Yahia Osman Gani Lukman Hakeem v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing.

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 13 November 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 14 October 2025. No representations were made by the Appellant in advance of the decision under appeal being made, despite their being invited to make representations, on the grounds that the Appellant had been granted two trainee licences, covering a period of 12 months in total, from 4 November 2024 to 3 November 2025, to gain any necessary practical experience of driving tuition and to reach the qualifying standard to pass their Part 3 test, a time considered to be a very reasonable for that purpose. The Respondent also maintained, correctly, that in making his decision, refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent them undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts); that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal providing them, therefore, in effect, with a total trainee licence period of more than 16 months.

3. In their Notice of Appeal dated 17 November 2025, the Appellant incorrectly referred to the decision under appeal being an application for a second trainee licence, rather than for a third trainee licence. They referred to pursuing a professional driving instructor career provided a flexible, independent career; that they were passionate to teach driving instruction safety; that they had received consistent, positive feedback from pupils who described the Appellant as ‘patient, supportive and adaptable to their individual needs; that they, the Appellant, was the sole earner in their household and was, therefore, financially reliant on pursuing this profession; that refusal of their application for a third trainee licence would cause significant hardship for them and their family; that no ‘training sessions’ had been cancelled or postponed by them; that he had experienced difficulty in securing a date for his Part 3 test (now scheduled for 8 January 2026); that they had no health issues and were fully committed to completing their training and becoming a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’). However, the grounds advanced by the Appellant did not, in fact, address the reasons advanced by the Respondent for the decision under appeal.

4. The Respondent, in his Response dated 17 November 2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, he submitted that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to the ADI registration system; that a trainee licence is not to enable an applicant to teach driving instruction for so long as it takes them to pass their Part 3 test; that the Appellant had failed their Part 3 test twice (28 May 2025 and 8 January 2026), their third and final attempt arranged for 26 March 2025 (in respect of which no notification of the outcome has been provided by the Appellant nor the Respondent), and had cancelled a Part 3 test twice, arranged for 28 April 2025 and 16 June 2025, and that the Appellant could obtain further training by attending a training course, or studying and practising under an ADI, or by providing unpaid tuition.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.