Joshua Waterfield v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

On 3 October 2025 the Respondent filed an application for the Appellant’s appeal to be struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 on the basis that, as the Appellant passed Part 1 of the test on 02 October 2023, he can no longer fulfil the condition contained in regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

The application was sent to the Appellant on 03 October 2025. The Appellant sent an email to the Respondent on 06 October 2025 stating that he agreed with all of the information contained on the GRC5.

The Appellant wrote to the Tribunal on 6 October 2025 asking that his appeal be treated as urgent and dealt with as soon as possible. The reasons given for this were that if the appeal is not resolved promptly he will need to relocate to Devon/Cornwall and needs to make decisions about the future of his work as a driving instructor. He also noted that he is suffering financial hardship.

The Appellant confirmed by email dated 15 October 2025 that he is not contesting the Respondents application to strike out his appeal and that he consents to the appeal being struck out, as his Part 1 qualification expired on 2 October 2025.

The Appellant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal on 17 October 2025 to clarify that he remains in the process of appealing the Respondent’s decision, and noted that the driving school with which he is contracted (RED Driving School) recently claimed that he had withdrawn his appeal and breached his contract.

Having considered all the papers in this appeal, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appeal succeeding because more than two years have elapsed since he passed Part 1 of the test on 02 October 2023, and accordingly, I find that as a matter of fact he can no longer fulfil the condition contained in regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

The appeal is therefore struck out under Rule 8(3)c because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.