[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Chauhdry v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 364 (GRC) (27 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/364.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 364 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

		Decided without a hearing
		Decision Given On: 27 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.

The Decision of the Respondent dated 31 October 2024 is confirmed.

REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Registrar) on 31 October 2024 to refuse his application for a third trainee licence. The appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, with the agreement of the parties.
2. The appellant had been granted two trainee licences.
3. On 24 September 2024 the respondent notified the appellant that consideration was being given to refusing his application. He was invited to make representations.
4. The appellant responded the same day. The Tribunal has not had sight of this response, but it is referred to in the respondent's decision notice.
5. The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 31 October 2024:

a. The appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences for a period of 12 months, which is considered a more than adequate period of time to gain sufficient experience to pass the Part 3 test.

b. The appellant would have been aware of his other commitments when applying to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

c. Parliament's intention was not to licence candidates for as long as it takes them to pass the examination.

d. The trainee licence must not become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified ADI.

e. It is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to sit the part 3 examination.

6. The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 11 November 2024. In his notice of appeal, the appellant does not explain why he considers that the respondent's decision is wrong. He states that while he accepted the responsibility of balancing his commitments upon applying, his full-time studies have affected his availability and ability to focus on passing the final examination. He says that a third trainee licence would allow him to devote the necessary time and effort to complete his qualification. He notes that despite not passing the final examination at the date of appeal he has invested considerable time and resources in enhancing his teaching skills and road safety knowledge (though no evidence of this was provided), which he says underscores his commitment to becoming an ADI. He states that a further trainee licence would allow him to hone his instructional skills to meet the required standard.
7. The respondent in its response reiterated the above reasons for refusal. In addition, it noted that the appellant has failed to provide any evidence of training time lost during his second licence period.
8. The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
9. The appellant's right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal will make a fresh decision on the evidence before it and may make such order as it thinks fit.
10. It is for the appellant to show on balance of probabilities that the respondent's decision was wrong.
11. The essence of the respondent's decision is that the appellant has been provided, under his previous two licences, with more than adequate time to sit the required tests to become an ADI. The appellant has already had two trainee licences, and because the application for his third licence was made before the expiry of his second licence, he has had the benefit of a continuing licence while his appeal has been pending during which period the appellant could continue to provide instruction. After determination of this appeal, the Appellant can continue to provide driving instruction so long as it is without payment, if he considers that he needs further experience before sitting the test.
12. The appellant cites his full-time studies as a reason why he has not been able to devote sufficient time to his preparation for the requisite examinations to become an ADI. However, he also acknowledges that he understood that his was his responsibility to balance competing commitments when he took on the trainee licence, so the Tribunal was not satisfied that this is sufficient to make the respondent's decision wrong.
13. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has taken into account all the evidence submitted to it in advance of the hearing and considered all the circumstances relevant to this appeal.
14. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has not persuaded it that the Registrar's decision was wrong in any way and accordingly dismisses the appeal.

Signed Judge Harris

Date: 27 March 2025