Darijj Hasan Rajput v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors
Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00474 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1258
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Heard via Cloud Video Platform
Decision given on: 31 March 2026
Before
JUDGE PERI MORNINGTON
Between
DARIJJ HASAN rajput
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR FOR APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Did not appear
For the Respondent: Did not appear
Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
Mode of hearing: The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing using Cloud Video Platform (CVP). Neither party attended the hearing. The Tribunal considered Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended), noted that both parties had been given notice of the hearing and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. The Respondent has indicated that it does not intend to appear at hearings of this nature for the foreseeable future.
REASONS
Introduction
This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 12 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.
Legal Framework
The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.
A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’
In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).
Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.
If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.
When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.
Factual Background to the Appeal
The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 7 February 2025. He passed Part 2 on 25 June 2026. He failed a first attempt at the Part 3 on 6 January 2025 and failed his second attempt on 27 January 2026. The Appellant has cancelled some 10 Part 3 test scheduled to take place on various dates between 15 August 2024 and 24 September 2025. At the date the bundle was prepared, there was a further Part 3 test booked and scheduled to take place on 24 April 2026.
The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 16 October 2024 to 15 October 2025 following an application for a second licence.
The Appellant, applied for a third trainee licence on 17 October 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.
The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence of lost practice time or lack of pupils had been provided by the Appellant and that the Appellant had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.
Appeal to the Tribunal
The grounds of appeal are, in summary:
The Appellant has continued to provide tuition without receiving payment. However, his insurer requires evidence of a training licence to continue provided tuition insurance cover.
An extension of time is vital for the Appellant to continue practicing lawfully and with adequate insurance in place.
The Registrar in his response states:
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. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration.
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. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months.
Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability twice and cancelled ten more such tests booked for 15 August 2024, 23 August 2024, 01 November 2024, 02 January 2025, 20 January 2025, 10 February 2025, 20 February 2025, 04 March 2025, 10 March 2025 and 24 September 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.
The refusal of a third 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.
The Appellant has a third and final attempt at the Part 3 tests booked for 24 April 2026.
Evidence
I read and took account of a bundle of documents.
Discussion and Conclusions
The Appellant has failed two Part 3 test and cancelled ten other tests. This is an extraordinary number of cancellations and I have not been provided with any reasonable explanation as to why so many tests have been cancelled by the Appellant. Accordingly, I do consider that the Appellant has had more than ample opportunity to take and pass his Part 3 test. However, I note that the Appellant has secured a further date for his attempt at the Part 3 test for 24 April 2026.
I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licence covering a period of 12 months. This should have been adequate time to prepare and obtain the relevant minimum training hours required.
The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act.
The Appellant can continue to study and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence.
The trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.
Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.