Jignesh M. Pankhania v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00733 (GRC) Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1359 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Heard on: 14 May 2026. Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC Between: Jignesh M. Pankhania Appellant and The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors Respondent DECISION NOTICE The Tribunal dismiss the appeal. The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld. REASONS Background:

1. This is an appeal brought under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the decision of the Respondent, dated 3 December 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instructor licence.

2. The Appellant is not and has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

3. The Appellant previously held two trainee licences, granted to enable him to gain experience in providing instruction whilst preparing for qualification. Those licences covered a period of approximately twelve months.

4. On 30 October 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. That application was refused by the Respondent after consideration of representations made by the Appellant. Chronology:

5. The relevant chronology is as follows: (i) The Appellant was granted two trainee licences valid between November 2024 and November 2025. (ii) On 30 October 2025 he applied for a further (third) trainee licence. (iii) On 6 November 2025 the Respondent notified the Appellant that refusal was being considered, and invited representations. (iv) The Appellant responded the same day, referring to difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test. (v) By decision dated 3 December 2025 the Respondent refused the application. (vi) The Appellant lodged a notice of appeal to this Tribunal. (vii) The appeal was listed for hearing on 14 May 2026. (viii) On 13 May 2026 the Appellant applied for an adjournment on the basis that through no fault on the part of the Respondent he had only just become aware of the hearing and had pre-existing work commitments. (ix) The application for adjournment was refused. The Appellant did not attend. (x) The Tribunal in the exercise of its own discretion proceeded to determine the appeal on the papers. The Issues:

6. The issues for determination are whether the Respondent’s refusal of a third trainee licence was wrong in law or fact or involved an improper exercise of discretion.

7. In particular, the Tribunal must consider whether the Respondent’s reasoning, including the purpose of the statutory licensing regime and the Appellant’s individual circumstances, justifies the refusal. Relevant Law:

8. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that a person may not give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car unless they are either registered as an Approved Driving Instructor or hold a current trainee licence.

9. Section 129 of the Act provides for the grant of trainee licences to enable individuals to gain practical experience in giving instruction.

10. The statutory scheme makes clear that trainee licences are intended as a temporary measure, enabling applicants to gain limited practical experience while progressing towards qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.

11. The Tribunal must therefore consider the purpose of the legislation, namely that the licensing regime is not to be used as an alternative to obtaining full registration. Consideration of the Adjournment Application:

12. On the 14 May by telephone the Appellant again applied for an adjournment just shortly before the hearing, stating that notice of the hearing had come to his attention only the day before, allegedly due to correspondence being diverted to a spam folder, and that he had work commitments which prevented attendance.

13. The Tribunal was not satisfied that these matters justified an adjournment. The Appellant bore responsibility for ensuring that he monitored communications from the Tribunal.

14. The reasons advanced did not demonstrate that it was unfair to proceed in his absence, particularly given that it was evident the appeal could properly be determined on the documentary evidence.

15. The application was therefore refused and the Tribunal proceeded under rule

31. Findings and Reasons:

16. Having considered all of the evidence in the bundle and the written materials, the Tribunal finds that the appeal discloses no substantive merit.

17. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s undisputed evidence that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences, providing approximately twelve months’ opportunity to gain experience and prepare for qualification.

18. The Tribunal further accepts that: (i) The purpose of the trainee licence regime is to provide a limited opportunity to gain experience, not to permit indefinite instruction for remuneration. (ii) The Appellant has not yet achieved the required standard to pass the instructional ability test and has not taken that test despite having had sufficient time and opportunity to do so. (iii) The grant of a further licence would be inconsistent with the intention of the statutory scheme and would risk the trainee licence system being used as a substitute for registration.

19. The Tribunal also accepts that the Appellant is not precluded from continuing his efforts to qualify. He may undertake further training and attempt the relevant examinations without holding a trainee licence.

20. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal, including reference to difficulties in obtaining a test date, do not materially undermine the Respondent’s reasoning. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent took those matters into account and was entitled to conclude that they did not justify the grant of a further licence.

21. In substance, the appeal amounts to a disagreement with the proper application of the statutory scheme rather than the identification of any error of law, fact, or principle. Conclusion:

22. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent’s decision was reasonable, fair, lawful, rational, and consistent with the statutory purpose of the licensing regime.

23. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Brian Kennedy KC 15 May 2026.