Tanveer Aslam v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

On 28 April 2026 the Registrar applied for this appeal to be struck out under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal’s rules on the basis that the Appellant had failed his instructional ability and fitness test (or “Part 3 test”) for the third time on 27 April 2026 and accordingly that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are granted for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing the Part 3 test.

By regulation 3(4)(d) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”) a person is only to be regarded as having passed the necessary examination if, among other things, they have passed the Part 3 test on the first, second or third attempt. Accordingly, when an applicant has failed the Part 3 test three times, they must re-start the process if they wish to qualify. Although the Registrar cites a different provision of the 2005 Regulations, the argument is that the appeal should be struck out as the Appellant can no longer prepare for the Part 3 test under the licence to which the appeal relates.

By rule 8(4) of the Tribunal’s rules, the Tribunal may not strike out an appeal on this basis without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.

By directions dated 30 April 2026 the Tribunal directed the Appellant to provide any representations as to why the appeal should not be struck out, or to confirm that he wished to withdraw his appeal, in either case by 14 May 2026.

The Appellant has not responded to those directions.

The Appellant having failed his Part 3 test, I find that this appeal has no reasonable prospect of success as there is no prospect of the Appellant achieving the outcome which he seeks, in the form of an extension to his licence. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the appeal is struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c).

It is not necessary to go on to consider the merits of the appeal.