Muhammad Sajid v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was originally listed for oral hearing by CVP on 7 January 2026 at 14.00. However, in an email dated 6 January 2026, the Appellant advised that he would not be attending and that his appeal could be decided on the basis of documents sent by him to support his application. No representative of the Respondent was in attendance either.

The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine this appeal on the papers only, without a hearing, in the absence of both parties nor a representative for either party. In doing so, the Tribunal was satisfied that this complied with the overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Tribunal) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’),and with Rule 36, in that the Tribunal was satisfied that both parties had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 15 July 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 17 May 2025. On the basis that the Appellant had not provided evidence of lost training time during the period of his second trainee licence, that is, the period from 27 November 2024 to 26 May 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant on 1 June 2025 that he was suffering from low back pain and had been advised to have complete rest. He twice submitted medical evidence and Fit Notes and correspondence from his employers to support those representations. However, he also confirmed that he worked part-time for Amazon, and had returned to work after May or June 2025, and cared for his children at the weekends. The Respondent considered that the Appellant’s medical evidence only covered the period of his first trainee licence, that is, the period from 27 May 2024 to 26 November 2024. However, the Tribunal found, however, as a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant’s medical condition lasted until sometime after June 2025.

The Respondent also made its decision, however, on other grounds, that were not disputed by the Appellant, namely, that the Appellant had been granted two trainee licences, covering a total period of 12 months, a period that it considered sufficient to allow the Appellant to gain sufficient experience in driving instruction to pass his Part 3 test to become a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), the sole purpose of granting a trainee licence; that it was not the intention of Parliament to issue a trainee licence to an applicant for however long it might take them to pass their Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system could not be allowed to become an alternative to obtaining registration. The Respondent also submitted, correctly, that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and refusal of a trainee licence application was not a bar to an applicant undertaking a Part 3 test. Finally, the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until this appeal is determined, thereby affording the Appellant even more time to gain practical experience in driving instruction of, approximately, a further seven months.

The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 25 July 2025 to state he had booked a Part 3 test for 16 September 2025 (a booking that, however, he cancelled, and did not explain why). He maintained he had provided clear evidence of lost training time due to his medical condition (but this evidence did not extend beyond May 2025) and stated that he wanted a third trainee licence to allow more practice time to pass his Part 3 test. However, holding a trainee licence, particularly where the Appellant had already been issued with two trainee licences, was not required to undertake a Part 3 test.

On 10 November 2025, the Appellant, having been notified of today’s hearing on 8 September 2025, sought a postponement of his appeal fixed for today until March or April 2026 due to his medical condition.

However, in Case Management Directions dated 16 December 2025, issued by a judge, the Appellant’s application for a postponement of the hearing of his appeal was refused due to a lack of persuasive supporting evidence in various respects that would have prevented the Appellant attending the hearing of his appeal today, subject to that being reviewed if the Appellant were to make a further application supported by further evidence that he could not attend today, having regard to the fact that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained in effect until this appeal was determined. No such further application was made by the Appellant.

The Respondent, in their Response dated 30 December 2025, reiterated the above-mentioned reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, the Respondent submitted:

This appeal concerned 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 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 his Part 3 test (quite apart from him benefiting, in fact, from a total of almost 19 months of holding a valid trainee licence.

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.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.