{"id":567920,"date":"2026-04-15T12:06:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T10:06:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T12:06:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T10:06:42","slug":"kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","title":{"rendered":"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (\u201cthe Registrar\u201d) made on 4 July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. 2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the \u201cAct\u201d). These ran for a year between dates which are not specified in the appeal papers. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence (on a date also not specified in the papers) but this application was refused by the Registrar on 4 July 2025. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar\u2019s decision. 3. The Appeal was brought on 17 July 2025. The grounds of the appeal can be summarised succinctly. The Appellant brought the appeal because due to a family emergency and their full time employment they had not had sufficient time to acquire the necessary experience and skills to pass their Part 3 test of instructional ability (the \u201cPart 3 test\u201d). The limited number of pupils whom they had taught were not available for their proposed Part 3. This meant that the Appellant had postponed their planned Part 3 test of instructional ability and that a further test had been placed \u201con hold\u201d. Accordingly, the Appellant sought a renewal of their trainee licence for a further time to allow the Appellant to continue to give paid instruction. 4. The Appeal was opposed by the Registrar on 8 September 2025. The Registrar contended that the Appellant had already had sufficient time to gain the necessary experience to pass the Part 3 test. 5. On 18 November 2025, the Registrar applied to strike out the appeal. This was on the basis that the Appellant had passed their Part 1 test on 3 October 2023, but had not booked a further Part 3 test and therefore as a consequence of the provisions in r.3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the \u201cDriving Instruction Regulations\u201d), the Appellant would now not be able to book another Part 3 test. The Hearing 6. The hearing was listed to held by CVP at 16.00 on 9 December 2025. The parties were informed of the hearing mode, date and time by email from the Tribunal dated 3 September 2025 which was sent to the email address the Appellant provided on their appeal documents. The Appellant did not attend at 16.00 for the hearing. 7. The Tribunal\u2019s clerk attempted to contact the Appellant on the telephone number provided at 16.00. The Tribunal\u2019s clerk spoke with the Appellant a few minutes later. The Appellant confirmed that they would not be attending and that they would probably send a notice of withdrawal. In these circumstances, and in light of what I set out below, I decided it was appropriate to cancel the hearing. 8. I have considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant in accordance with r.36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended) (the \u201cGRC Rules\u201d). I am satisfied that both parties have been notified of the hearing. I also consider that is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant\u2019s absence. The interests of justice require the fair and efficient allocation of the Tribunal\u2019s resources. In the absence of any explanation from the Appellant as to their failure to attend the hearing, I consider that I should now proceed to determine the case on the papers and have done so. The law 9. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of the Act and the Driving Instruction Regulations. 10. A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted, \u201cfor 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\u2026 as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct\u201d. 11. In order to qualify as an ADI, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This is made up of: the written examination (Part 1); the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted at each part. 12. The Part 3 test which the trainee must pass to qualify must be booked within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken \u2013 see r.3(4)(c) and (d) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. 13. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence. 14. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar\u2019s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar\u2019s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Discussion and Conclusion 15. The evidence before the Tribunal is that on 3 October 2025, two years had elapsed since the Appellant had passed their Part 1 test. The Appellant\u2019s grounds of appeal also refer to this anticipated elapse of time in October 2025. 16. The Registrar\u2019s evidence is that the Appellant did not have a booked a Part 3 test when this two year period elapsed at the start of October 2025. The Appellant has not disputed this since the strike out application was made. 17. I am mindful that before an appeal can be struck out under r.8(3)(c) of the GRC Rules, the Appellant must be given the opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed strike out. 18. In this case, I am satisfied that the hearing at 16.00 on 9 December 2025, of which the Appellant was given notice, was an appropriate opportunity within the meaning of the rules for the Appellant to make any representations in response to the strike out application. I therefore consider that this requirement is satisfied. 19. I agree with the Registrar that a further trainee licence cannot be issued in these circumstances because as a result of the legal framework described at paragraph 12 above, the Appellant must restart the whole qualifying examination process if they wish to qualify as an ADI. 20. In these circumstances, I could dispose of the appeal by dismissing the appeal or by a strike out under r.8(3)(c) of the GRC Rules. However, I am mindful that in the covering email sent with the strike out application, the Registrar stated that the trainee licence fee would be refunded to the Appellant once the appeal is struck out. In fairness to the Appellant, I have therefore decided to strike out the appeal so that their fee is refunded. 21. The appeal is accordingly struck out pursuant to r.8(3)(c) of the GRC Rules as it has no reasonable prospect of success.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (\u201cthe Registrar\u201d) made on 4 July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. 2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the \u201cAct\u201d). These ran for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7631],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7705,7633,7641,7639,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-567920","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-transport","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-registrar","kji_keyword-trainee","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nKausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (\u201cthe Registrar\u201d) made on 4 July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. 2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the \u201cAct\u201d). These ran for...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-15T10:06:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors","og_description":"1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (\u201cthe Registrar\u201d) made on 4 July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. 2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the \u201cAct\u201d). These ran for...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"6 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/","name":"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-15T10:06:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/kausar-parveen-v-registrar-of-approved-driving-instructors\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Kausar Parveen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/567920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=567920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=567920"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=567920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}