Behnam Rahmani v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing, by CVP, at 15.00. Neither the Appellant, nor any representative on his behalf, nor any representative of the Respondent appeared. The Tribunal waited until 15.10 before proceeding in the absence of the parties or any representatives on their behalf. The Tribunal was satisfied that the appeal could be determined in this manner and that it was in the interests of justice to do so, having regard to the provisions of the Overriding Objective.

The Appellant, in an email dated 24 February 2026 to the Tribunal stated that, out of a listing window 2 April 2026 to 21 May 2026, he would not be available only on 15 April 2026 as he was taking a Part 3 test on that date.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 21 November 2025 refusing his application for a 2nd trainee driving instruction licence made on 25 October 2025, having taken account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, on 30 October 2025 and 4 November 2025, namely, that he had ‘submitted an incorrect trainee licence application due to his limited administrative experience’ and due to difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test date. The said decision of the Respondent was, however, stated to due to a failure by the Appellant to comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence in that several required objectives had been completed and submitted late, that is, outside the required first three months of his trainee licence. The Respondent, in his said decision also noted that the Appellant had been granted a trainee licence for 6 months for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test, a period the Respondent considered a more than adequate period of time and, further, that a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test, nor is refusal of a trainee licence a bar to the Appellant undertaking a Part 3 test. A trainee licence is issued solely to give an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) an opportunity to gain sufficient practical experience in driving tuition to help towards passing their Part 3 test.

The Respondent, in its said decision, the decision under appeal, also relied on the fact that the Appellant, in addition, had the benefit of his existing trainee licence remaining in force until the determination of this appeal (meaning that the Appellant, in effect, had the benefit of a further trainee licence period for a further period of almost five months). The Respondent further relied on a submission that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence should be issued to an applicant for however long it took him to pass his Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 1 December 2025, the Appellant repeated that he had sent the wrong form of application initially for a 2nd trainee licence and repeated his submission concerning a difficulty getting a Part 3 test date, resulting, he submitted, on a ‘further burden being placed on [him] to continue working to gain the necessary experience to pass a Part 3 test’ and to ‘allow [him] to pay for continued training’ while awaiting a Part 3 test date; that being granted a 2nd trainee licence was not unreasonable and the decision of the Respondent was ‘harsh’ and ‘unjust’, in the circumstances and that he was being ‘penalised’. He concluded by stating that charging pupils for tuition was his sole source of income and that, therefore, ‘being unable to work [would] impact on his ability to take training and to cover his bills and expenses’. This, however, is not the purpose of a trainee licence. Further, the Appellant, in his Notice of Appeal did not address his failure to comply with the conditions of his original trainee licence.

In its Response dated 20 February 2026, the Respondent reiterated the reasons given by him in the said decision under appeal, and that the Appellant, as an alternative, could attend a training course or study and practice with an ADI or give unpaid driving tuition - all alternatives that are used by some aspiring ADIs who have never held a trainee licence. The Respondent advised that the Appellant had, on 15 January 2026, failed an attempt to pass his Part 3 test, a fact not disclosed by the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal, and had a second attempt booked for 15 April 2026, facts that somewhat undermined his assertion of a lack of dates to take a Part 3 test.

The question of an alleged lack of availability of dates to undertake a Part 3 test is irrelevant, in any event, to the question of whether the Appellant should, or should not, be granted a second trainee licence by the Tribunal in this appeal since holding a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test and, in any event, the Appellant did not, as a finding of fact, comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence by submitting complete training records on time. This, in itself, is a sufficient and appropriate reason to refuse this appeal.

Furthermore, the Appellant has, in reality, as he had filed an appeal, had the benefit of a trainee licence for a total period of almost 11 months, for the sole purpose for which a trainee licence is issued.

The Respondent reiterated, in greater detail, the fact that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his original trainee licence, namely, that, contrary to the requirements of Regulation 15(3)(a) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Rgulations205., the Appellant had only complete 8 hours training within the first 3 months of being grated his trainee licence, rather than the required 20 hours, and, contrary to Regulation 15(6) of the said Regulations, it appeared that he may not completed the required supplementary training, including training in all matters specified in Pary 1 to Schedule 2 of the Regulations. However, this latter submission was somewhat unclear and was not taken into account by the Tribunal in deciding this appeal.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, second, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, while giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under his first trainee licence, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test, but, in addition, he had not complied with the conditions of that trainee licence.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written evidence and submissions that I received and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.