Michael Gray v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 27 February 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The proceedings were held by online video (CVP). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Appellant joined by telephone. The Registrar did not attend. Notice of Hearing was sent by email to the Registrar with correct details on 10 June 2025. It was indicated in advance that the Registrar did not intend to be represented at a hearing of this type. The Appellant confirmed they were content to proceed. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in their absence. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal has fully considered the Respondent’s written submissions.

In the decision, the Registrar says that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two licences lasting 12 months. The Registrar considers that this has given the Appellant sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience. They have failed to provide any evidence to support a lack of pupils or practice time.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 10 April 2025 does not give any reasons to support the appeal. The outcome sought is for the Registrar’s decision to be overturned to allow the Appellant opportunity to continue training and attempt the part 3 test for a third time. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 29 September 2025 resists the appeal. The Appellant did not provide a reply.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in section 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.’

To qualify as an ADI, 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 at Part 3 are permitted. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination must be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an ADI, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). 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 Tribunal has considered a bundle of evidence composed of 21 pages plus index.

This includes evidence of the Appellant’s full licence history. It records that the Appellant has failed the Part 3 test twice. The DVSA cancelled one Part 3 test, and the Appellant has cancelled two others. The Appellant also cancelled a forthcoming test for 3 November 2025 but has an earlier test date booked.

At the hearing, the Appellant explained that he cancelled two test dates because one was early in the morning at a time that he could not make, and he was away on the other occasion. The Appellant confirmed that he cancelled the test booked for 3 November 2025 because he had secured an earlier test date.

In answer to the Registrar’s point that the Appellant had failed to provide any evidence of a lack of pupils or lost training time, the Appellant said that he had plenty of pupils and plenty of practice time so there was no reply he could give.

The Appellant recognises that if his appeal succeeds, a further licence would expire upon his third attempt at the Part 3 test which is scheduled for 28 October 2025.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 18 August 2023 and passed Part 2 on 11 January 2024.

The Appellant is not now and never has been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

Two licences were granted to the Appellant under section 129 of the Act to gain practical experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination. The licences were valid from 12 February 2024 until 11 February 2025.

On 27 January 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, the Appellant has had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 20 months by the time of the hearing.

By email sent on 28 January 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant that he was considering refusal of the application for a third licence.

The Appellant made representations in response by email on 8 February 2025 explaining how the training received from their original sponsor and school had been insufficient. The Appellant also referred to long waiting times for Part 3 tests. Having considered those representations, the Registrar gave notice to refuse the licence application on 27 February 2025.

In summary, the reasons for the Registrar’s decision were:

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows:

The outcome sought in the Notice of Appeal is an extension of the trainee licence until the Appellant’s third and final attempt at the ADI Part 3 examination.

I accept that the Appellant experienced difficulties with gaining the required training with his original sponsor and that this impacted upon his progress. Whilst I note that there were delays in securing Part 3 test dates, the Appellant was offered test dates.

The Appellant has already had trainee licences covering a period of 12 months. Furthermore, the Appellant has had the benefit of a further period of over 8 months up until the hearing date. Had the application for a third trainee licence been granted it would have expired by now.

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.

Furthermore, the Appellant’s third and final attempt at passing the Part 3 test is booked for 28 October 2025 i.e. 4 days after the hearing. That being so, I am not satisfied that granting a new licence would serve the required purpose of section 129(1) of the Act of enabling the Appellant to acquire the practical experience required in giving driving instruction to take the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

In any event, should the Appellant be unsuccessful on that final occasion, then a third trainee licence would immediately expire the day after by operation of Regulation 14 of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.