Behrouz Anahid v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed 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 Introduction:

1. This is an appeal under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”) against the Registrar’s decision of 12 December 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under s.129 of the Act . The Tribunal determines the matter de novo , having regard to the statutory purpose and the evidence before it. Background:

2. Mr Anahid has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He previously held two trainee licences , collectively covering the period 11 November 2024 to 10 November 2025 , the full 12-month period contemplated by the statutory scheme.

3. During that period, he twice attempted, and twice failed, the ADI Part 3 instructional ability test (on 29 April 2025 and 5 November 2025 ). He applied for a third trainee licence on 8 October 2025 . Written representations submitted on 31 October 2025 cited medical difficulties and claimed limited test availability. The Registrar refused the application on 12 December 2025 . The Legal Framework:

4. Section 123(1) of the Act prohibits paid driving instruction unless the instructor is registered or holds a valid trainee licence.

5. Section 129 empowers the Registrar to issue temporary trainee licences for the sole purpose of enabling a prospective instructor to gain practical experience in preparation for the ADI examinations . The scheme is exceptional, time-limited and ordinarily restricted to a maximum of two licences . It is expressly not intended to provide an alternative route for extended paid instruction or a substitute for meeting the professional standard required for full registration. Issues for Determination:

6. The Tribunal must determine: a) whether the Registrar’s refusal of a third trainee licence was lawful, reasonable and proportionate under s.129 ; b) whether the Appellant has established exceptional or compelling circumstances justifying departure from the usual two-licence limit; c) whether the Appellant’s claimed medical issues and test-booking difficulties sufficiently justify further paid instructional time; d) whether issuing a third licence would risk misuse of the trainee-licence regime ; and e) the relevance of the Appellant’s forthcoming final Part 3 test scheduled for 18 May 2026 , noting that passing it negates the need for a trainee licence and failing it renders any further licence pointless. Findings of Fact:

7. The Appellant has already had 12 full months of trainee-licence experience, the maximum envisaged by Parliament for practical on-road development.

8. He has had two attempts at Part 3 during that period, with no evidence of significant loss of opportunity.

9. The medical evidence supplied does not demonstrate any materially significant period during which he was unable to train.

10. Difficulties securing test slots affected many candidates in 2025; however, nothing in the evidence shows meaningful curtailment of his ability to prepare or practise.

11. The Appellant can lawfully continue to train without a licence , provided he does not accept payment , and thus the absence of a trainee licence does not prevent further skill development.

12. A final Part 3 test is already booked for 18 May 2026 , making the utility of a further trainee licence extremely limited. Analysis:

13. The statutory purpose of s.129 is to provide temporary, limited access to paid instructional experience, not an ongoing entitlement. The Appellant has already enjoyed the full 12-month period of trainee-licence access and two professional test attempts. That period accords precisely with what Parliament intended.

14. The Tribunal found no persuasive evidence that medical issues caused the significant and exceptional loss of training time required to justify a third licence. The representations were generalised and not supported by objectively compelling documentation.

15. Test-booking constraints in 2025 were real but not exceptional . They did not preclude the Appellant from preparing or practising.

16. The Registrar was entitled to conclude that authorising a third licence risked the misuse of the trainee-licensing regime —a concern expressly contemplated in policy and fully consistent with the statutory purpose.

17. The fact that the Appellant may continue training unpaid, and that a final test is already scheduled, decisively diminishes any justification for a further licence.

18. The Registrar’s decision was proportionate, rational and consistent with the legislative framework. Conclusion:

19. The Appellant has not demonstrated exceptional or compelling circumstances capable of justifying a third trainee licence.

20. The Registrar applied the correct legal test, acted within the proper scope of discretion, and provided reasons that were fair, logical and aligned with the Act ’s purpose.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Decision:

22. The Tribunal dismiss the appeal and upholds the Registrar’s decision dated 12 December 2025 . Brian Kennedy KC 19 March 2026.