Devendra Sen v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors on 23 May 2025 to refuse his application for a third trainee licence.

The appellant was issued with two trainee licences pursuant to section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act), which were valid from 20 May 2024 to 19 May 2025.

On 5 May 2025 the appellant made an application for a third trainee licence. On 7 May 2025 the respondent notified the appellant that they were considering refusal of the application and invited the appellant to make representations.

On 8 May 2025, the appellant responded, giving reasons why a third licence should be granted. He stated that he had had two part 3 tests cancelled and rescheduled at short notice by the Driver Vehicle and Standards Agency (DVSA) and that he had been on hold for the part 3 test since September 2024.

The appellant stated that he received a date for his test on 23 May 2025, which is after the expiry of his trainee licence. He stated that this meant he would not have valid potential driving instructor (PDI) insurance when attempting his Part 3 test and would be unable to practice in the three days leading up to his test.

The respondent refused the appellant’s application for a third trainee licence on 23 May 2025.

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 26 May 2025.

The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 23 May 2025:

The respondent also pointed out that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to take the ADI Part 3 test and that the refusal of the application for a licence does not preclude the appellant from taking the test.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

The appellant indicated that the outcome sought was a third trainee licence so that he could practice giving lessons and have a better chance of passing his Part 3 test. The respondent’s case

The respondent reiterated the reasons for refusal in the response to the appeal. In addition, the respondent noted that because the appellant’s application for a third licence was made before the expiry of his second licence, that licence had continued, enabling him to continue to give paid instruction pending the determination of his appeal.

The respondent noted that refusal of a third trainee licence did not prevent the appellant from taking the Part 3 test and that there are alternatives to giving paid instruction, such as attending a training course, study and practice with an ADI, or giving tuition without payment.

The respondent advised that the appellant has a part 3 test booked for 18 November 2025.

The appeal was listed for a hearing at 15:00 on 4 November 2025. The appellant attended the hearing, but the respondent did not. I note that the respondent indicated that the appeal should be decided without a hearing; however, the appellant requested a hearing. At the case management hearing on 26 September 2025, directions were made for the appeal to be listed for a hearing by video within the window 8 October 2025 to 11 December 2025. I am satisfied that the respondent was aware that the appeal would be listed for a hearing. I am also satisfied that the respondent was notified of the time, date and method of hearing and chose not to attend. I considered whether I could determine the appeal justly in the absence of the respondent and found that I could. I had the benefit of the respondent’s response to the appeal and the evidence relied on by the respondent, which was contained in the appeal bundle.

In determining the appeal, I considered the oral evidence and submissions together with the documents contained in the hearing bundle, which was prepared by the respondent.

The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).

Pursuant to regulation 3, the qualifying examination consists of three parts: a written examination (part 1); a driving ability and fitness test (part 2); and an instructional ability and fitness test (part 3).

A candidate is permitted three attempts at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing part 1, failing which the candidate must retake the whole examination. Once a candidate has passed part 2 they may be granted a trainee licence.

The purpose of the trainee licence is to enable a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct, which is part of the qualifying examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

The appellant has a right of appeal against the respondent’s decision pursuant to section 131 of the Act. On appeal the tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

It is for the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s decision was wrong.

The appellant explained that he had experienced delays in sitting his part 3 test due to two booked tests being cancelled by the DVSA. The appellant confirmed that he has a part 3 test booked for 18 November 2025, but that if his appeal is dismissed, the effect will be that he has no insurance for that test. The appellant stated that he had continued to prepare for the part 3 test while his trainee licence has been continuing. He stated that he considers that it is unfair that he has been unable to take three attempts at the part 3 test within the currency of his trainee licence due to matters outside of his control, i.e. the cancellation of two test dates. The appellant stated that he has been unable to finalise arrangements for a pupil for the test date on 18 November 2025 given the uncertainty around the outcome of his appeal and the situation with his insurance.

The purpose of a trainee licence is to enable a person to gain experience in giving driving instruction so that they meet the standard required to pass part 3 of the ADI examination. The appellant has now had the benefit of a trainee licence since 20 May 2024, as at the date of hearing, a period of 17 and a half months. The time his licence has continued while this appeal has been pending is only two weeks short of the additional licence period he seeks.

The appellant’s evidence is that he has continued to prepare for the test, and I find that he has been able to do so. There was no evidence that he does not meet the required standard or that he needs further time within which to do so.

The appellant’s primary concern appears to be that he will not be insured for the test booked on 18 November 2025. The purpose of the trainee licence is not to enable a PDI to obtain insurance. It is not a requirement to have a trainee licence to sit the part 3 test and while the appellant’s current insurance may not be valid without a trainee licence, he provided no evidence that he has made enquiries as to whether different insurance would be available to enable him to sit the test without a trainee licence. Given that it is not a requirement to have a trainee licence to sit the test, I infer that it is reasonably likely that insurance for PDIs in that situation would be available.

The appellant raised the issue of having difficulty in finalising a suitable pupil for his test on 18 November 2025. He can continue to give instruction provided he does not charge for it after the expiry of his trainee licence. There is nothing to suggest that a pupil would not agree to be his pupil for the test and I have dealt with the insurance issue above.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that a further licence is necessary to enable him to prepare for the part 3 test.

I find that the respondent’s decision to refuse to grant a third trainee licence was correct and I dismiss the appeal.