Yu Man Chan v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal considered the 22-page bundle provided to it alongside the Certificates of Compliance completed by Yu Man Chan on 18 June 2025 and on behalf of ADI Registrar, also on 18 June 2025. Both Certificates of Compliance confirmed that the appeal was ready for a decision to be made.

The parties agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (Footnote: ¹). I am satisfied that I can properly determine the issues without a hearing.

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 are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (Footnote: ²).

A licence under s129(1) of the Act is granted:

Holding a trainee licence, however, is not a pre-requisite to qualification as an ADI and people do qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.

The Powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the ADI Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the ADI Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (Footnote: ³). The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the ADI Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

Yu Man Chan passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 05 August 2023 and passed Part 2 on 31 October 2023. Yu Man Chan applied for a Trainee Licence which was granted and was valid from 11 December 2023. On 13 November 2024 Yu Man Chan applied for a Third Trainee Licence. As Yu Man Chan applied before the Licence expired, this means that, at the date of this consideration, Yu Man Chan ha been the beneficiary of a Trainee Licence for 1 year and 7 months. Yu Man Chan took, and failed, the Part 3 test on 05 September 2024 and 03 April 2025; he has a third (and final) attempt booked on 07 August 2025. It is of note that the 2 years limit from passing Part 1 is imminent and Yu Man Chan will only be permitted to complete the test booked on 07 August 2025 as it was booked prior to 05 August 2025.

When Yu Man Chan applied for a Third Trainee Licence, the ADI Registrar was considering refusing that application (see letter (email) dated 26 November 2024, paginated page 18 in the bundle). An opportunity to make representations was provided and was taken up by Yu Man Chan (email send 28 November 2024, paginated page 19 of the bundle). The ADI Registrar, taking account of the representations, refused to grant a Third Trainee Licence in a letter (email) dated 24 January 2025 and that is the decision which Yu Man Chan appeals to this Tribunal.

Yu Man Chan’s written grounds of appeal are:

The ADI Registrar, in his Response, noted that as at that time (17 June 2025) Yu Man Chan had made 2 attempts at Part 3, with a third one booked. He resisted the appeal on the grounds:

Yu Man Chan’s grounds of appeal concentrate on the perceived unfairness of the postponement of the Part 3 booked in January 2025. He does not appear to have made further submissions to account for the fact that (by appealing), he has had the opportunity to take the postponed test on 03 April 2025, albeit that he was still not at the standard expected to pass.

Despite the lack of further submissions, I have considered whether there are grounds for permitting Yu Man Chan to hold a Trainee Licence for a further 2 weeks to enable him to take the Part 3 test on 07 August 2025 with a Trainee Licence. It is clear to me that, after some 1 year and 4 months of holding a Trainee Licence, Yu Man Chan was not of the standard able to pass the Part 3 exam. He will still be able to take the test on 07 August 2025, even if he no longer holds a Trainee Licence, albeit that he will need to be very sure about the insurance provision for the person who is the driver on that occasion.

In all the circumstances, and putting myself in the shoes of the Regulator, I find that it is not appropriate to grant a Third Trainee Licence to Yu Man Chan and I dismiss the appeal.