UK case law
Syed Ali Raza Kazmi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
[2025] UKFTT GRC 1611 · First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Transport · 2025
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
1. This appeal was against a decision of the Respondent dated 8 October 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instruction licence.
2. On 22 October 2025, the Respondent made application that this appeal be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the Rules’) as having no reasonable prospects of success, since the Appellant, on 7 September 2023 passed his Part 1 test. Accordingly, since two years had expired, the Appellant was no longer eligible to book a Part 3 test. Pursuant to Regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the Regulations’), the Appellant would no longer require a trainee licence to aid preparation to take a Part 3 test (that is the sole purpose of a trainee licence) as he was no longer eligible to apply to take a Part 3 test. This application was copied, on the same day, to the Appellant.
3. In Case Management Directions dated 14 November 2025, issued by the Tribunal, the Appellant was advised that the Tribunal was considering striking out his appeal based on the Respondent’s said application and invited him to make representations by 28 November 2025 as to why his appeal should not be struck out or to confirm that he wished to withdraw his appeal.
4. The Appellant, by email dated 27 November 2025, made written representations opposing the Respondent’s application, asserting that he had been hindered from taking a successful Part 3 test by excessive waiting times for that test; that they lost two months training time due to their vehicle being damaged while parked; that they could not find an instructor for training and did not have enough time for practice lessons and pupils. They confirmed that they had failed a Part 3 test attempt.
5. However, based on the representations of the Respondent and the terms of the law, I grant the Respondent’s application in all the circumstances without further direction and strike out this appeal, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules. Signed Judge McMahon Date: 23 December 2025