Adnan Hussain v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background

1. The Appellant, Mr Adnan Hussain, is an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). He passed Part 1 of the ADI qualification examinations on 7 May 2024, and Part 2 on 9 July 2024.

2. The Appellant was granted two trainee licences under s.129 Road Traffic Act 1988 , valid 30 September 2024 – 29 September 2025 (Bundle ref. D1). These licences are intended to allow a trainee up to six months supervised paid instruction per licence.

3. During this period the Appellant undertook several attempts at the Part 3 “instructional ability” test. He failed on 5 February 2025 and 29 May 2025, and subsequently cancelled a test scheduled for 3 December 2025 (Annex A).

4. On 29 September 2025, shortly before expiry of his second licence, Mr Hussain applied for a third trainee licence (D2).

5. On 6 October 2025, the Registrar issued a proposal to refuse the application and invited representations (D3). The Appellant responded on 15 October 2025 (D4), citing substantial caring responsibilities for his mother and wife, whose medical conditions he said had significantly restricted his training time.

6. On 6 November 2025, the Registrar issued a decision refusing the third licence (D5). The Appellant now appeals under s.129(4) Road Traffic Act 1988 .

7. The Appellant is currently booked for his final permitted attempt at Part 3 on 23 February 2026. Chronology: Date Event Evidence 07 May 2024 Passed Part 1 test Annex A 09 Jul 2024 Passed Part 2 test Annex A 30 Sep 2024 Trainee Licence 1 issued (6 months) D1 05 Feb 2025 Part 3 test failed Annex A 29 May 2025 Part 3 test failed Annex A 29 Sep 2025 Trainee Licence 2 expires; application for Licence 3 submitted D2 06 Oct 2025 Registrar issues intention to refuse D3 15 Oct 2025 Appellant representations D4 03 Dec 2025 Part 3 test cancelled by candidate Annex A 06 Nov 2025 Registrar refuses third licence D5 23 Feb 2026 Final attempt Part 3 booked Annex A The Issues for the Tribunal:

8. Whether the Registrar lawfully exercised discretion under s.129(1) RTA 1988 in refusing a third trainee licence.

9. Whether the Appellant’s personal and caring circumstances amount to an exceptional justification for departing from the Registrar’s usual policy of granting only limited trainee licences intended to provide up to six months' instructional experience per licence.

10. Whether the Appellant has had sufficient opportunity to gain instructional experience to attempt Part 3.

11. Whether the Registrar took into account all relevant considerations, including:

1. the Appellant’s caring responsibilities and supporting medical documents;

2. the Appellant’s training history and test record;

3. the policy purpose that trainee licences must not become a substitute for ADI registration.

12. Whether the refusal decision was proportionate in the circumstances and correctly applied the statutory criteria. Appellant’s Arguments:

13. The Appellant contends that: • Serious family medical circumstances (mother and wife) curtailed his ability to undertake teaching practice. • He nonetheless gained experience where possible and remains committed to qualifying. • Granting a third licence would allow him to complete training and pass Part 3, avoiding wasted prior effort and investment. • The refusal failed to give adequate weight to compassionate and exceptional circumstances. • The Registrar’s conclusion that medical evidence did not substantiate lost training time is unfair—his caring role inherently limited availability even if not medically certified. Registrar’s Arguments:

14. The Registrar argues that: • The statutory purpose of trainee licences is not to provide unlimited time but to allow up to six months of practical tuition experience per licence. • The Appellant has already benefitted from 12 months of licences, which is considered ample. • The Appellant has failed two Part 3 tests and cancelled another, indicating insufficient progress despite opportunity. • Medical evidence did not demonstrate concrete training time lost nor justify exceptional departure from policy. • A trainee licence is not required to undertake further training: ◦ he may practise unpaid; ◦ he may undertake private training with ADIs; ◦ he may still sit his final attempt without a licence. The Law: Road Traffic Act 1988 , Part V • s.123(1) prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless the instructor is ADI-registered or holds a trainee licence. • s.129(1) gives the Registrar a discretion to issue trainee licences enabling practical experience before ADI qualifying tests. • s.129(4) gives a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a refusal.

15. The Legal Principles Derived from Case Law & Policy Trainee licences exist to allow limited experience prior to qualification. • The system must not become an alternative to full ADI registration. • Twelve months of trainee licence time is ordinarily considered more than adequate. • Exceptional circumstances may justify further extension but require evidence of genuine inability to undertake training during the validity of prior licences. • The Tribunal does not substitute its own policy judgment unless the Registrar’s decision is irrational, disproportionate, or fails to consider relevant evidence. Conclusion:

16. The Registrar’s reasoning is clearly articulated and grounded in statutory purpose. The Appellant’s argument rests on what could be described as exceptional personal circumstances and a contention that these justified more time. However, while some medical evidence for the Appellant’s mother is present, it is limited and the Registrar states it does not demonstrate a direct causal link to lost training time. Further the Registrar contends the impending final attempt on 23 February 2026 may render the utility of a trainee licence moot but this is a legal rather than a determinative point.

17. The Tribunal has sympathy with the Appellant’s personal and medical circumstances. However, the burden rests on the Appellant to demonstrate that the Registrar’s decision was wrong or disproportionate.

18. The Registrar placed weight on the Appellant’s test history (See para. 14 above). The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar was entitled to regard this history as evidence that the Appellant had already been provided ample opportunity to reach the qualifying standard.

19. The Tribunal also accepts the Registrar’s reasoning that a trainee licence is not required to attempt or prepare for the instructional ability test. Candidates may train with an Approved Driving Instructor, undertake structured training, or practise without payment.

20. Accordingly, I must dismiss this appeal.