Asad Mehmood v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 01282 (GRC) FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (TRANSPORT) Determined on the papers On: 2 September 2026 Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0434 Decision given on: 07 September 2026 Before

JUDGE MCMAHON Between

ASAD MEHMOOD -and-

REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Decision of the Respondent made on 24 March 2026 is confirmed.

REASONS 1. This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, to commence at 11.00. However, despite a number of telephone calls and a text from the clerk to the Appellant, he did not reply nor appear to prosecute his appeal. The Tribunal waited until 11.10 before proceeding to determine this appeal on the papers only, without a hearing, in the Appellant’s absence, it being satisfied it could make a fair and just decision on that basis and that it was in the interests of justice to do so, having regard too to the statutory provisions contained in the Overriding Objective. No representative of the Respondent appeared.

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 24 March 2026, to refuse his application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 made on 1 February 2026. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, by letter received by the Respondent on 3 March 2026, namely, that he had travelled to Saudi Arabia for a family wedding but had to undergo a course of emergency rabies treatment upon his return to the UK that, he submitted, affected his well-being and his ability to train consistently, on a number of grounds, namely, that evidence of the Appellant having received a rabies vaccine did not substantiate his submission of having lost training time [and there certainly was no medical evidence to the contrary adduced by the Appellant]; that he had already been granted two trainee licences (12 months in total – 7 February 2025 to 6 February 2026) for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test, a period considered to be more than adequate for that purpose (a period that was extended by an additional period of almost 7 months to the date of promulgation of this Decision becoming effective as he had submitted an appeal – making a period of almost 19 months in total during which the Appellant had the benefit of a valid trainee licence); that it was not the

intention of Parliament to issue a trainee licence for however long it took an applicant to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system could not be used as an alternative to achieving registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to him undertaking a Part 3 test and that if the Appellant exhausted the maximum permitted attempts to pass his Part 3 test, his application for a further trainee licence could not be entertained and any appeal must automatically fail. In his appeal document dated 4 April 2026, the Appellant reiterated, in much greater detail, the representations he made to the Respondent prior to him, the Respondent, making the decision under appeal, maintaining that there had been ‘exceptional circumstances’ that impacted upon his training and teaching over the previous few months; that he remained fully committed to becoming an ADI and, he submitted, being granted a 3rd trainee licence would ‘greatly increase his chances of achieving’ that objective, allowing him to ‘continue to gain valuable, consistent experience’. In his Response dated 15 July 2026, the Respondent noted, in addition, that the purpose of a trainee licence was solely to give an applicant an opportunity of giving driving

instruction to members of the public while endeavouring to achieve registration as an ADI and that, in the alternative, an applicant, without needing to hold a trainee licence, could obtain further training, if required, or necessary, by undertaking a training course, or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving instruction, alternatives that had been used by other aspiring ADIs who successfully achieved ADI registration without ever having held a trainee licence; that the Appellant had failed his first attempt to pass his Part 3 test on 2 December 2025 and that his second attempt was booked for 12 August 2026 [the outcome of which had not been advised to the Tribunal by either party]. 3. 4.

5. This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for their decision. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

6. The basis of the Respondent’s decision was set out in both the decision letter dated 24 March 2026 and in his Response document dated 15 July2026, as outlined above. This was accepted by the Tribunal as valid, in the Tribunal making its decision and, further, the fact that the Appellant, in practical terms, had the benefit of a trainee licence for almost 19 months.

7. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as 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.

8. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances submissions this appeal. relevant to 9. There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Signed: Judge McMahon Date: 2 September 2026 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026