Noman Abdul Razzak v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00734 (GRC) Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1481 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Heard on 14 May 2026. Decision given on 20 May 2026 Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC Between: Noman Abdul Razzak 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 FOR DECISION Background:

1. This is an appeal brought by the Appellant, Mr Noman Abdul Razzak, against the decision of the Respondent, the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, dated 12 December 2025, refusing his application for the grant of a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

2. The statutory scheme regulates the provision of paid driving instruction. A person may not give such instruction unless registered as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) or authorised by way of a trainee licence.

3. The Appellant has not been admitted to the ADI Register, but he has previously been granted two trainee licences, which together enabled him to provide paid instruction over a period of approximately twelve months.

4. The present appeal concerns whether the Respondent erred in refusing a further (third) trainee licence. Chronology:

5. On 18 November 2024 the Appellant was granted a trainee licence, followed by a second licence, together covering a twelve-month period expiring on 17 November 2025.

6. The Appellant passed the Part 1 (theory) test on 22 May 2024 and subsequently attempted the Part 3 instructional ability test on 15 September 2025, which he failed.

7. On 13 November 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.

8. By letter dated 18 November 2025 the Respondent indicated that he was minded to refuse the application and invited representations.

9. The Appellant provided representations on 30 November 2025, relying in particular upon a back condition, periods of absence from training, and difficulties in accessing training support.

10. On 12 December 2025 the Respondent refused the application.

11. The Appellant has a further Part 3 test booked for 20 April 2026. = Issues:

12. The principal issues for determination are: (a) Whether the Respondent correctly understood and applied the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime; (b) Whether the Respondent’s refusal of a third trainee licence was a lawful exercise of discretion; (c) Whether the Appellant established exceptional or compelling circumstances justifying departure from the usual approach and, (d) Whether the decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair. The Relevant Law: a) Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction unless the instructor is either registered as an ADI or holds a current trainee licence. b) Section 129 provides for the grant of trainee licences and permits the Respondent to refuse such an application. c) The purpose of the trainee licence scheme is to provide a temporary and limited opportunity for applicants to gain practical experience while preparing for qualification, and not to operate as an indefinite alternative to registration. d) The Respondent is entitled to take into account, amongst other matters: (i) the number of licences already granted; (ii) the time already available to the applicant; (iii) examination progress and performance; and (iv) evidence of exceptional circumstances affecting training.

13. The Tribunal’s function is not to substitute its own view but to determine whether the decision under appeal involved an error of law or was unlawful, unfair, or irrational. Discussion and Findings: (A) Statutory purpose and approach

14. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s characterisation of the statutory scheme. The trainee licence regime is designed to provide a limited period of supervised experience to enable progression towards qualification and is not intended to permit extended or repeated use as a substitute for registration.

15. The Respondent was entitled to adopt that approach as a starting point for the exercise of discretion. (B) Time and opportunity

16. The Appellant has had the benefit of two trainee licences covering approximately twelve months.

17. The Respondent was entitled to regard that period as sufficient opportunity to progress to the required standard, particularly in circumstances where the scheme envisages a limited duration for such licences. Progress towards qualification

18. The Appellant has passed Part 1 but has failed the Part 3 instructional ability test.

19. The Respondent was entitled to take into account that, despite the time afforded by two licences, the Appellant had not yet demonstrated the standard required for entry onto the ADI Register. The Appellant’s grounds: training and exceptional circumstances

20. The Appellant’s principal ground of appeal was that he had been unable to benefit fully from training, including by reason of a back condition, absences from training, and issues with trainer availability.

21. The Tribunal accepts that such matters, if established and supported by cogent evidence, could in principle amount to exceptional circumstances.

22. However, the Respondent found that the Appellant had not provided sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate the extent or impact of those matters.

23. The Tribunal notes in particular: (a) the absence of medical evidence demonstrating the severity or duration of the asserted condition; (b) limited corroboration of the asserted interruption to training; and (c) the fact that some documentary material did not clearly evidence the duration or relevance of absences.

24. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to conclude that the Appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the grant of a third licence.

25. The Tribunal further accepts the Respondent’s submission that the inability to obtain preferred or optimal training arrangements, whilst unfortunate, does not of itself constitute an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of the statutory scheme. Availability of alternative routes

26. The Respondent also took into account that the refusal of a further trainee licence does not preclude the Appellant from continuing to pursue qualification, including by undertaking further training or attempting the Part 3 test without holding such a licence.

27. That was a relevant and permissible consideration and further supports the lawfulness of the decision. Fairness and proportionality

28. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant was afforded a fair opportunity to make representations before the decision was taken.

29. The Respondent considered those representations and provided reasons for the decision.

30. The decision cannot properly be characterised as disproportionate. It reflects the statutory objective of maintaining standards and ensuring that the trainee licence regime is not used as an open-ended alternative to qualification. Conclusion:

31. The Tribunal is satisfied that: (a) the Respondent correctly directed himself as to the law and purpose of the statutory scheme;(b) the Respondent took into account relevant considerations and did not take into account irrelevant matters;(c) the Respondent was entitled to conclude that no exceptional circumstances were established; and(d) the decision was not unlawful, unfair, or unreasonable.

32. The Appellant’s grounds, including the complaint regarding the adequacy of training, do not disclose any error of law or other basis upon which the Tribunal can properly interfere with the Respondent’s decision. Decision:

33. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Brian Kennedy KC 15 May 2026.