective – a total trainee licence period of almost 19 months; but his problem was that, unless he held a further trainee licence, his franchise would not provide him with a vehicle in which to take his final permitted attempt at his Part 3 test to take place on 30 September 2026 and that he needed to charge pupils for lessons in order to pay his franchise fees. He advised, however, that he had started a new employment recently and would look to the alternatives to train to pass his Part 3 test mentioned by the Respondent in his Response document. He asked that a decision be made on his appeal as soon as possible in order that he might plan his future.

The Respondent, in his Response dated 20 July 2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, he submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training by undertaking a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or proving unpaid tuition; that the Appellant had failed his Part 3 test twice on 25 June2025 and 7 May 2026 and had cancelled a Part 3 test on three occasions, 15 December 2025, 24 February 2026 and 13 August 2026 (a fact that undermined somewhat his case that there was a lack of availability of Part 3 test dates) and that his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test was booked to take place on 30 September 2026 that, if it proceeded, then any appeal was bound to fail as a trainee licence could only be issued so that the Appellant could gain the practical experience required to take the test.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 basis of the Respondent’s decision were the reasons set out in his decision notice, reiterated in his Response document.

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 that I 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.