Talt Abbas v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was initially listed for oral hearing, by CVP, at 16.00. The Appellant had applied on 19 August 2026 that the hearing be postponed due to a recent close family bereavement and him being unable to attend the funeral in anther county due to the political situation there. He attached a sick note to state he was not fit for work, not due to a medical condition, but due to bereavement. I refused that application on 20 August 2026, for the reasons set out in Case Management Directions of that date. On 28 August 2026, the date of hearing, the Appellant confirmed, in writing, that he was content that this appeal be determined on the papers alone, without a hearing. There was no objection from the Respondent, who did not appear in any event, to proceeding in this manner. The Tribunal, having regard to the statutory Overriding Objective, decided it could determine this appeal in this manner and that it was in the interests of justice to do so.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 9 April 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 6 January 2026, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by letter received on 8 February 2026, on the grounds that the Appellant had only provided a sick not to cover two weeks of his 1st and 2nd trainee licence periods; that the Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences for the period 13 January 2025to 12 January 2026, that was considered to be a more than an 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 more than 19 months.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 20 April 2026, the Appellant reiterated his representations to the Respondent, namely, that there he had health issues requiring medical attention and treatment and lifestyle changes that significantly impacted on his ability to teach driving instruction consistently and make his expected progress during the periods of his two trainee licences; that his heath was his priority and it slowed his progress in gaining sufficient experience to fully prepare to take his Part 3 test, this not being due to a lack of commitment on his part but, instead, his suffering from unavoidable medical conditions beyond his control; that he could provide medical evidence in support of these assertions [but, in fact, he only adduced one sick note covering just two weeks of his original 12 month trainee licence period – quite apart from the more than 7 additional months when his existing 2^nd trainee licence remained valid]; that his health was now more stable and he was in a better position to fully focus on his professional development, instructional experience and preparation to take his Part 3 test, remaining fully committed to meeting the standards [that would be] expected of an ADI. While the Appellant did adduce further medical evidence with his Notice of Appeal, this related to issues concerning medication alone: it did not support him being unable to use his trainee licences for the sole purpose for which a trainee licence is issued.

The Respondent, in his Response dated 16 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, alternatives undertaken by some trainee driving instructors who achieved ADI status without ever having held any trainee licence; that the Appellant had failed Part 3 test twice on 27 October 2025 and 2 March 2026, and had cancelled bookings on five occasions for Part 3 tests on 1 November 2024, 16 December 2024, 19 June 2025, 25 February2026 and 26 June 2026, respectively. The Respondent advised that the Appellant’s final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test was booked for 24 September 2026 which, if it proceeds on that date, if he should fail again, means that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that the Appellant can gain the practical experience required to pass his Part 3 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 a distinct lack of supporting evidence from the Appellant to convince me that, for more than 19 months of holding a valid trainee licence, he was too ill, throughout that lengthy period, to gain sufficient experience to enable him to pass his Part 3 test.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.