Sahiba Hamidi v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00694 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1479 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decision given on: 19 May 2026 Before JUDGE TAFT Between SAHIBA HAMIDI Appellant and REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The appeal is struck out REASONS

1. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). She was refused a second trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 10 December 2025. The Appellant appealed that decision.

2. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Only three attempts are allowed for each Part: the whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times. Regulation 3(4)(c) of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 confirms that the applicant must have applied to take the Part 3 test they ultimately pass within two years of passing the Part 1 test.

3. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act: ‘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… as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

4. This is commonly known as a trainee licence.

5. 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."

6. Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal.

7. Under Rule 8(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal may strike out a case where: (a) the Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them; (b) the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.

8. Under Rule 8(4) the Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.

9. On 26 February 2025, the Respondent filed a GRC5 inviting the Tribunal to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because it said that the Appellant had not applied to sit her Part 3 test within 2 years of passing her Part 1 test on 27 November 2023.

10. On 13 March 2026, Legal Officer Bringhurst directed the Appellant to provide representations as to why the appeal should not be struck out, or alternatively to confirm that she wished to withdraw her appeal, no later than 27 March 2026.

11. On 24 April 2026, Judge Muzaffer recognised that Legal Officer Bringhurst’s order may have caused confusion because it referred to failing three tests rather than failing to apply to sit a test within 2 years as the reason why the appeal might not have reasonable prospects of success. Judge Muzaffer ordered the Appellant to provide representations as to why the appeal should not be struck out, or alternatively to confirm that she wished to withdraw her appeal, no later than 6 May 2026.

12. The Tribunal has received no representations from the Appellant; neither has she confirmed that she wishes to withdraw the appeal.

13. Two limbs of Rule 8(3) are made out: (a) in failing to comply with directions, the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal; and (b) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case succeeding: as she has not applied for a Part 3 test within two years of passing Part 1, she must now start the process of qualification again. She is not entitled to a trainee licence because she cannot sit Part 3 until such time as she passes Parts 1 and

2. Signed:Date: 7 May 2026 Judge Taft