Can Togay Isikli v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing, at the request of the Appellant, there being no objection from the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 12 January 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 14 November 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 there was no evidence provided by the Appellant of him having lost training time; that he had already been granted two trainee licences for the period 2 December 2024 to 1 December 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 his 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 his 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 him 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 him, therefore, in effect, with a total trainee licence period of more than 16 months.

In his undated Notice of Appeal, reiterated his representations to the Respondent but elaborated further, stating that there was a lack of dates for Part 3 tests and that he had booked a Part 3 test that was ‘on hold’. He advised that he had failed an attempt at passing a Part 3 test due to, he submitted, some difficulties with his previous trainer and that, due to the time required by him to identify a new trainer, he had only one remaining opportunity to attempt to pass his Part 3 test [accepting, therefore, that he had, in fact, failed two attempts to pass his Part 3 test]. He stated that should he be granted a third trainee licence it was his intention to use that period to properly prepare to pass his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test, submitting that this demonstrated that he was genuine to attempt to reach the ADI qualifying standard. He disputed, therefore, that he had not provided evidence of lost training time.

The Appellant also submitted a undated written statement purporting to show, in greater detail, that he had, in fact, lost training time, due to difficulties with his former trainer. This was supported by an undated submission from the Appellant’s current, new, trainer, stating that the Appellant was almost ready to take his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test and submitted, on that basis, that the Appellant be granted a third trainee licence

The Respondent, in his Response dated 30 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 had also not provided any evidence of a lack of pupils; that the Appellant had, indeed, failed two attempts to pass his Part 3 test, on 9 April 2025 and 26 September 2025, respectively, and that he could obtain further training by attending a training course, or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid tuition.

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

I am not persuaded that the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, are such

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.