Najim Akhtar v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 7 January 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 6 October 2025 for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by letter received on 30 November 2025, on the grounds that the Appellant had provided no evidence of lost training time; that she had already been granted two trainee licences for the period 13 November 2024 to 27 November 2025, that was considered to be a more than adequate period of time for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience in driving tuition to pass a Part 3 test and so become entitled to have her name entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’); that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took a trainee to pass her Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative registration as a fully-qualified ADI. The Respondent also maintained, correctly, that in making his decision, refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent her undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts); that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal providing her, therefore, in effect, with a total trainee licence period of almost 17 months.

In her Notice of Appeal, the Appellant submitted that the decision of the Respondent did not fully reflect the circumstances that affected her ability to complete a Part 3 test within the period of her first two trainee licences, namely, a stated limited availability of her supervising instructor during the period on her 2nd trainee licence; that there were periods when lessons or supervised sessions could not take place as planned that were outside her control; a limited availability of Part 3 test dates during the period of her 2nd trainee licence; that there were periods, too, during the period of her 2nd trainee licence, when her training vehicle was unavailable due to mechanical issues and compliance requirements that prevented practical training taking place, causing an unavoidable loss of training time and that there were delays in receiving the ‘structured feedback and guidance on progression requirements’. He also submitted that she sought a 3rd trainee licence solely to ‘allow [her] a fair opportunity to complete the qualification process’; that she understood that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an ADI. He stated that she had only had one attempt to pass her Part 3 test [but, in fact, she had failed in two attempts to pass her Part 3 test] but ‘was eligible to have three attempts if required’. [If by this, the Appellant was suggesting that she required to hold a trainee licence in order to take a Part 3 test up to the maximum permitted three attempts, this was wrong in law]. She also relied on a stated lack of availability of Part 3 test dates [something that was not a basis for granting, in this case, or in any case, a 3rd trainee licence]. It was this submission that the Appellant essentially relied upon in her representations to the Respondent against his intention to refuse her application for a third trainee licence.

The Respondent, in his Response dated 19 March 2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, he submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training by undertaking a training course, or studying and practising under an ADI or proving unpaid tuition; that the Appellant had failed their Part 3 test once and had her final permitted attempt to pass her Part 3 test booked on hold awaiting a date. [The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had also, previously, been granted a trainee licence for the period 23 March 2020 to 22 June 2020].

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision were the reasons set out in his decision notice, reiterated in his Response document.

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

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.