Mohammed Nahid Ahmed Ifthi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 28 August 2026 at 15.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 11 February 2026 to refuse his application for a 3^rd trainee driving instructor licence made on 7 December 2025, pursuant to s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not provided evidence of evidence of lost training time; that he had already been granted 2 trainee licences (12 months in total) [6 January 2025 to 5 January 2026] granted to enable him to gain sufficient expertise to pass his Part 3 test - considered to be more than an adequate period of time – the sole purpose of a trainee licence [plus almost 8 further months permitted until determination of this appeal]; that it was not intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took an applicant to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a 3^rd trainee licence did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test.

The Appellant had failed two attempts at passing his Part 3 test [9 July 2025 and 22 January 2026], resulting in the fact that if the Appellant exhausted the maximum permitted three attempts at passing his Part3 test – his final attempt being booked for 15 October 2026 - which, if it proceeded, any appeal was bound to fail since a trainee licence can only be issued to enable him to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test - while the Respondent had cancelled a Part 3 test booking for 2 June 2025.

The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal dated 24 February 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, (incorporating his representations to the Respondent in advance of the Respondent making the decision under appeal):

In his oral evidence, the Appellant stated that during the period of his 1^st trainee licence he had been employed in another employment as well as training to be a driving instructor; that during the period of his 2nd trainee licence, in early September 2025, his daughter was born, so that he was unable to train as a driving instructor from then to mid-December 2025 as he was helping his wife and daughter (his franchise generously waiving fees) in this period; that he wanted a 3rd trainee licence to continue training with his current trainer and that he wanted to be able to charge for tuition to support his family; help manage his finances (including training fees; fuel and vehicle insurance); that he accepted that it was fair to say, in those circumstances, that he saw having a trainee licence as a source of income, but was aware of the sole purpose of a trainee licence.

The Respondent, in his written Response, dated 23 June 2026, reiterated the reasons contained in the decision under appeal. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant had also provided no evidence of a lack of pupils and that the Appellant would have been aware that he was to become a father before he applied for his 2nd trainee licence and that he could have obtained further training, if necessary, to prepare for his third and final attempt at a Part 3 test, by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test without ever having held a trainee licence.

This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 3^rd 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. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is 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. In particular, I have decided, on the balance of probabilities, on a very fine balance, on the Appellant’s oral evidence, that lost training time was, in fact a live issue in this case for a substantial part of the period of the Appellant’s 2^nd trainee licence. It was somewhat unfortunate that the Appellant did not make more detailed representations to the Respondent, along the lines of his written and oral evidence to the Tribunal. In particular, on balance, it was unfair to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 3^rd trainee licence on the grounds that ‘he would have been aware that he was be become a father before applying for his 2nd trainee licence’. Against that, the Appellant’s application might well have been refused on the basis that the Appellant seemed to want a 3^rd trainee licence to provide a source of income, despite acknowledging in his oral evidence the sole purpose of a trainee licence. However, the Tribunal was impressed by the honesty, credibility and forthright approach of the Appellant to his appeal and the somewhat exceptional circumstances that existed arising out of the birth of his first child.

I was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant discharged the burden of proof, on the written and oral evidence adduced by him, that he had lost training time to an extent that he did not have the opportunity to gain sufficient practical experience in teaching driving instruction to members of the public during the period of his first two trainee licence, the 2nd trainee licence period in particular, nor subsequently.

Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.

The decision of the Respondent, made on 20 November 2025 is set aside. The Appellant is granted a third licence with effect from when the promulgation of this Decision becomes effective.

The Appellant is specifically advised that his appeal is not allowed on the basis that he needs a 3^rd trainee licence to order to be able to charge pupils for driving instruction.