Sabrina Patara v Registrar Of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Respondent”), dated 27^th November 2024, 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 been provided with a 24-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 Respondent was considering refusing her application for a third licence.

The Appellant had previously been granted two trainee licence, which were valid over the period from 6^th November 2023 to 5^th November 2024. On 10^th October 2024, she applied for a third licence.

On 5^th November 2024, the Respondent notified the Appellant by email that consideration was being given to refusing her application. The Appellant was invited to make written representations in response within 14 days of the date of that email (i.e. before 20^th November 2024).

By way of 3 emails, dated 8^th, 12^th and 18^th November 2024, the Appellant made written representations to the Registrar. These representations are summarised as follows:

On 27^th November 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. In making this decision, the Respondent confirmed that he had taken into account the written representations of 11^th November 2024. There was no mention of the written representations of either 12^th or 18^th November 2024 or that any representations other than those contained within the email of 11^th November had been considered by the Registrar before making his decision.

The following reasons were given for the Respondent’s refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence:

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 was dated 5^th December 1994, though it is clear that this was simply an error on the part of the Appellant, as it was received by the Tribunal on 2^nd December 2024. I therefore take no issue with this for the purposes of this appeal.

The Appellant’s reasons for her appeal are detailed within the Notice of Appeal and to some extent replicate, word for word, the email of 11^th November 2024, which contained written representations to the Registrar. In addition to those representations, the Appellant submits as follows:

In the Response to the appeal, dated 16^th January 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 her 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.

The Appellant has provided evidence that she is a carer for her mother, but as she points out in her representations to the Respondent in her email of 19^th November 2024, her mother’s health had deteriorated over the last couple years. She would therefore have known about her mother’s condition when she obtained her first trainee licence on 6^th November 2023. Whilst I am sympathetic to this situation and the likelihood that her mother’s health deteriorated thereafter, it was a situation which the Appellant knew about when she embarked upon her journey to become an Approved Driving Instructor. She was, in any event, not limited to the 6 months afforded her to obtain practical experience in instruction and was subsequently granted a second trainee licence which extended the period within which she could receive payment for her instruction to twelve months.

Had the third trainee licence been granted, this would have expired in May 2025, before the consideration of this appeal. The Appellant has therefore had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period of over 7 months, exceeding the period of 6 months which a third trainee licence would have permitted. The second licence has been extended by virtue of this appeal, however, and so it has continued until in force until the determination of this appeal.

The Appellant additionally points out that securing a Part 3 test at the present time is somewhat difficult, though in her representations to the Respondent she confirms that she managed to book an additional test date of 20^th December 2024. That test date was unfortunately cancelled by DVSA, but prior to that point, the Appellant had managed to book and cancel two other Part 3 tests on 30^th January 2024 and 3^rd July 2024. Following those cancellations, the Appellant failed her first attempt at the Part 3 test on 8^th January 2025, which would ordinarily have been on a date outside the period covered by her second licence.

Despite it being a common understanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to the continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six-month period of such licences is set on the basis that this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 assessment, as it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to either prepare for or take the Part 3 test. It is submitted by the Respondent that six months is a very reasonable period within which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination, and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Here, the Appellant has had an extension to the licence period by the granting of a second trainee licence, affording her twelve months within which to obtain further practical training.

I have regard to the submission 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 that that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor. I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent was wrong in deciding to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third licence.

The appeal is dismissed.