Appeal Number: FT/D/2026/0009
Transport
Heard on: 2 June 2026.
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Shaheen Kauser
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
DECISION NOTICE: The Tribunal dismiss the appeal. The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background:
This is an appeal brought by Mrs Shaheen Kauser (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) dated 11 February 2026, refusing her application for the grant of a third trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
A trainee licence permits a person who is not yet entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADI”) to give paid driving instruction for a limited period whilst working towards qualification. The statutory scheme is governed principally by sections 123 and 129 of the 1988 Act.
The Appellant has previously been granted two trainee licences, each of 12 months’ duration, thereby enabling her to obtain practical instructional experience whilst progressing towards the Part 3 qualifying examination.
The Registrar refused the present application on the basis that the Appellant had already had sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience and that the grant of a third trainee licence was not justified in light of the
The material chronology, drawn from the bundle, is as follows:
From 24 April 2023 to 23 April 2024, the Appellant held her first trainee licence.
Chronology:
From 16 December 2024 to 15 December 2025, she held a second trainee licence.
On 18 November 2024, the Appellant passed the Part 1 qualifying test, and on 27 November 2024 she passed the Part 2 test.
A Part 3 test scheduled for 12 November 2025 was cancelled by the DVSA.
On 9 December 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.
On 11 December 2025, the Registrar invited representations pursuant to section 129(3). No representations were received.
On 4 February 2026, the Appellant undertook a Part 3 test and did not pass.
On 11 February 2026, the Registrar issued the decision refusing the application.
Issues:
The issues for determination in this appeal are:
Whether the Registrar properly exercised his discretion in refusing the grant of a third trainee licence in the circumstances of this case.
The extent to which the Appellant’s testing history, including a single failed Part 3 attempt and a test cancellation, bears upon that discretion.
Whether the refusal was unfair or disproportionate having regard to the Appellant’s individual circumstances.
The relevance, if any, of the Appellant’s failure to submit representations when invited to do so.
The proper application of the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime.
The Law:
Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides, in summary, that a person must not give paid driving instruction unless they are either registered as an ADI or hold a trainee licence under section 129.
Section 129 governs the grant and refusal of trainee licences, including the requirement to give notice of a proposed refusal and to consider any representations received before making a final decision.
The Tribunal accepts that the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime is to provide a limited and time-bound opportunity to gain practical experience pending qualification. It is not intended to operate as an alternative route to indefinite provision of paid instruction.
Consistent with that purpose, it is well established in this jurisdiction that the grant of a third trainee licence is exceptional and ordinarily requires circumstances properly to be characterised as compelling or out of the ordinary.
In assessing proportionality, the Tribunal adopts the familiar structured approach articulated in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, namely whether the measure in question strikes a fair balance between the individual’s interests and the public interest pursued by the statutory scheme.
Submissions:
Registrar:
The Registrar submits that the Appellant has already had two full periods of licensed practice, each of 12 months, which together amount to ample opportunity to gain the necessary experience and reach the required standard.
The Registrar emphasises that trainee licences are not intended to be repeatedly granted so as to extend indefinitely the period during which paid instruction may be given.
It is further submitted by the Registrar that the Appellant has not demonstrated sufficient progress, having failed the Part 3 test, and that alternative routes remain available to her, including further training and re-sitting the test without the benefit of a trainee licence.
The Registrar also relies upon the Appellant’s failure to make representations when invited to do so as an indicator that no additional material was placed before him which might justify a departure from the usual approach.
Appellant:
The Appellant submits that the refusal is unfair in light of her individual circumstances.
She relies in particular upon the fact that she has had only one opportunity to sit the Part 3 test, that one scheduled test was cancelled by the DVSA for reasons outside her control, and that further supervised experience is required in order to attain the necessary standard.
The Appellant contends that the grant of a further trainee licence would be consistent with the developmental purpose of the statutory scheme and would represent a proportionate response in her case.
Assessment and Conclusions:
The Tribunal has considered all the evidence and submissions with care. The Appellant’s circumstances, including the cancellation of a test and her limited number of attempts at Part 3, are fully acknowledged.
The Tribunal accepts that those matters are relevant to the exercise of the Registrar’s discretion. However, the central question is whether they are sufficient to justify the grant of a third trainee licence in light of the statutory purpose of the regime.
The Tribunal attaches significant weight to the fact that the Appellant has already benefited from two trainee licences, each of substantial duration, affording a considerable opportunity to acquire experience and prepare for qualification.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the cancellation of one test, whilst unfortunate, or the fact of a single unsuccessful attempt, is sufficient—whether taken individually or cumulatively—to amount to exceptional circumstances. Such matters are not uncommon and do not, in the Tribunal’s judgment, displace the general policy that further licences beyond the second will only rarely be granted.
The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant did not respond to the Registrar’s invitation to make representations. Whilst not determinative, this is a factor which supports the conclusion that the decision-making process was procedurally fair and that no additional material was placed before the Registrar which might have justified a different outcome.
The Tribunal further accepts that the refusal does not prevent the Appellant from continuing to pursue qualification by other means, including further training and re-sitting the Part 3 test.
Standing back and applying the proportionality approach identified above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar’s decision strikes a fair balance between the interests of the Appellant and the public interest in maintaining the integrity and limited nature of the trainee licence regime.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional or compelling circumstances sufficient to justify the grant of a third trainee licence.
Decision:
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.
Brian Kennedy KC 02 June 2026.