Rana Ejaz Ahmed v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal dismiss the appeal . The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld . REASONS FOR DECISION Background:

1. Under section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , a person may not give paid driving instruction unless they are either on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or hold a valid trainee licence issued under section 129. REASONS

2. The Appellant has never been registered as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). He has previously held two trainee licences , valid from 17 August 2024 to 18 August 2025 , issued for the purpose of gaining experience to prepare for the ADI qualification examinations.

3. On 14 August 2025 , the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence . The Registrar issued an invitation to provide representations on that application, noting concerns about whether the statutory criteria were met. The Appellant did not provide representations.

4. On 1 September 2026 , the Registrar refused the third-licence application and issued a detailed written decision. The Registrar set out four primary reasons, including the absence of exceptional circumstances, the purpose of the trainee-licence regime, the Appellant’s test history, and the fact that a trainee licence is not required to sit a further Part 3 test.

5. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal by Notice of Appeal contained in the bundle. Chronology of Key Events: Date Event 04 June 2024 Passed Part 1 test 04 July 2024 Passed Part 2 test 17 Aug 2024 First trainee licence granted 2024–2025 Multiple Part 3 tests booked and four cancelled (15 Nov, 18 Nov, 4 Dec, 11 Dec 2024) 06 Aug 2025 Part 3 test failed 14 Aug 2025 Application for third trainee licence submitted 01 Sept 2026 Registrar refuses third licence 13 Feb 2026 Further Part 3 attempt failed 20 Feb 2026 Registrar’s Statement completed The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction and the Statutory Framework:

6. Section 129 permits the Registrar to issue a trainee licence for the limited purpose of obtaining practical instructional experience in preparation for the Register examinations. The statutory purpose is not to provide an indefinite or ongoing right to work as an instructor.

7. It is well established in the Registrar’s published policies (summarised in the Decision Letter) that: (a) A trainee licence is normally limited to a single six-month period , extendable once in exceptional circumstances. (b) A third licence will only be granted where the Appellant demonstrates exceptional circumstances showing why additional supervised experience is justified. The Issues:

8. The Tribunal identified two central issues: (a) Whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong , applying the Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction under section 133 of the Act . (b) Whether the Appellant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying a third trainee licence. Submissions of the Parties: The Appellant’s Submissions;

9. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal does not identify any specific exceptional circumstances. He appears to contend: (a) That he requires additional training time. (b) That further opportunities to sit the Part 3 test should be facilitated. (c) That he remains willing to improve and eventually qualify.

10. No documentary evidence was provided of any loss of training time, medical issues, family circumstances, or external factors preventing progression. Registrar’s Submissions;

11. The Registrar relies on the statement at pages 14–16 of the bundle, emphasising: (a) Purpose limitation : The system must not become an alternative to registration. (b) Sufficient opportunity already provided : The Appellant has already held two licences totalling 12 months of permitted teaching. (c) Test history : One pass at Part 1; One pass at Part 2; Two failed Part 3 tests; Four cancelled Part 3 tests; A further fail on 13 February 2026. (d) No exceptional circumstances : No explanation for delays or repeated cancellations. (e) Ability to continue training without a licence : A trainee licence is not required to take further Part 3 tests. (f) Statutory bar : Once final attempts are taken, the licence cannot serve its statutory purpose. Discussion:

12. The Appellant has provided no evidence of exceptional circumstances. The burden lies on the Appellant to demonstrate why a third licence is justified. The Tribunal finds: (a) No representations were provided to the Registrar despite an invitation. (b) No evidence is contained in the Notice of Appeal explaining illness, bereavement, lack of pupils, training interruption, or similar circumstances. (c) The Registrar expressly found “ no evidence to show a loss of training time ”. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal cannot lawfully substitute its own speculation. 13.The Appellant has already received generous training opportunity; (a) Two full trainee licences totalling 12 months —double the standard period. (b) The continuation of the second licence under the “ pending appeal ” rule, allowing ongoing instruction. (c) There is no statutory presumption in favour of third licences.

14. Persistent cancellation and failure to reach the required standard The Appellant’s test history shows a pattern ; (a) Four cancelled Part 3 tests without explanation. (b) Two failed Part 3 attempts , including most recently on 13 February 2026 . The Tribunal accepts the Registrar’s assessment that the Appellant has had “ample time and opportunity” to reach the required standard.

15. A trainee licence is not required to take the final Part 3 test and t he Registrar correctly stated that a licence is not required to train or to sit a Part 3 test. The Appellant therefore suffers no procedural or substantive prejudice from the refusal of a third licence.

16. The Registrar applied the correct legal test and gave sound and precise reasons. The Decision Letter and Statement clearly set out: (a) The statutory purpose of trainee licences; (b) The factual history; (c) The absence of exceptional circumstances; (d) The alternative training routes available; (e) The test history supporting the conclusion that a further licence would not serve the statutory purpose.

17. The Tribunal accepts those reasons as correct and comprehensive. Conclusion:

18. The Tribunal finds: (a) The Appellant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances justifying the issue of a third trainee licence. (b) The Registrar’s reasoning was fair , precise, proportionate and fully aligned with the statutory framework . The Registrar was entitled and correct to refuse the application.

19. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 03 March 2026.