Neil Robert Prodrick v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”), dated 14^th January 2025, refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence.

The parties were agreeable to the determination of this appeal on the papers, that is to say, without an oral hearing. I am satisfied, pursuant to Rule 32(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing.

I had ben provided with a 22-page bundle for the purposes of this appeal, containing a number of documents, including the Notice of Appeal and written representations made by the Appellant upon receipt of notification that the Registrar was considering refusing his application for a third licence.

The Appellant had previously been granted a trainee licence, which was valid over the period from 11^th December 2023 to 10^th December 2024. On 13^th November 2024, he applied for a third licence.

On 4^th December 2024, the Registrar notified the Appellant by email that consideration was being given to refusing his application. The Appellant was invited to make written representations in response.

The Appellant responded by email on 9^th December 2024, providing written representation as follows:

On 4^th December 2024, the Respondent gave the Appellant notice under section 129(4) of the Act that he was refusing his application for a subsequent trainee licence. The following reasons were given for this refusal:

The Appellant was informed in that notice that he may appeal this decision to this Tribunal within 14 days from the date of that notification, and that if he did appeal against the decision of the Registrar, his present licence would continue in force until the appeal has been decided.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 23^rd January 2025, was received by the Tribunal on 24^th January 2025. The reasons for his appeal were stated as follows:

In the response to the appeal, dated 17^th June 2025, the Respondent provides the following reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a second licence:

Although not submitted as a reason for refusing the Appellant’s trainee licence, the Registrar states that the Appellant has his final attempt at the instructional ability test (Part 3) ‘booked to hold’ (i.e. awaiting an available date).

The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are detailed within Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“The Act”), and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (“the Regulations”). The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified and placed on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. The granting of a trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is:

“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 Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’, comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing the Part 1 examination, and whilst there is no restriction on the number of attempts a candidate may take the Part 1 qualifying examination, Parts 2 and 3 permit only three attempts at each. Should an applicant fail to comply with these requirements, the entire examination would need to be retaken (i.e. Parts, 1, 2 and 3). However, they would not be permitted to retake any part of the examination until 2 years after the date when they passed their Part 1 examination – see Regulation 3(3) of the Regulations.

Upon passing Part 2, an applicant may be granted a trainee licence. The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide driving instruction for payment before they are fully qualified and on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (s.123(1) of the Act). It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

Section 129(3) of the Act permits the Registrar to “refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued”. However, he must give written notice stating that he is considering the refusal of the application and give particulars of the grounds upon which he is considering this (s.129(7) of the Act). Once notice of this consideration has been given, section 129(8)(c) provides that:

“before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period.”

The period referred to within that section is a period of 14 days from the date when notice was given by the Registrar (s.129(8)(a) of the Act), and the Registrar is not permitted to decide to refuse the application for the licence until after this period has come to an end (s.129(8)(b)).

Section 129(6) provides as follows:

“Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire–

(a)

until the commencement of the new licence, or

(b)

if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of.”

The Appellant’s right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out within s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such an order as it thinks fit.

When making its decision, 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.

It is for the Appellant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent’s decision was wrong.

I have sympathy for the Appellant’s personal circumstances, which related to the health of his mother and father during the period covered by his two trainee licences. This gave rise to him needing to cancel the Part 3 test which he had booked for 14^th March 2023. Thereafter, he unsuccessfully attempted two Part 3 tests on 22^nd August 2024 and 10^th March 2025. The first of those subsequent tests took place within the period which would ordinarily be covered by the second of his trainee licences. The second test on 10^th March 2025 was well beyond the period which would have been covered by his second licence, had he not made an application for a third licence when he did and appealed to this Tribunal. That being the case, the Appellant has had the benefit of a second licence which has continued running until the time that this appeal is decided. Nevertheless, the decision for this Tribunal is to decide whether the Registrar’s decision to refuse his application for a third trainee licence was wrong.

The Appellant has not provided the Tribunal with any medical evidence to support his assertion that he has lost training time because of the illnesses which befell his parents. Nor has he provided any evidence to support the assertion that he lost training time as a consequence of his son having eye surgery and further support. Such evidence is often quite simple to obtain from a medical practitioner, even if there is an administrative charge to be levied for a letter which confirms a clinical history and timeframes. In the absence of any such evidence, or indeed any evidence from a driving school which shows when he did or didn’t work for a period of time, showing that the Respondent’s decision was wrong, is difficult task for the Appellant.

I must have regard to the fact that it was not Parliament’s intention that candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and the licence system must not be permitted to become an alternative to the system of registration. These are powerful arguments, and although the Appellant points to the lack of availability for Part 3 tests, he still managed to book two tests before his second licence was due to expire on 10^th December 2024. Given that six months is considered to be an adequate period of time within which to gain sufficient training to reach the qualifying standard in the examination, the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences, granting him an additional six months in which to do so.

For these reasons, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the Registrar was wrong to refuse the application for a third licence.

The appeal is dismissed.