Wasim Ahmad Virk 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 10 December 2025 to refuse his application for a second trainee licence.

The appellant’s first trainee licence was valid from 5 May 2025 to 4 November 2025. On 22 October 2025 the appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

The respondent wrote to the appellant on 6 November 2025 having received his application for a second trainee licence. The respondent noted that the appellant had failed to return form ADI 21AT. This is required as evidence that an individual has completed the minimum of 20 hours additional training delivered by an ADI. The respondent advised the appellant that he should submit his completed ADI 21AT with any response or provide an explanation as to why he had not completed the mandatory training.

The respondent advised the appellant that his application for a second trainee licence was unlikely to succeed where he had failed to comply with the conditions of the first.

On 11 November 2025, the appellant provided a handwritten letter dated 10 November 2025 from Abdul Salam Kang, of Glow Driving School. Mr Kang confirmed that he had provided the appellant with the required training in accordance with the approved syllabus and standards and that all sessions were completed. A completed ADI 21T dated 29 October 2025 was also submitted. It showed that the appellant had completed 20 training objectives on consecutive days between 1 October 2025 and 20 October 2025 amounting to 42 hours of training.

The respondent refused the appellant’s application, and it is that decision which is the subject of this appeal.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 10 December 2025:

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 21 December 2025. The appeal was lodged in time.

The appellant explained in his grounds of appeal that the reason he required a second trainee licence is because back pain prevents him from sitting for long periods and this had reduced his ability to train and provide lessons consistently. The appellant also relied on delays in being able to secure a part 3 test date.

The appellant stated that his health has now improved and he is determined to pass his part 3 examination with proper preparation.

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 resolve. The first is whether the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his trainee licence; and the second is whether the appellant’s circumstances warrant a second trainee licence being issued to enable him to pass the part 3 examination.

It appears that the respondent accepts that the appellant has completed the 20 objectives of the additional training set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The respondent does not accept however that the appellant completed the required training within the first three months of his trainee licence as required. I find that the appellant has completed the required training, but that it was not completed within the first three months of the trainee licence. I find that the appellant was in breach of that requirement.

I have considered the appellant’s explanation contained in his notice of appeal. He states that he experienced back pain which affected his ability to sit for long periods which in turn impacted on his ability to undertake training and to give lessons.

The appellant did not provide any medical evidence either to the respondent or in support of his appeal to support his assertions as to the reason he was unable to complete his training within the relevant period or give lessons during the validity of his trainee licence. I do not accept that there is any evidence before me to demonstrate that the appellant’s condition was such that he was prevented from complying with the conditions of his trainee licence.

The appellant states in his grounds of appeal that his condition has now improved. He does not identify or provide evidence of any ongoing difficulties in obtaining sufficient experience to prepare for the part 3 examination.

The respondent provided evidence of the appellant’s test history, which does not show that he has booked or completed a part 3 examination. The appellant did not provide any additional evidence in support of his appeal to suggest he has booked or sat a part 3 examination, or if he has, what the outcome was.

The appellant’s application for a second trainee licence was made before the expiry of his first licence, which means that his first licence has continued pending the determination of this appeal. The appellant has now had the benefit of the full period of an additional six months on a trainee licence, which was what he sought.

The appellant refers to delays in securing a part 3 examination date but provides no evidence of the efforts he has made to obtain an appointment. It is not necessary for an individual to hold a trainee licence when booking or sitting the part 3 examination. Difficulty obtaining an examination date is not, of itself justification of the need for a further trainee licence.

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

The appeal is dismissed.