Harminder Chahil v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 6 March 2024 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘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.’

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 11 January 2023. He passed Part 2 on 19 April 2023. He cancelled a Part 3 test scheduled to take place on 9 October 2023 and cancelled a further Part 3 test scheduled to take place on 4 January 2024. At the date the bundle was prepared, there were no further Part 3 tests booked or taken by the Appellant.

The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 21 August 2023 to 20 February 2024.

The Appellant, having not taken any Part 3 test during the period of his first trainee licence, applied for a second trainee licence on 4 January 2024 which was refused by the Registrar.

The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of the first licence as no Advanced Driving Instructor training records was received by the Registrar within 3 months of start date, had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

The grounds of appeal are, in summary:

The Registrar in his response states:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

I accept that the Appellant has had difficulty accessing the website of his training provider but do not accept that this absolves him from undertaking the minimum training required by the Registrar.

The Appellant has cancelled two Part 3 tests. I am provided with no reasons for cancelling the first test but accept that the second test was cancelled when the Appellant realised he had not accumulated the minimum required training hours. However, I note that, at the time the bundle was prepared, the Appellant has not secured a further date for his first attempt at the Part 3 test.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of 6 months. This should have been adequate time to prepare and obtain the relevant minimum training hours required.

The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act.

The Appellant appears to have taken no steps since the cancellation of his second booked Part 3 test to secure a date for his first attempt at the Part 3 test, despite having had over 8 months to do so since lodging his appeal.

The Appellant can continue to study and practice and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence.

The trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.