Toqir Ahmed Mirza 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 13 January 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 24 November 2026 for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by letter received on 29 November 2025, on the grounds that there was no evidence provided by the Appellant of him having lost training time during the period of his second trainee licence (in comparison to the position during the period of his first trainee licence); that he had already been granted two trainee licences for the period 2 December 2024 to 1 December 2025, for the purpose of 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 was considered to be a more than adequate period of time; 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 three 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 Notice of Appeal dated 22 January 2026, the Appellant reiterated his representations to the Respondent (in particular, a stated lack of availability of Part 3 test dates) but elaborated further, stating that he had continued teaching and investing in his professional training and improving his skills set, but that progress had been slower than planned, but that he was committed to becoming a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’). He concluded by stating that he wished to be granted a 3rd trainee licence to get more training to prepare for his Part 3 test [but holding a trainee licence is not required to take a Part 3 test, nor to obtain any training thought necessary].

The Respondent, in his Response dated 3 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 twice and had cancelled a booked Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 5 January 2026 and 8 May 2025 and that his final permitted attempt at a Part 3 test booked for 13 May 2026.

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

There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.