Michael Allsop v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 27^th March 2024 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Footnote: ¹ ) (‘the Act’) for a six-month period, but was refused a further licence at the end of the relevant period.

The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had not passed the final part of the ADI qualifying examination within the relevant period and as insufficient evidence of loss of training time was supplied that the Appellant had had long enough to progress, and the application to issue a second trainee licence was therefore refused.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 1^st April 2024, indicates that he has had plenty of opportunity to train, in fact he asserts that he has completed more training than the norm. The basis of his appeal however is that there is a shortage of test slots and he seeks an extension to be able to continue to teach until his test.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the decision letter sets out their position. The Registrar points out that the Applicant had sufficient time to progress.

The Registrar indicates that the Appellant had a test booked for the 8^th July 2024. The Appellant failed that test. His next test is booked for the 15^th October 2024.

The Registrar indicates the Appellant has been licensed already from 9^th October 2023 to date.

The Tribunal considered the appeal at an oral hearing via the CVP video system.

The Appellant failed to attend and was unrepresented. The Respondent was represented by Claire Jackson of the Registrar’s Appeal’s Team.

The Tribunal made attempts to contact the Appellant, but couldn’t get a response. The hearing was delayed for 15 minutes to see if there was any contact from the Appellant, but none was received. The hearing had been set and formal notice of the same was given to the Appellant. Bearing in mind the nature of the appeal and the over riding objective that cases should be resolved expeditiously, but fairly, the Tribunal came to the view it should proceed.

The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 23 pages.

The Respondent repeated the details of the Response. She also indicated the date of the Appellant’s next test as indicated above.

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 (Footnote: ² ) .

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

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. However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor and many people 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 of approved Driving Instructors and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision (Footnote: ³ ) 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 Tribunal considered carefully all the papers before it.

In fixing a period of 6 month to allow for trainee instructors to progress Parliament must have had in mind that we are all subject to differing life events that affect our ability to undertake certain tasks. Sometimes those events are so unusual or have such a bearing on an individual that it will be entirely appropriate to find that a longer than normal period of time should be allowed to complete a task. Here the Appellant has provided no evidence of being unable to train. He has indicated that it has been difficult to undertake a test, indeed his first test that he was able to book was 10 months after his licence commenced, but nothing else was suggested.

The purpose of the licence is to allow training. At the point of the application the Appellant was indicating he had completed more training than the norm. The licence has met its purpose. Regrettably I do not believe that a further period can be justified. The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.

The Appellant is still able to attempt his Part 3 examination without a licence, and if he so chooses, the Tribunal wishes him well.

DATE: 20^th August 2024