Stephen Derrick v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 12.00. The Appellant, nor any representative on his behalf, did not appear. No representative of the Respondent appeared either. No contact or communication was received from, or on behalf of, either party following it being fixed for hearing. The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of the parties at 12.10 and determined this appeal on the papers only without a hearing.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 16 January 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 10 December 2024. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant on 19 December 2024, namely, that he had difficulties obtaining a date for his instructional ability test (hereafter ‘Part 3 test’) and that his franchise did not provide a diverse range of pupils to teach in order to gain tuition experience. This was accepted by his franchise in writing on 18 December 202, adding that most of the pupils it was able to provide were, in fact, test ready, a point also made by the Appellant himself in his Notice of Appeal dated 28 January 2025. However, the Appellant agreed in his said Notice of Appeal that he had cancelled one Part 3 test appointment that had been arranged for on 13 June 2024 (but had, in fact, cancelled three Part 3 test appointments on 26 September 2023, 13 June 2024 and 1 May 2025, respectively, and that he had failed two attempts at his Part 3 test (2 December 2024 and 3 October 2023, respectively). The Tribunal found that an alleged difficulty in obtaining a date for a Part 3 test was not sustainable and was rejected. The Respondent submitted that there was not sufficient evidence of lost training time provided by the Appellant; that the Appellant had received the benefit of two trainee licences, covering a 12 month period from 4 December 2023 to 3 December 2024, for the purpose of gaining sufficient expertise in driving tuition to pass a Part 3 test, submitting that even a period of six months was a very reasonable period to allow the Appellant to reach the qualifying standard to be entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’). Further, in fact, due to the Appellant having applied for a third trainee licence before his second trainee licence had expired, according to the Respondent, the Appellant, in effect, had the benefit of a trainee licence for a further period of almost 8 months until his appeal was determined today; that the trainee licence system could not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an ADI; that the purpose of a grant of a trainee licence was not to enable a trainee to provide driving tuition for as long as it takes him to pass a Part 3 test; that the refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to the Appellant attempting (in his case) a final attempt to pass his Part 3 test (that is booked for 12 August 2025); that the Appellant holding a trainee licence was not required in order to undertake a Part 3 test; that, in the alternative, the Appellant could provide unpaid driving tuition without charge, or, attend a training course, or, study or practice with an existing ADI, submitting that there were applicants for entry onto the Register of ADIs without ever having held a trainee licence. This was accepted as a fact by the Tribunal.

The Appellant, in his said Notice of Appeal, against the Respondent’s said decision essentially repeated the contents of his representations in response to the Respondent’s intention to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence.

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.