Aziz Ur Rehman v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 12 December 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

With the consent of the parties, the case was determined without a hearing. I was satisfied that I could properly determine the issues without a hearing.

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 section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129 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 of (i) the written examination (Part 1); (ii) the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and (iii) the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted for each Part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of the applicant passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.

A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Parts 1 and 2 and meet the conditions outlined in section 129(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence that is available to it. In doing so, the Tribunal gives 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 on the balance of probabilities.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 02 March 2024. He passed Part 2 on 21 October 2024. He failed his first attempt at his Part 3 on 16 July 2025. He failed his Part 3 test for a second time on 23 January 2026.

As at the date of the statement of the Registrar (27 February 2026), the Appellant was awaiting an available date to undertake his final attempt at his Part 3 test.

The Appellant was granted his first trainee licence on 12 November 2024.

The Appellant was granted his second trainee licence on 18 May 2025, which was valid until 17 November 2025.

The Appellant applied for his third trainee licence on 12 November 2025.

As the Appellant applied for his third trainee licence before the second trainee licence expired, the previous licence will remain in force until the determination of this appeal. Therefore at the date of the determination of this case, the Appellant has been the beneficiary of a trainee licence for over sixteen months.

The reason for the Registrar’s decision was that, even though the Appellant had provided evidence of an illness suffered by his wife which necessitated him to have caring responsibilities, that did not evidence that he was unable to use his licence as intended. The Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences for a total period of twelve months.

The grounds of Appeal, dated 17 December 2025, are, in summary:

In his response, the Registrar states:

I read and took account of a bundle of document (27 pages).

I have considered carefully all of the evidence before me.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months. This should have been adequate time to prepare and acquire practical experience in driving motor cars. Further I note that the Appellant has had the benefit of a further period of approximately four months up until the date of the determination of this case.

I also note that the Appellant has cancelled his Part 3 test on six separate occasions. No specific details have been provided as to why he cancelled his Part 3 test on multiple occasions.

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 Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Appellant can continue to study and practice and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence.

The trainee licence 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. It is also note the purpose of trainee licences to provide a source of income – the purpose, as set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is to enable a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in the driving of motor vehicles with a view to undergoing Part 3 of the test.

I have had regard to the medical evidence that has been submitted regarding the Appellant’s wife. Whilst I accept that the Appellant has assumed caring responsibilities for his wife, I am not satisfied that they are such as to prevent him from utilising his trainee licences or undertaking sufficient training.

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 of the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.