Abrar Hussain v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing, at the request of the Appellant, there being no objection from the Respondent, and was determined in that manner.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 5 February 2026 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence made on 16 December 2026. The decision of the Respondent was made taking account of representations made by the Appellant on 18 December 2025, namely, that he had problems with his previous sponsor whom, he stated, delayed his training and refused to complete ‘the paperwork’, on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to meet his training obligations within the first three months of being issued with his first trainee licence. The Appellant had also stated in his said representations that due to using a hire vehicle, that was unreliable, he did not actually start ‘work’, as consequence, until the end of September 2025, some three months after the commencement of his six month trainee licence period .The Respondent also maintained, in making their decision, that it appeared the Appellant was using his trainee licence as a source of income – something that is, decidedly, not the purpose of a trainee licence. In making the decision under appeal, the Respondent also submitted, correctly, that it was not the intention of Parliament that Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) candidates be issued trainee licences for however long it might take them to pass their Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system could not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts); that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing first trainee licence for the 6 month period from 23 June 2025 to 22 December 2025 remained valid until determination of this appeal (thus providing him with an additional period of almost another 6 months), providing him with a total trainee licence period of almost 12 months in total, and that, even in granting the Appellant his first trainee licence, for six months, the Respondent submitted the Appellant had been granted a more than adequate period of time to reach the instructional ability qualifying standard and, in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction to pass his instructional ability test (that is, his Part 3 test).

In his Notice of Appeal dated 10 February 2026, the Appellant challenged the decision under appeal on the following grounds:

In its Response dated 8 May 2026, the Respondent reiterated the reasons given by him in the decision under appeal. In particular, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not complied with his mandatory statutory duty pursuant to Part 5 (15)(3)(a) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 that a minimum of 20 hours training must be completed within the first three months of a grant of a first trainee licence, that is, in this case, by 22 September 2025, but had failed to provide any such evidence by submitting the appropriate form duly completed. In addition, the Respondent confirmed that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test once, on 4 December 2025. He also advised that if the Appellant wished to obtain further training in preparation for a further attempt to pass a Part 3 test, he could attend a training course or study and practice under an ADI or provide unpaid tuition, all of which were alternatives used by some trainees who achieved ADI status without having ever held a trainee licence. Finally, the Respondent confirmed that the Appellant had booked a further attempt to pass a Part 3 test on hold awaiting a date.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, second trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written evidence and submissions that I received and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.