Abrar Khan v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. Mr Khan is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 17 September 2025. Mr Khan appealed that decision.

2. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years.

3. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act : ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

4. This is commonly known as a trainee licence.

5. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued."

6. Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal.

7. Under Rule 8(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal may strike out a case where: (a) The Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by them to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them; (b) The Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.

8. Under Rule 8(4) The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.

9. On 6 February 2026, the Respondent filed a GRC5 inviting the Tribunal to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because it said that Mr Khan had failed his Part 3 test for the third time on 5 February 2026.

10. On 6 February 2026, I directed Mr Khan to confirm whether he wished to continue with his appeal no later than 5pm on 20 February 2026 and if so to make representations as to why the case should not be struck out. Mr Khan was warned that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal striking out his case. The Tribunal has not received any such confirmation or representations from the Appellant.

11. All three limbs of Rule 8(3) are made out: (a) Mr Khan has failed to comply with my direction, which stated that failure by Mr Khan to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings; (b) in failing to comply with my direction, Mr Khan has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal; and (c) I consider that there is no reasonable prospect of Mr Khan's case succeeding: he has failed his Part 3 test for the third time so he must now start the process of qualification again. He is not entitled to a trainee licence until such time as he passes Parts 1 and 2. Signed Date: 23 February 2026 Judge Taft