Holly Powlesland v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 20^th March 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third 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, and then another, 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 third trainee licence was therefore refused.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 7^th February 2025, indicates that she has faced mental health challenges during her training and this has affected the way she has been able to benefit from her licences. She seeks a further licence to complete her training. She seems to indicate in part that she has appealed as she is tied to an AA franchise agreement and she must “use best endeavours” to undertake her training. It seems to be suggested that if the Appeal fails the process itself might assist the Appellant in relation to her contractual obligations.

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

The Respondent indicated the Appellant failed a Part 3 test once and cancelled a second attempt in May 2024. No further second attempt has been booked.

The Respondent indicates that the Appellant has been licensed since 26^th February 2024.

The Appeal was determined on the papers after both sides agreed to the same. The Tribunal considered the papers and agreed that a fair and appropriate decision could be reached on the materials provided, so in accordance with the Tribunal Rules determined the application without oral evidence.

The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 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 (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 evidence and 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.

The Appellant indicates that she has suffered mental health challenges during her training process. She accepts that she has been given two licences already, but seeks a third. No details of the way the health challenges is provided, the duration of the issues or anything that would assist to justify the application. There are no materials the Tribunal can use to consider to any real extent that could justify a third licence.

Even if there were grounds for a third licence the Appellant has had the benefit of being licensed for 18 months already and thus has had in effect a third licence.

The Tribunal finds that there is no basis to allow the appeal and accordingly it fails.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.

DATE: 1^st September 2025