Adinasir Sheikh Ishaq v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 10 April 2026 at 11.00am. The Appellant, nor any representative on his behalf, did not attend. No representative for the Respondent attended. The Tribunal was satisfied that both parties had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’). The Tribunal waited until 11.12 before proceeding in the absence of the parties or any representative of either party.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 1 October 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 2nd trainee driving instructor licence made on 8 August 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made taking account of representations made by the Appellant on 26 August 2025, namely, that his wife had been unwell, leading to him having additional caring responsibilities for her and their children [something he did not mention in his Notice of Appeal]. The Respondent’s decision was grounded on the Appellant not complying with the conditions of his first trainee licence, namely, failing to complete his ADI21AT training record not being completed within the first three months of the licence period, contrary to the provisions of Regulation 5(15)(3)(a) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 and Regulation 5(15)(6) of the Regulations, requiring satisfaction of supplementary training, including training in all matters specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, something again not addressed by the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal; that he had already been granted a trainee licence of 6 months duration to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test, that was, the Respondent submitted, more than an adequate period of time; that it was not the intention of Parliament that Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) candidates be issued trainee licences for however long it might take them to pass their Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system could not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts); that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing first trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal, providing him with a total trainee licence period of almost 14 months.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 14 October 2025, the Appellant confirmed that his Part 3 test was booked for 13 December 2025 [that took place but that was unsuccessful] and that a 2nd trainee licence would help him prepare for his [then] Part 3 test date and, significantly, he accepted the reasoning of the Respondent that had caused it to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 2nd trainee licence.

In its written submissions, the Respondent reiterated the above-mentioned submissions and, in addition, that the Appellant could undertake a training course or study and practise with an ADI or provide unpaid tuition in preparation for undertaking a Part 3 test – a course for which precedent existed.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a 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, 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 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 evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

The substantive reason for the decision under appeal was, in terms, the failure of the Appellant to comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence, that is, to submit his completed training record to the Respondent within three months of the commencement of his first trainee licence. There was nothing in the Appellant’s representations to the Respondent, nor in his written submissions in his Notice of Appeal to persuade the Tribunal otherwise.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.