Driving Ambitions Halted: Tribunal Upholds Licence Refusal

Introduction

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently delivered its decision in the case of Taskeen Akhtar vs Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors. The Tribunal, presided over by Judge Bridget Sanger, dismissed the appeal against the Registrar's decision to refuse the grant of a second trainee licence to the appellant.

Legal Framework

The case revolved around the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, which govern the issuance of trainee licences. Such licences allow individuals to provide driving instruction for payment prior to becoming fully qualified instructors. To qualify, applicants must pass a three-part examination, with the entire process to be completed within two years of passing the initial written examination.

The Tribunal's powers in this context are outlined in Section 131 of the Act, enabling it to make any order it deems appropriate. However, the burden of proof lies with the appellant to demonstrate that the Registrar's decision was incorrect.

Factual Background

Taskeen Akhtar passed the first part of the Qualifying Examination in January 2023 and the second part in November 2023. She was granted a trainee licence valid from January to July 2024. In June 2024, she applied for a second trainee licence, which was subsequently refused by the Registrar on 25 July 2024.

The Registrar's refusal was based on two primary reasons: the appellant's failure to meet the conditions of her first licence, and the belief that sufficient time had already been provided to gain the necessary experience for the final part of the examination.

Appeal Grounds

In her appeal, Akhtar argued that she had been unable to book a test date for the final part of the examination due to a lack of available slots. She expressed a desire to continue training to remain in practice until a test date became available. Akhtar also felt that the Registrar's decision implied a lack of willingness on her part to take the test, which she contested.

Registrar's Response

The Registrar maintained that the trainee licence system is not intended as a substitute for full qualification. The purpose is to provide a limited period for practical experience, not indefinite extensions. The Registrar also noted that Akhtar could continue her training and attempt the final test without holding a trainee licence, as alternative training methods exist.

Tribunal's Decision

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Registrar's decision was wrong. Judge Sanger noted that Akhtar had almost a year to prepare for her final test, and the trainee licence is not meant to be repeatedly renewed until all examination attempts are exhausted.

The Tribunal emphasised that the appellant could continue gaining experience and preparing for the test without a trainee licence, thereby supporting the Registrar's decision to refuse the second licence application.

Conclusion

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the legislative framework governing trainee licences and the necessity of completing the qualification process within the prescribed timeframe. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Registrar's decision.

Learn More

For more information on contractor law, see BeCivil's guide to Contractor Law.