Thuraisingham Antony Maheshwaren v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction:

1. This is an appeal by Mr Thuraisingam Antony Maheshwaran (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”), dated 9 September 2025, refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. The Tribunal has before it the complete appeal bundle, including: the Notice of Appeal; the Registrar’s Statement prepared under rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009; copies of the Appellant’s two previous trainee licences; the application for a third licence; the Registrar’s invitation to make representations; the Appellant’s representations; the Registrar’s decision letter; and the Appellant’s test history. The Law:

3. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits an individual from giving paid driving instruction unless that person is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or holds a current trainee licence issued under section 129 .

4. Section 129(1) enables the Registrar to issue a trainee licence for six months to allow an applicant to obtain practical instructional experience prior to attempting the instructional ability (Part 3) test.

5. The statutory purpose of trainee licences is to provide a limited, temporary period of supervised practical experience, not an alternative route to registration or a means for repeated extensions while attempting the qualifying examinations.

6. The Registrar must exercise discretion lawfully, for the proper purpose of the Act , taking into account relevant factors, disregarding irrelevant ones, and reaching a decision that is not irrational. Chronology:

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

8. He previously held two trainee licences, covering the total period 15 July 2024 to 14 July 2025.

9. On 1 July 2025, he applied for a third trainee licence. By email dated 15 July 2025, the Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations regarding a potential refusal. The Appellant responded on 14 August 2025, stating that he had lost training time due to knee pain and was awaiting an operation.

10. The Appellant’s test history includes: (a) two failed Part 3 instructional ability tests (December 2024 and April 2025); (b) five Part 3 tests cancelled by the Appellant himself (January–November 2025); (c) one cancellation by DVSA (September 2024); and (d) a further attempt awaiting an available date.

11. The Registrar refused the application for a third licence on the basis that: (a) the Appellant had already benefited from 12 months of trainee licensing; (b) the purpose of the licensing regime is not to allow indefinite attempts at qualification but to provide limited experience prior to the test; (c) the evidence supplied in support of the alleged medical limitation did not demonstrate actual or significant loss of training time; (d) the Appellant had ample opportunity to reach the required standard but had made insufficient progress; and (e) the Appellant could continue training without a trainee licence and could still undertake the Part 3 test. REASONS The Appellant’s appeal:

12. The Appellant contends that medical difficulties reduced his ability to prepare adequately and that he requires a further trainee licence to complete his training and achieve the required standard. The Registrars Response:

13. The Registrar submits that the Appellant has already received more than adequate opportunity to gain experience, that the Appellant’s own actions (particularly repeated cancellations) account for much of the delay, and that the statutory purpose of trainee licensing would be undermined if further extensions were granted without compelling justification.

14. The Appellant held two trainee licences covering the period 15 July 2024 to 14 July 2025. He applied for a third licence on 1 July 2025. The Registrar sought representations (D3), which he provided on 14 August 2025 (D4), stating that knee pain had limited his training time.

15. The Test history indicates: ◦ Two failed Part 3 attempts (Dec 2024; Apr 2025). ◦ Five cancellations by the Appellant (Jan–Nov 2025). ◦ One cancellation by DVSA. ◦ A pending final attempt.

16. The Registrar refused the application on the basis of: (i) the statutory purpose of trainee licences, (ii) the 12 months of experience already granted, (iii) lack of progress and repeated cancellations, and (iv) availability of alternative means of training. Deliberation:

17. The Tribunal accepts the Registrar’s interpretation of the legislative purpose: trainee licences are intended to offer limited experience prior to the Part 3 test, not repeated extensions to accommodate repeated failure or discontinuity in training.

18. The Appellant has already received double the ordinary period of professional experience available to trainees and has not progressed to the requisite standard.

19. While the Appellant cites medical issues, the evidence supplied does not substantiate a loss of training time of such magnitude as would make refusal unlawful or unreasonable.

20. The Registrar was correct to consider the Appellant’s pattern of self-cancellations, which materially contributed to his lack of progress.

21. The Tribunal notes that the Appellant can continue preparing for his remaining test attempt without a trainee licence and can lawfully take the Part 3 test without holding one.

22. On close examination of the Registrars decision the Tribunal note the following; the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration; the refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. 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. It should also be noted that the Appellant has his final attempt at the instructional ability test booked but awaiting an available date. Should the test go ahead, then the regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test. Conclusion:

23. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar took into account all relevant considerations, excluded irrelevant ones, gave proper reasons, and that the decision falls well within the range of reasonable responses.

24. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal concludes that the Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was lawful, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the statutory scheme.

25. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Right to Apply for Permission to Appeal:

26. Any party wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) must first apply for permission to appeal. Such application must be received by the Tribunal within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to the parties. Judge Brian Kennedy KC. 19 January 2026.