Nazer Hosain Alizada v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mode of Hearing

1. This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 14 January 2026. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal proceeded and determined this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent. In doing so, the Tribunal was satisfied that this complied with the overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Tribunal) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’), and with Rule 36, in that the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

2. The Tribunal, ‘standing in the shoes of the Respondent’, determined this appeal de novo and considered afresh the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence. Decision under Appeal

3. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 7 August 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence, made on 10 July 2025, pursuant to s.129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of the first trainee licence issued to him for the period 17 February 2025 to 16 August 2025, a period, the Respondent submitted, that, in addition, was more than adequate to enable the Appellant to gain practical experience to take a Part 3 test, namely, that his training objectives on completed Form ADI 21AT were not completed within the first three months of his fist trainee licence. The Respondent submitted that, in making, the decision under appeal, they took account of representations made by the Appellant in a letter received on 21 July 2025. The Respondent stated in their Response document dated 2 December 2025 that these representations referred to difficulties experienced by the Appellant in obtaining from the Respondent a date for his second attempt at a Part 3 test (he having failed his first attempt on 7 October 2025), and that his sponsor had been unable to consistently supply pupils to him. Notice of Appeal

4. However, the Respondent did not address a much-expanded and detailed grounds of appeal contained in the Appellant’s letter that formed part of his Notice of Appeal. These referred to the alleged unfairness of the decision under appeal and that ‘exceptional circumstances’ had significantly impacted his ability to gain the necessary experience in driving instruction in anticipation of him attempting to pass his Part 3 test. While the Appellant went on to state that he wished to have a second trainee licence to address matters such as financial hardship, costs and investment in pursuing a career as an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), these were not matters that could be taken into account in determining this appeal.

5. The Appellant also went on to submit that the decision under appeal had a disproportionate impact on his right to work and his family life, quoting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Tribunal rejected that submission as having no basis in law.

6. More crucially, the Appellant referred to the lack of availability of Part 3 test dates in his local area, stating with some justification, that he wished to take the test on roads with which he was familiar and that there were systematic failures in the Part 3 test system. He confirmed that he had booked a second attempt at a Part 3 test, a booking that remained ‘on hold’, and still awaited a test date.

7. He maintained he had complied fully with the conditions of his first trainee licence, submitting details of his additional training record as required. However, this was not done within the required first three months of his first trainee licence, being submitted approximately two months late. The Tribunal considered that this called into question, taking a broad overview of all of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, whether the decision under appeal, while technically sustainable, was proportionate.

8. The Appellant submitted that the inability of his original franchise to consistently supply pupils prevented him from gaining meaningful experience – the very purpose of a trainee licence.

9. The Appellant concluded by pointing out, significantly, that the Respondent’s own policy guidance envisaged that a further trainee licence may be granted if the trainee had complied with the conditions of his previous trainee licence and delays were DVSA-related. The Tribunal found that the decision under appeal did not take that policy guidance properly, and proportionately, into account. Response of Respondent

10. The Respondent, in its written Response, dated 2 December 2025, confirmed that the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence had been refused because the Appellant did not comply with conditions of his first trainee licence in that he failed to complete his training within the first three months of his first trainee licence. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training, if necessary, to prepare for his second attempt at a Part 3 test, by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test. The Respondent also confirmed that the Appellant had booked a second Part 3 test, on hold, awaiting a date. Significantly, the said Response simply did not adequately address the implications, if any, of the assertions made by the Appellant that limited his ability to make most use of his existing trainee licence. Appellant’s Oral Evidence Reasoning

11. The Tribunal found the Appellant to be credible, honest and trustworthy and had no hesitation in accepting his evidence, particularly on the balance of probabilities, in deciding to allow this appeal.

12. In his oral evidence, the Appellant reiterated the submissions made by him in his Notice of Appeal. He added that, while his motor insurer had accepted that his first trainee licence remined valid until determination of this appeal, his insurance would be cancelled unless he could still validity, under a trainee licence, provide driving instruction to members of the public. The Tribunal found it unconscionable that the Appellant should face that position due to the gross delay in availability of Part 3 test dates – a DVSA-related issue. The Appellant accepted that, technically, he did not need to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test but, clearly, in practical terms, the Appellant reiterated that, due to his particular circumstances, he had been unable to use his trainee licence to the utmost extent during the six-month period for which it was issued. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s reason for challenging the decision under appeal insofar as it related to him depending on holding a trainee licence in order to generate and be a source of income: a trainee licence is not issued for such purposes and cannot be used for such purposes. While there was no medical evidence adduced by him, the Appellant stated, for the first time, that he had a back problem that resulted in him only being able to do a driving job. The Tribunal attached little, if any, weight to that submission. Decision of Tribunal

13. This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

14. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

15. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all the circumstances relevant to this appeal. 16.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 17.The decision of the Respondent, made on 7 August 2025, is set aside. The Appellant is granted a second trainee licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.