Aiad Bahadeen Khorshid v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the respondent) on 3 November 2025 to refuse his application for a second trainee licence.

The appellant was granted a trainee licence on 28 April 2025, which was valid until 27 October 2025. On 22 September 2025, he applied for a second trainee licence.

On 13 October 2025 the respondent wrote to the appellant to advise that he was considering refusing the appellant’s application for a second trainee licence because the training he had relied on was out of date and because he had already had one trainee licence which was considered adequate to allow him to undertake sufficient preparation to pass the part 3 test. The respondent gave the appellant 14 days within which to make any representations in support of the licence being granted.

The appellant responded by email of the same date. He stated that he had not had sufficient time to prepare, because he had travelled to Iraq between 16 July 2025 and 30 August 2025 for family reasons. The appellant also sent a further letter dated 15 November 2025 to the respondent. This was sent after the decision refusing his application. He gave the following reasons for requesting a second trainee licence:

The appellant provided evidence of his travel, and a completed ADI 21AT dated 7 October 2025 as evidence of training completed between 18 June 2025 and 7 October 2025. It does not appear that the respondent took this into consideration, as there is no evidence that the decision of 3 November 2025 was reconsidered.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 3 November 2025:

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 15 November 2025. The appeal was lodged in time.

In section 8 of the notice of appeal, the appellant stated: ‘please see attached letters explaining’. I infer that he was referring to the documents initially sent to the respondent on 13 October 2025 and 15 November 2025.

The appellant elected to have their appeal determined on the papers without a hearing. There was no objection from the respondent, and I considered that it was possible to properly determine the issues without a hearing.

In determining the appeal, I considered all of the documents contained in the appeal bundle.

The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).

Pursuant to regulation 3, the qualifying examination consists of three parts: a written examination (part 1); a driving ability and fitness test (part 2); and an instructional ability and fitness test (part 3).

A candidate is permitted three attempts at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing part 1, failing which the candidate must retake the whole examination. Once a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence.

The purpose of the trainee licence is to enable a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct, which is part of the qualifying examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

The appellant has a right of appeal against the respondent’s decision pursuant to section 131 of the Act. On appeal the tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

It is for the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s decision was wrong.

There are two issues for me to consider in this appeal. The first is whether the appellant complied with the conditions of his trainee licence and the second is whether his circumstances mean that he should be afforded a second trainee licence to enable him to acquire further experience in preparation for sitting the part 3 test.

Firstly, the appellant was required to complete 20 hours of training within the first three months of his trainee licence (regulation 15(3) of the Regulations). It is not disputed that he did not do so. The licence began on 28 April 2025, and therefore the training ought to have been completed by 28 July 2025. The appellant’s training record shows that he completed four hours of training before that date. I find that he did not comply with that condition of his licence.

I accept that the reason for this was the appellant’s travel to Iraq. I had evidence that he entered Iraq on 17 July 2025 and that he left Iraq on 30 August 2025. The appellant had begun his training before travelling and his training record showed that he resumed his training on 8 September 2025, shortly after his return to the United Kingdom. He completed the remainder of his training within less than a month.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the appellant has provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to complete the required training within the first three months of his trainee licence. I find that the appellant promptly completed the required training after his return to the United Kingdom and that he has completed all required training.

While the appellant has provided an explanation of his failure to comply with the condition of his licence, he has not provided any additional information as to why a further trainee licence is necessary.

The appellant has not indicated any difficulties in gaining sufficient experience while his trainee licence has been continuing.

The appellant has failed the part 3 test on two occasions. He cancelled one test when I accept that he was abroad. There is no evidence that he has booked a third test between 17 February 2026 when he failed his second attempt and the date of hearing. I note that it is not a requirement for a person to have a trainee licence in order to sit the part 3 test.

The appellant’s application for a second trainee licence was made before the expiry of the first, and therefore that licence is deemed to continue pending the determination of this appeal. The appellant has therefore already had the benefit of the additional six months on a trainee licence that he sought.

For all of these reasons, taking into account the purpose of the trainee licence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant has shown that the respondent’s decision was wrong.

The appeal is dismissed.