Sandeep Mudhar v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Registrar dated 28 July 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instructor licence is confirmed . REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction and Hearing

1. This appeal was listed for hearing on 11 February 2026.

2. The Appellant did not attend. When contacted by the Tribunal, he stated that he did not intend to proceed with the appeal.

3. The Tribunal was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been properly given. In accordance with rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (GRC) Rules 2009, the Tribunal considered it fair and just to proceed in the Appellant’s absence.

4. I had read the full bundle, including the Registrar’s Statement and determined the appeal on the papers. documentary evidence.

5. The Appellant has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

6. He previously held two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , valid from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, allowing him to obtain practical experience towards the ADI qualifying examinations (Bundle D1).

7. On 27 June 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence (Bundle D2).

8. On 1 July 2025, the Registrar gave notice that refusal was being considered, inviting representations (Bundle D3).

9. On 13 July 2025, the Appellant responded, citing: a) limited variety of pupils due to sponsor availability; b) constraints caused by caring responsibilities for his parents.

10. On 28 July 2025, after considering the representations, the Registrar refused the application (Bundle D5).

11. The Registrar’s decision relied on:

1. the statutory purpose of trainee licences;

2. the Appellant already having had 12 months of trainee licence entitlement;

3. the extensive test history showing two failed Part 3 tests and five cancellations (Annex A);

4. the fact that the Appellant did not require a trainee licence to undertake further training or attempt the Part 3 examination. The Issues

12. The Tribunal’s role is to consider whether the Registrar’s decision was correct, based on the evidence available at the time of the decision.

13. The key issues are:

14. Whether the Registrar erred in refusing a third trainee licence;

15. Whether the Appellant’s circumstances required the Registrar to exercise discretion differently;

16. Whether the statutory purpose of section 129 licences supports or undermines the Appellant’s position. Relevant Law

14. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless on the Register or holding a licence under section 129 .

15. Section 129 enables the Registrar to issue a temporary trainee licence solely for the purpose of gaining practical experience required to attempt the qualifying tests.

16. The Registrar has a broad discretion to issue or refuse such a licence, guided by its intended temporary and facilitative purpose.

17. The Tribunal may uphold or overturn the decision but does not substitute its own discretion unless the Registrar’s decision was wrong in law or unsupported by the evidence. Findings Failure to attend and abandonment of the appeal

18. The Appellant expressly confirmed that he did not wish to pursue the appeal.

19. Even if the Tribunal were to consider the merits in full, the evidence leads to the same outcome. Statutory purpose of a trainee licence

20. The Registrar was entitled to emphasise that: • trainee licences are not a long-term alternative to full ADI registration; • twelve months of trainee entitlement is ordinarily more than adequate to gain necessary experience.

21. The Appellant had already benefitted from two consecutive six-month licences , amounting to 12 months of practical opportunity. The Appellant’s examination record

22. The evidence shows: • Part 1 passed (20 May 2024). • Part 2 passed (28 May 2024). • Part 3 instructional ability : ◦ failed twice (29 Aug 2024; 18 Feb 2025), ◦ cancelled five further tests, ◦ one DVSA cancellation.

23. The Registrar was entitled to conclude that, despite ample opportunity, the Appellant had not reached the required standard. Representations regarding caring responsibilities

24. The Registrar considered these representations but noted that the medical evidence provided related mainly to future appointments and did not demonstrate a lack of training opportunity or pupil availability.

25. The Tribunal finds this reasoning rational and adequately supported. Availability of alternative routes to qualification

26. It is correct that a trainee licence is not required to prepare for or attempt the Part 3 examination.

27. The Appellant retains the ability to train with an ADI, attend courses, or practise without reward. Conclusion

28. The Appellant’s decision not to pursue the appeal reinforces the appropriateness of disposing of the matter summarily.

29. Independently, on the merits, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar acted within the proper exercise of discretion and that the decision was correct. T he appeal is dismissed. Brian Kennedy KC 11 February 2026.