Muhammad Usman Ibrahim v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2) (a) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 4 July 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference in this decision to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Non-attendance

3. In his appeal form the Appellant asked for the appeal to be decided with a hearing however neither party attended the appeal hearing. At the start of the appeal the Tribunal clerk called and spoke to the Appellant twice and re-sent the CVP link to him at his request. The gist of these calls was that he was "out and about", had some difficulty with technology, had not yet received the re-sent link, had a part 3 test on the 9 January 2026 (the day after the appeal hearing) and was not planning to attend but wanted to be given more time with a Licence if needed. No medical issue or other personal issue or emergency was put forward as a reason for his non-attendance.

4. I considered whether to proceed with or adjourn the appeal in light of the above, the overriding objective in rule 2 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and rule 36 2009 Rules which provides that:- "36. If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal— (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing."

5. I was satisfied from the calls made that he knew of the date and time for his appeal and could have attended by CVP if he had chosen to do so. I also concluded it would be in the interests of justice to proceed and it would not be dealing with the appeal "justly and fairly " to adjourn because:- (a) no application for an adjournment had been made by the Appellant. (b) the appeal had only been ongoing since July 2025 the parties were otherwise ready to proceed. (c) it would cause delay which was not needed to enable there to be a proper consideration of the issues.

6. Accordingly, after delaying the start of the appeal to give more time for the Appellant to join, I proceeded to deal with the appeal in the absence of the Appellant and the Registrar. Law

7. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

8. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

9. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This is granted "...for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct." A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not needed to be able to take part 3.

10. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so the he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

11. By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act :- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of." Role of the Tribunal

12. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act ...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

13. Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- ( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit.

14. In considering the appeal the Tribunal gives appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:- "45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."

15. The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Evidence and matters considered

16. For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 25 pdf pages. Chronology

17. I find as a fact that:- (a) on 12 March 2024 the Appellant passed part 1 and on 20 March 2024 he passed part 2. (b) on 27 May 2024 the Appellant was granted a first Licence. (c) in November 2024 the Appellant was granted a second Licence. (d) on 14 May 2025 the Appellant applied for a third Licence. (e) on 20 May 2025 a first attempt at part 3 was cancelled by the DVSA. (f) on 21 May 2025 the Registrar indicated he was considering refusing the third Licence about which on 27 May 2025 the Appellant made representations. (g) on 4 July 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse a third Licence.

18. This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 14 July 2025. Thereafter:- - (a) on 29 July 2025 the Appellant failed part 3 at this first attempt. (b) the Registrar provided a response on 1 December 2025. (c) a second test has been booked for 9 January 2026 (the day after this appeal hearing). (d) even if the Registrar had granted a third Licence that itself would have expired prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Appellant's position

19. In his representations (27 May 2025) and his appeal form (14 July 2025) the Appellant asked for more time with a Licence as his test on 20 May 2025 had been cancelled by DVSA and he had a new test date on 29 July 2025. He said (10) "I would like to have renewal of my badge so I can have a fair chance to attempt my 3 chances of ADI part 3. I have my first attempt scheduled on 29 July at 10am." The Registrar's position

20. The Registrar says in summary in his response that:- (a) the Appellant has provided " no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months." (b) a Licence is not to be used as an alternative to registration nor to give an applicant as "long as it takes" to pass part 3 while giving paid lessons. (c) the Appellant has already had 12 months with a Licence which is long enough to pass part 3 even though a test was cancelled by DVSA. (d) by section 129(6) the Appellant has continued with his Licence pending the outcome of this appeal. (e) one does not need a Licence to take part 3 and "The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all." Decision

21. I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's view and considered the proportionality of the Decision. The Registrar did consider the representations made and there was no material information provided about which the Registrar was not aware when making the Decision.

22. The Appellant has not given information about whether for example he had lost training time or why a period of about a year elapsed between getting a first Licence and having his first test date- which was in fairness was cancelled by the DVSA. He gave no information as to what caused the delay between the 1st date given (20 May 2025) and the second date on 9 January 2026. His case appears to be that he would like to have a Licence for the period up until when he takes and hopefully passes part 3. I also noted that:- (a) despite the third application being refused the Appellant had been able, since and despite the Decision, to continue as a paid driving instructor with the benefit of a Licence pending the outcome of this Appeal by section 129(6) of the Act . (b) the Appellant has, as at the date of this appeal, now had the benefit of a Licence since 27 May 2024 a period of just over 19 months. (c) had he been granted a third Licence it would have expired prior to the appeal hearing. (d) a Licence is not needed to be permitted to take part 3. (e) the statutory purpose for having a Licence is as set out in section 129(1) of the Act which does not include simply having one up until a successful attempt at part 3.

23. For these reasons t he Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 9 January 2026.