Saheed Hakeem v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 14.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 5 March 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, fourth, trainee driving instructor licence made on 9 January 2026. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant on 7 January 2026, namely, that he was unableto use his previous three trainee licences as he had hoped due to caring for, and supporting his mother who had critical health problems. The Respondent decided that the evidence provided by the Appellant to support his representations was the same evidence provided by him to support his successful application for a third trainee licence [an assertion disputed by the Appellant in his oral evidence] and that none of his previous three trainee licences had been returned, presuming, therefore, that he had used all three previous licences [an assertion also disputed by the Appellant who stated in oral evidence that he had returned his first and second trainee licences]; that the Appellant had already been granted three trainee licences (18 months in total – 15 July 2024) for the purpose of gaining sufficient expertise in driving tuition to pass a Part 3 test, a period that was it was submitted was more than adequate; 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; that refusal of a trainee licence application was not a bar to taking a Part 3 test and that his second trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal became effective (that, in practical terms, meant he had the benefit of a trainee licence for 26 months).

In his Response dated 2 July 2026, the Respondent noted, in addition, that the Appellant had failed his Part 3 test on one occasion, on 10 September 2025, but had cancelled a Partb3 test appointment on three occasions, 5 March 2025, 9 June 2025 and 11 May 2026; that he had his second attempt to pass his Part 3 test booked for 30 July 2026 [that, regrettably, he also failed] and that if he required further training, he could, as alternatives, attend a training course; study or practise under an ADI or provide unpaid tuition – all alternatives used by some trainees who achieved ADI status without ever having held a trainee licence.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on 16 Mach 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds:

In his oral evidence, the Appellant confirmed that he understood that his existing third trainee licence remained valid until the determination of this appeal became effective; that he was his mother’s full-time carer and, therefore, unable to gain enough training; that he did use his previous trainee licences when he could – when his mother’s health was stable or he could leave her in the care of another; that his caring responsibilities interfered, too, with his focus on training; that he had no franchise at present as his last franchise stopped giving him training or pupils in the circumstances; that he wanted a 4^th trainee licence in order to become an ADI; that he had now asked his sister who lived abroad, to return to care for his mother;, that would allow him to continue training; that he could show recent medical evidence in respect of his mother; that he had returned his 1^st and 2d trainee licences to the Respondent; that he had cancelled three Part 3 test appointments as he had to bring his mother to hospital; that he had not used any of the suggested alternatives to get more training as, he submitted, he needed a ‘real pupil’. However, most significantly, the Appellant in his oral evidence confirmed that the 2-year period since passing his Part 2 test had expired in June 2026. This meant that the Appellant could not lawfully apply for another Part 3 test and would have to commence the entire qualification process again, a position accepted by the Appellant.

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 three trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test. However, a much more crucial and significant reason as to why this appeal could not be allowed emerged at the hearing (as outlined above).

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.