Attique Ur Rehman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The Tribunal has considered this appeal brought by Attique Ur Rehman against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors dated 14 May 2025, refusing the Appellants application for a third trainee licence under Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . The appeal is dismissed. REASONS FOR DECISION

2. The Tribunal find that the Registrar's decision was lawful, reasonable, and proportionate, for the following reasons: Purpose of the Trainee Licence Scheme:

3. The Registrar correctly identified that the statutory scheme under Section 129 is designed to provide a limited opportunity for candidates to gain practical experience while preparing for the qualifying examinations. The Tribunal agree with the interpretation that it is not intended to serve as an alternative to registration or to allow indefinite instruction under a trainee licence.

4. The Tribunal note the Appellant has already benefited from two trainee licences spanning 12 months, which exceeds the standard six-month period typically afforded for gaining experience. Lack of Sufficient Progress :

5. The Tribunal find that the Appellant has not demonstrated sufficient progress toward qualification: a) He passed the Part 2 test on 8 February 2024. b) He failed the Part 3 instructional ability test twice (on 2 August 2024 and 31 January 2025). c) He cancelled two further Part 3 test attempts (scheduled for 12 June and 24 September 2025). d) A final attempt is scheduled for 1 December 2025. e) Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not reached the required standard for registration as an Approved Driving Instructor. No Evidence of Exceptional Circumstances :

6. The Appellant cited personal difficulties including a pilgrimage and housing disruption due to flooding. However the Registrar found no supporting evidence of lost training time or exceptional hardship that would justify a third licence. The Tribunal agrees that these circumstances, while unfortunate, do not warrant an extension beyond the standard licensing framework. Availability of Alternative Training Routes : \

7. The Tribunal note that the refusal of a third licence does not prevent the Appellant from continuing his preparation: a) He may still take the Part 3 test without holding a trainee licence. b) He may train with a registered instructor or attend a course. c) He may give unpaid tuition for practice purposes.

8. The Respondents confirm that these alternatives are commonly used by candidates who successfully qualify without ever holding a trainee licence. Regulatory Integrity:

9. The Tribunal note the Registrar’s decision reflects a legitimate concern that repeated trainee licences risk undermining the integrity of the registration system.

10. The Tribunal agrees that the licensing scheme must not be allowed to become a substitute for registration, and that the refusal was necessary to uphold the statutory purpose.

11. The appeal was listed for hearing on 07 November 2025 at 15.00 hours. The Tribunal administration had to contact the Appellant inviting attendance to the hearing at 15.00 hours as the Tribunal was waiting for the Appellants attendance. The Tribunal was then informed by the Appellant that attendance was not possible as the Appellant was busy on a school run and would not be attending. No notice of this had been given to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dealt the the appeal on the papers with reference to and consideration of the written Grounds of Appeal in the hearing bundle. Conclusion:

12. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s decision was properly founded in law and policy and was reasonable and proportionate. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the decision of 14 May 2025 is upheld. Brian Kennedy KC 10 November 2025.