Humaira Choudhary v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 10 April 2026 at 16.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 20 November 2025 to refuse her application for a 3rd trainee driving instructor licence made on 22 October 2025, pursuant to s.129(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the stated grounds that while the Appellant had provided evidence of medical appointments, she had not provided evidence of lost training time and that some of her representations referred to dates during the period of her 1st trainee licence; that she had already been granted 2 trainee licences (12 months in total) [28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025] granted to enable her to gain sufficient expertise to pass her Part 3 test - considered to be more than an adequate period of time – the sole purpose of a trainee licence [plus almost 6 further months permitted until determination of this appeal]; that it was not intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took an applicant to pass her Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a 3rd trainee licence did not prevent her undertaking a Part 3 test.

The Appellant had failed two attempts at passing her Part 3 test [16 January 2026 and 23 January 2026] and had cancelled a Part 3 test booking for 2 June 2025.

The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal dated 3 December 2025 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, (incorporating her representations to the Respondent in advance of the Respondent making the decision under appeal):

In her oral evidence, the Appellant submitted that she had lost training time due to a combination of her medical problems (having submitted a bundle of medical evidence), relating essentially to pain in her left leg, leaving her unable to teach, on and off, for the previous 18-24 months, it being difficult to get into, and out of, her vehicle and to use dual controls and that, despite what was stated in her Notice of Appeal, those medical problems had not yet fully resolved, resulting, indeed, to her being admitted to hospital on Good Friday, 3 April 2026. She confirmed that she had occasion to cancel lessons due to her fluctuating medial conditions affecting her left leg, causing a loss of training time. She also stated that she had lost training time in January 2025 due to the sudden bereavement of an aunt in Pakistan that had required her to remain at home to look after various young children of other family members who had travelled to her aunt’s funeral in Pakistan. Further, she stated she had lost training time due to her father-in-law developing a serious illness in Pakistan in April 2025, causing her to need to travel to Pakistan and spend some time there, leading her to need to cancel her Part 3 test booked for 2 June 2025, also still being troubled with leg pain at that time. The Appellant confirmed that her third, and final attempt to pass her Part 3 test was booked for 22 May 2026 and that she wanted a 3rd trainee licence to ensure she was properly prepared for that test.

The Respondent, in his written Response, dated 20 February 2026, reiterated the reasons contained in the decision under appeal, not least that the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences from 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025 [and, of course, the benefit of almost 6 further months pending determination of this appeal] that the Appellant had made application for a 3rd trainee licence on 22 October 2025 but had produced no evidence of lost training time. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could have obtained further training, if necessary, to prepare for her third and final attempt at a Part 3 test, by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test without ever having held a trainee licence; the purpose of a trainee licence was solely to give aspiring ADIs an opportunity of giving driving instruction to members of the public while endeavouring to achieve ADI registration; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an ADI; that it was not the intention of Parliament that an aspiring ADI should be granted a trainee licence for however long it took them to pass their Part 3 test; that 12 months (together with the Appellant’s existing trainee licence remining valid until determination of this appeal), was a very reasonable period to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction.

This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 3rd 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, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is 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 evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal. In particular, I have decided, on the balance of probabilities, on the Appellant’s oral evidence, that lost training time was a live issue in this case. It was somewhat unfortunate that the Appellant did not make more detailed representations to the Respondent, along the lines of her written and oral evidence to the Tribunal and adduced to the Respondent the detailed medical evidence she

I was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant discharged the burden of proof, on the written and oral evidence adduced by her, that she had lost training time to an extent that she did not have the opportunity to gain sufficient practical experience in teaching driving instruction to members of the public during the period of her first two trainee licence nor subsequently.

Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.

The decision of the Respondent, made on 20 November 2025 is set aside. The Appellant is granted a third licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.

The Appellant is specifically advised that her appeal is not allowed on the basis that she needs a third trainee licence to order to be able to charge pupils for driving instruction.