Arifur Rahman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background and Introduction

1. This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 15.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence. No representative of the Respondent was in attendance. The Tribunal decided that, having regard to the overriding objective, and the interests of justice, this appeal could be decided in the absence of a representative of the Respondent.

2. This appeal was determined afresh by the Tribunal in a de novo hearing, while having regard, as required in law, to the position taken by the Respondent as the regulator tasked by Parliament to make decisions on, as in this case, whether or not to grant a trainee driving instructor licence.

3. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 11 August 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 1 July 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant in an email received on 21 July 2025, namely, that he had faced personal and professional difficulties in utilising his trainee licences to the optimum, namely, that his son had medical complications after his birth on 26 February 2025, before being discharged from medical care on 1 April 2025, and his trainer had taken ill and required surgery. In its said decision, the Respondent pointed out that the Appellant had already had the benefit of two trainee licences, being a period of 12 months, from 8 July 2024 to 7 July 2025 and that his then existing second trainee licence remained valid until this appeal was determined, thereby allowing the Appellant a total benefit of a trainee licence for over 19 months, no matter what the outcome of his appeal. This was a more than adequate period of time to enable the Appellant to prepare for his Part 3 test, despite the caring responsibilities faced by him and his trainer’s illness. The Respondent also, correctly, as a matter of law, submitted that the purpose of a trainee licence is solely to allow an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) the opportunity of gaining sufficient experience of providing driving instruction to members of the public to pass his Part 3 test. The Respondent, again correctly, pointed out that holding a trainee licence was not required in order to take a Part 3 test, not was refusal of a trainee licence a bar to undertaking that test. These latter submissions were accepted by the Appellant in his oral evidence. Notice of Appeal

4. In his Notice of Appeal dated 21 August 2025, the Appellant elaborated, in more detail, on his representations made to the Respondent. This, essentially, amounted to a submission that due to what, he submitted, were circumstances beyond his control, he was prevented from ‘completing’ his training during the periods of his first and second trainee licence, but that he remained committed to completing his preparation to take a Part 3 test but, he submitted, he required a third trainee licence to do so. This was decidedly not the case in law, a fact accepted by the Appellant in his oral evidence to the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Respondent was under a duty to grant him a third trainee licence as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 , that was proportionate and fair, as a carer of a child with medical needs. The Tribunal did not accept this submission in principle and, in any event, the Appellant’s said child, born on 26 February 2025, was discharged from medical care on 1 April 2025. The Appellant confirmed in his Notice of Appeal that he had continued training but wanted a third trainee licence ‘to complete his training and sit his Part 3 test’. However, this, again, was decidedly not a basis in law to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. ‘ Respondent’s Response

5. In their Response dated 2 December 2025, the Respondent reiterated the reasons for its decision as recorded in the notice of the decision. The Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant had failed his Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 2 January 2025 and 8 September 2025, respectively. The Appellant agreed with this fact in oral evidence. The Respondent also state that the Appellant had cancelled a booking for a Part 3 test on three occasions, namely, 15 April 2025, 25 April 2025 and 6 September 2025. The Appellant, in oral evidence, disputed that account, to some degree, but was rather vague in that regard. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found, as fact, that these cancellations had occurred. The Respondent also advised that the Appellant’s third, and final permitted attempt, to pass his Part 3 test would take place on 12 February2026 – four weeks from tomorrow. The Appellant, in oral evidence, agreed that this was correct. The Respondent pointed out, too, that, to continue his preparation to sit his final attempt to pass his Part 3 test, the Appellant could, for example, attend a training course or study and practise under an ADI or provide unpaid driving tuition, all of which were alternatives that were used by some trainees who passed a Part 3 test never having held a trainee licence. The Appellant, in oral evidence stated he had no money to undertake those alternatives and that he had no other source of income and that ‘it would be helpful to have a third trainee licence until the date of his third and final attempt at his Part 3 test’. This evidence, however, raised a spectre that the Appellant wished to use a trainee licence as a source of income: a trainee licence cannot be issued, and used, for such purpose. Appellant’s Oral Evidence

6. Much of what the Appellant said in his oral evidence has been addressed in preceding paraphs of these Reasons. However, he also stated, for the first time, that, around the time of the stated cancellations of his Part 3 tests, his wife, too, developed a medical problem – diabetes – resulting in him, in addition, having to care for three young children, and further, having to look after his parents who had travelled from Bangladesh at that time. However, the Tribunal found that neither these matters, nor any of the other matters raised by the Appellant in his written and oral evidence, provided any grounds to allow his appeal and grant him a third trainee licence, in circumstances where, in effect, he has had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 19 months. Conclusions

7. This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.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. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

8. The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test and that, in practical terms, the Appellant had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 19 months.

9. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such 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 procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

10. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

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

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.