Talha Khan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is the appeal of the Appellant, Mr Talha Khan, against the decision of the Respondent, the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (hereafter ‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 8 December 2025, to refuse his request for a second trainee licence.

The matter was listed before me for consideration on paper. I was satisfied that it was just and appropriate to proceed in that way.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (Footnote: ¹) (‘the Register’) or he/she holds a trainee licence.

Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness (the Act, s125(3)(a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination. (Footnote: ²)

By the Act, s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are valid for six months only. The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued (s129(3)).

The effect of the Act, s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

By the Act, s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit (s131(3)).

The background facts can be summarised as follows.

Mr Khan passed parts one and two of the examination on 27 August and 5 September 2024 respectively.

On Mr Khan’s application, the Registrar granted him a trainee licence, covering the period from 28 April to 27 October 2025.

On 24 October 2025 (ie during the currency of that licence) Mr Khan applied to the Registrar for a second licence. That application was refused by the letter of 8 December 2025, to which I have already referred.

Given the timing of the application for the second licence, the life of the first licence was extended by the Act, s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above).

Mr Khan booked a part three test for 27 July 2025 but was unsuccessful.

Mr Khan booked a second part three test for 12 March 2026. I have no information about the outcome.

In the letter of 8 December 2025 (read with an earlier letter of 11 November 2025) the Registrar placed reliance on an apparent failure by Mr Khan to complete at least 20 hours of additional training by 28 July 2025, which was a requirement under the terms of the initial licence. In his notice of appeal Mr Khan explained, and I accept, that: (a) the Registrar proceeded on the basis of a misunderstanding: the 20 hours were undertaken in June 2025 and so within the specified period; and (b) the error stemmed from his (Mr Khan’s) failure when applying for the second licence to rely on the June 2025 training (much less provide the Registrar with evidence of it), coupled with his purported reliance only on some additional training undertaken in September and October 2025, and so outside the specified period.

Mr Khan also relied on the sad death of his sister on 2 October 2025 which, he said, had affected him emotionally and reduced the amount of use which he was able to make of his initial training licence.

In his notice of appeal, Mr Khan contended that, given Registrar’s (understandable) misunderstanding about the training undertaken pursuant to the first licence and the impact of his sister’s death on his training plans, the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Registrar for reconsideration.

The Registrar resisted the appeal, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence. He also included some particular points about alleged failures by Mr Khan to comply with the training obligations under the initial licence, seemingly failing to take on board and address his case on those points.

I am not persuaded that there is a good reason to allow this appeal. I accept that, through no fault of his, the Registrar based his decision of 8 December 2025 in part on a mistaken understanding that Mr Khan had not satisfied an important condition of the initial licence. I also accept that the family bereavement affected him emotionally in late 2025 and interrupted his training plans. In a proper case, these factors might justify allowing an appeal. But I see no sound basis for such a decision here. In so far as they are relevant, I agree with the remarks on the nature and purpose of the trainee licence system contained in the Registrar’s response and on its website (see above). As already explained, the effect of the appeal is that the current licence was automatically extended until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. In other words, he has by appealing secured the protection of ‘the badge’ for a consecutive period of well over 13 months to date. There is nothing to justify any extension beyond the date of publication of my Decision. I hope that Mr Khan has by now passed the part three test (on 12 March 2026 or on some subsequent date). If so, this appeal will have become academic. If not, I see no warrant for directing the Registrar to issue a further six-month licence now, extending his cover to over 19 months. That would amount to a misuse of the trainee licence system.

For the reasons stated, I must dismiss the appeal.