Emran Ahmed v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00461 (GRC)
Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1426
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Heard on: 23 March 2026.
Decision given on: 31 March 2026.
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Emran Ahmed
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.
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
FT/D/2025/1426 — Ahmed v Registrar (ADI – Third Trainee Licence)
Background:
The Appellant, Mr Emran Ahmed, has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADI”) .
On 10 Nov 2025, before the expiry of the second licence, he applied for a third trainee licence (D2, p.17).
The Registrar sent a provisional refusal notice on 19 Nov 2025 inviting representations (D3, p.18).
The Appellant responded on 20 Nov 2025 (D4, p.19–23).
The Registrar refused the application on 12 Dec 2025 (D5, p.24), giving detailed reasons (Registrar’s Statement, pp.14–16).
The Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal (pp.2–12). He seeks the issue of a third trainee licence to continue preparing for the instructional ability test.
The Appellant has attempted the instructional ability test twice and failed both times (Annex A, p.25). His final permitted attempt is booked for 22 April 2026.
Chronology:
18 Nov 2024 – First trainee licence granted.
(b) 17 Nov 2025 – Second trainee licence expiry (application for third licence submitted before expiry).
(c) 10 Nov 2025 – Application for third trainee licence submitted (D2).
(d) 19 Nov 2025 – Registrar’s provisional refusal inviting representations (D3).
(e) 20 Nov 2025 – Appellant’s written representations (D4).
(f) 12 Dec 2025 – Registrar issues final refusal (D5).
(g) December 2025 – Appeal lodged (p.2–12).
(h) 27 Feb 2026 – Registrar’s formal Statement under rule 23 filed (pp.14–16).
(i) 22 Apr 2026 – Appellant’s final instructional ability test booked (Annex A, p.25).
Issues:
Whether the Appellant has shown sufficient reason or evidence that further practice is required, beyond the two licences (12 months) already held.
Whether the Appellant’s explanations for failure to progress (e.g., “lack of pupils”, training interruptions) amount to evidence capable of displacing the Registrar’s reasoning.
Whether the refusal frustrates the statutory purpose, i.e., whether denying a third licence prevents him from preparing for the test in a way contrary to the scheme’s intent.
Effect of the pending test on 22 April 2026:
Whether the imminent final attempt is relevant to the proportionality or fairness of refusing a further licence.
Relevant Law:
Road Traffic Act 1988 — Part V
s.123(1): Prohibition on giving paid instruction unless on Register or holding a trainee licence.
s.129(1): Power to grant trainee licences.
s.129(4): Registrar must give notice of decision and reasons.
The statutory purpose is to allow up to six months’ supervised practice to reach ADI standard; the trainee licence route is temporary and exceptional, not a mechanism for extended trading.
Caselaw principles (ADI––Trainee licence appeals)
The Registrar has a wide discretion in evaluating readiness and purpose.
Two licences (12 months) normally provide ample opportunity for practice.
The scheme is not intended to enable trainees to build a business or prolong instruction for income.
Evidence and Submissions:
Registrar’s Position:
The Appellant has had two licences = 12 months of opportunity.
No evidence provided of “lost training time” beyond his bare assertion about difficulty obtaining pupils.
The purpose is to gain practical experience, not to establish a business or prolong preparation indefinitely.
Appellant failed the instructional ability test twice (Annex A, p.25).
A third licence risks undermining the integrity of the ADI licensing system.
He may still prepare for the test without a licence (study, shadowing, unpaid practice).
His final attempt is booked for 22 April 2026; the Registrar notes that if the test goes ahead, any appeal becomes academic because the licence can only be issued to gain experience before taking the test.
Appellant’s Submissions:
States that his preparation was adversely affected by lack of pupils.
Claims insufficient practice opportunities prevented adequate readiness.
Asserts he was “not fully aware” of what training was required.
Requests a further licence to correct deficits in his readiness for the instructor ability test.
Suggests he has made efforts but circumstances beyond his control impeded progress.
Emphasises the importance of the trainee route for structure and accountability.
States that he has invested personal resources in pursuing ADI qualification.
Expresses confidence that with a further short period of practice he could reach the required standard.
Discussion:
There is no documentary evidence provided to show lack of pupils (e.g., diaries, cancelled lessons, inability to secure students).
The Appellant has already had the statutory maximum practical experience window in practice: 12 months.
The scheme anticipates that some trainees will take tests without a licence.
The pending 22 April 2026 attempt may determine practical impact of the refusal.
Conclusion:
In the circumstances and for the above reasons the Tribunal find the Respondents’ impugned decision was fair, reasonable and proportionate and accordingly the Tribunal dismiss the appeal and 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.
Brian Kennedy KC. 23 March 2026.