Tribunal Upholds Decision Against Trainee Driving Instructor

Background to the Appeal

The case involved Mehmet Umut Tankisi, a trainee driving instructor, who appealed against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors. The Registrar had refused to grant him a third trainee licence after he failed to pass the final part of the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) qualifying examination within the stipulated time.

The Registrar's Decision

The Registrar's decision, made on 18th April 2024, was based on the Appellant's inability to pass the Part 3 instructional ability and fitness test despite being given two previous licences. The Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence of loss of training time that could justify the need for a third licence.

Details of the Appeal

The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 1st May 2024, citing difficulties in obtaining instruction from Orbit trainers, which led to multiple changes in his test dates. He claimed readiness to pass the test, which was scheduled for June 2024, although he subsequently failed that attempt.

Registrar's Response

The Registrar responded by highlighting that the Appellant had sufficient time to progress, having been licensed from 24th April 2023 for a total of 20 months. The Appellant had failed the Part 3 test twice and cancelled five other attempts, indicating ample opportunity to qualify.

Tribunal's Mode of Determination

The appeal was determined on paper, with both parties agreeing to this method. The Tribunal reviewed a bundle of evidence consisting of 20 pages, assessing whether it was fair to proceed in this manner.

The Legal Framework

The legal basis for granting trainee licences is found in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. A trainee licence allows individuals to gain practical experience in driving instruction before qualifying as an ADI. The entire qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, with three attempts allowed for each part.

Tribunal's Conclusion

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's explanation for needing additional time was insufficient. It noted that while life events can impact one's ability to complete tasks, the Appellant's circumstances did not warrant an extension beyond the norm. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Final Remarks

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellant could still attempt the Part 3 test independently and wished him well in future efforts.

Learn More

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