Muhammad Hussain Khan 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 5 December 2025 to refuse his application for a third trainee licence.

The appellant was first granted a trainee licence on 4 December 2024, valid for a period of six months. He was granted a second trainee licence valid from 9 May 2025 to 9 November 2025.

On 14 October 2025, the appellant applied for a third trainee licence.

The respondent wrote to the appellant on 6 November 2025 advising that he was considering refusing the application. The reason given was that one trainee licence of six months had already been granted, which was considered sufficient. In fact, two trainee licences had been granted for a total of 12 months. The respondent gave the appellant an opportunity to make representations in support of his application.

The appellant responded on 8 November 2025. He stated that a further trainee licence would give him the opportunity to prepare for his part 3 test following an unsuccessful attempt on 17 July 2025. He stated that he had tried to book his second attempt, but that due to a backlog, he was shown as being on hold in the system. The appellant did not identify any difficulties he had had in obtaining the necessary experience during the validity of his existing trainee licence.

The respondent considered the appellant’s representations but on 5 December 2025, refused his application. It is that decision which is the subject of this appeal.

I note that the appellant was due to sit his part 3 test for the third time on 19 May 2026, the day after the hearing in this appeal.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 5 December 2025:

The appellant lodged an undated notice of appeal. The appeal was subject to initial validity checks, and no issue was raised in relation to its timeliness.

In his grounds of appeal, the appellant states that having a third trainee licence will enable him to gain sufficient experience to pass the part 3 test. He noted that he failed his first attempt on 17 July 2025 and that it had been difficult to book a second, due to a backlog.

The appellant stated that he re-booked his part 3 test and the date confirmed was 12 February 2026.

The hearing took place by video and there were no objections to this as a suitable method of hearing. The respondent did not attend and did not contact the tribunal to explain his absence or seek a postponement of the hearing. I note that the respondent’s certificate of readiness dated 11 March 2026 indicated that there were no forthcoming hearings in this appeal. It appears that the respondent may have been under the impression that the appeal would be determined without a hearing. I considered whether, in light of the fact it was not clear that the respondent was properly notified of the hearing, it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. Given that I had the benefit of the respondent’s statement setting out his reasons for opposing the appeal and the documents on which he relied in the bundle, I considered that it was possible to determine the issues in the appeal justly in the respondent’s absence.

In determining the appeal, I considered the appellant’s oral evidence and submissions together with the documents contained in the hearing bundle, which was prepared by the respondent.

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.

I raised with the appellant as preliminary issues the fact that he passed his part 1 test on 5 June 2024 and that he has his third and final attempt at the part 3 test on 19 May 2026. He accepted that he must complete all three parts of the examination by no later than 5 June 2026 and that he must pass the test on 19 May 2026. Even if I were minded to accept the appellant’s arguments as to why a third trainee licence were appropriate, it would not be material, as he could not have a third trainee licence for the six months he seeks.

Either the appellant will pass the test and will not require a further trainee licence, or he will fail and will not be entitled to a trainee licence, as he will have to repeat the entire examination. If for any reason the appellant was unable to sit the part 3 test on 19 May 2026, he would have to re-book it to a date before 5 June 2026. He does not require a trainee licence to sit the part 3 test.

The appellant confirmed that he had not had any difficulties in obtaining the required experience to prepare for his part 3 test and that he had been using the trainee licence which was extended pending the determination of this appeal to gain experience as intended. The appellant confirmed that there was nothing else he wished me to take into account.

At the time he lodged his appeal, the appellant may have been able to show that a further trainee licence was necessary. For the reasons set out above, events have somewhat overtaken him since then and that is no longer the case.

For these reasons, I find that the appellant has not shown that the decision to refuse his application for a third trainee licence was wrong.