Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/0728
Transport Regulations
Between:
Ahmed Hassan
Appellant:
and
Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent:
Date and type of Hearing: Hearing on the papers on 19 January 2026.
Before: Brian Kennedy KC
Decision: The Tribunal dismisses the appeal.
Introduction:
1. This is an appeal by Mr Ahmed Hassan (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) dated 2 July 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“RTA 1988”).
Background:
2. The Appellant held a first trainee licence from 25 November 2024 to 24 May 2025.
3. On 24 May 2025, the Appellant applied for a second licence.
4. By email on 28 May 2025, the Registrar invited representations indicating he was minded refusing; representations were received on 28 May 2025.
5. The Registrar refused the application on 2 July 2025.
6. The Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal (pages 2–12 of the bundle). The Registrar filed a Statement under Rule 23 (pages 14–16).
Issues:
7. The Tribunal is required to determine:
(i) Whether the Appellant complied with conditions of the first licence, particularly the minimum 20 hours of additional training (ADI 21AT).
(ii) Whether the Registrar’s refusal of a second trainee licence was lawful, rational, and proportionate in light of the statutory purpose of s.129 RTA 1988.
(iii) Whether any procedural irregularity occurred (notice, opportunity to make representations).
(iv) Whether any mitigating factors (e.g., test availability constraints) justify a different outcome.
Findings of Fact:
8. On the basis of the documentary bundle and submissions, the Tribunal finds: “the Appellant has not evidenced completion of the minimum 20 hours” if the record is incomplete
Relevant Law:
9. Section 123(1), RTA 1988: a person must not give paid instruction in driving a motor car unless their name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they hold a current trainee licence issued under s.129.
10. Section 129, RTA 1988: the Registrar may issue a temporary trainee licence to enable a candidate to gain practical experience prior to undertaking the qualifying examinations; the licence is time-limited and subject to conditions, and the Registrar may refuse to issue a further licence where statutory purpose or licence conditions are not met.
11. Tribunal Rules 2009, Rule 23: requires the Registrar to provide a statement of case.
Submissions:
Appellant:
12. (i) Difficulty obtaining Part 3 test dates; seeks continuation of practical experience under a second licence to prepare for final attempt.
(ii) Suggests that cancellations were due to scheduling constraints and the failures reflect the need for more experience/training time.
(iii) Unforeseen circumstances including urgent hospital appointments caused a massive burden preventing completion of the final part of the training programme means the refusal is wrong and unjust.
Respondent: The Respondent provided the following reasons for refusing the application for a second licence:
13. (i) the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford
applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration.
(ii) the system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration;
(iii) the licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for
however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months
experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to
reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal;
(iv) since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled two more such tests booked for 04 December 2024 and 18 February 2025. (Annex A). Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and
(v) the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.
14. The Respondent argues it should also be noted that the Appellant has not yet booked his final attempt at the instructional ability test.
Analysis:
15. The Tribunal’s task is to review the lawfulness and merits of the refusal under s.129 RTA 1988, applying the statutory purpose and considering any discretionary and procedural factors.
Statutory Purpose and Discretion
16. Section 129 is aimed at enabling candidates to gain limited practical experience prior to examinations. It is not intended to allow indefinite paid instruction absent registration. The Registrar’s policy rationale—that trainee licences should not become a substitute for registration—is aligned with the statutory scheme under Part V.
Compliance with Licence Conditions
17. The ADI 21AT record is central. On the evidence, the Appellant did not complete the minimum 20 hours of additional training (or has not evidenced completion). Compliance with conditions is a legitimate criterion when assessing suitability for a second licence. Non-compliance weighs strongly against renewal.
Progress and Opportunity
18. The Appellant cancelled two Part 3 tests and failed two subsequent attempts. Taken with the limited training hours, this indicates insufficient progress. While test availability issues can be mitigating, the record shows that a number of opportunities existed during and after the first licence period.
Procedural Fairness
19. The Registrar provided notice of potential refusal and invited representations, which were received and considered. The decision letter sets out reasons (addressed below). No procedural unfairness is identified.
Proportionality and Alternatives
20. Refusal of a second licence does not foreclose the Appellant’s ability to train or sit Part 3; unpaid instruction, supervised practice, and formal courses remain available. In these circumstances, refusal is proportionate to the objectives of the statutory scheme and the Appellant’s non-compliance.
REASONS
There is no evidence in support of the alleged “unforeseen circumstances” causing a “massive burden preventing completion of the final part of the training programme” however in any event such personal and/or individual interruptions are part of everyday life that can affect anyone by restricting progress in their chosen occupation and do not necessarily mean that the objective application of the statutory test can be determine to be “wrong or unjust” as the Appellant submits.
The trainee licence is a limited pathway to gain experience, not an alternative to registration; (the typical duration is six months).
The Appellant failed to comply with conditions of the first licence by not completing 20 hours of additional training (ADI 21AT).
Two cancellations and two failures indicate insufficient progress despite ample opportunity.
The Appellant can pursue further training without a trainee licence (e.g., unpaid practice, courses), and refusal does not bar sitting Part 3.
Directions:
Costs:
No order as to costs (unless an application is made under the Tribunal Rules). Parties may file any costs submissions within 7 days.
Right of Appeal:
Any party dissatisfied with this decision may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision, identifying the alleged error of law.
Judge: Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy. Date: 19 January 2026.