Gary Sharples v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent made on 14 February 2024 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third traineelicence.

The Appellant is trainee driving instructor who had been granted two trainee licences
under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) for the periods from 23 January 2023 to 21 January 2024 (a total of 12 months), but who was refused an application dated 15 January 2024 for a further, third, trainee licence.

The Appellant appealed the said decision of the Respondent to the Tribunal.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 26 February 2024, relied on an assertion that had difficulty re-booking a Part 3 test, having failed at his first attempt and having completed a further five hours additional training, as advised, by 2 December 2023, but had been re-booked for 5 April 2024. It seemed from the Appellant’s written evidence that he considered he required to have in place a trainee licence in order to undertake a Part 3 test. This was not the case: since the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence before his second trainee licence had expired, his second trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal meaning he could, until then, continue to give paid tuition.

The Response of the Respondent, dated 22 March 2024, essentially relied on the fact that thepurpose of a trainee licence was to afford an ADI applicant the opportunity of gaining practical experience of teaching pupils for payment in order to undergo the instructional ability examination (the part test) and it was not intended that a trainee licence should be held for however long it took theAppellant to pass the Part 3 test; that the total of 12 months afforded to the Appellant (longer pending determination of this appeal) was a reasonable period to enable the Appellant to reach the qualifying standard to be entered onto the Register as an ADI and, in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving tuition. The Appellant had passed his driving ability test but had failed to pass his instructional ability test. The Respondent also submitted that its decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to him attempting another instructional ability test as he did not need a trainee licence to do so or to obtain further training through other routes – a course for which there is precedent.

The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on
the papers in accordance with Rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)
(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’). The Tribunal considered abundle containing 21 pages.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment
before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted
are set out in s. 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations
2005 (‘the Regulations’).

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

In order to qualify as an ADI, applicants must pass theQualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the drivingability 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. However,
holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and many people qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without havingheld a trainee licence at all.

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 Respondent and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunalthat the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The parties did not file any witness statements. I have seen the Appellant’s test
history; his application for the two trainee licence previously granted; his application for a
third trainee licence, and the correspondence passing between the parties.

I have considered carefully all the papers before me. I note that the Appellant has
already had the benefit of two trainee licences in total, covering a period of 12 months which is adequate to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience andtake the test without a trainee licence, and it is not a substitute for taking and passingthe Part 3test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until allattempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Respondent’s decision was wrong in any
way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Respondent’s decision.

Accordingly, I dismissthis appeal.