Kellie Bishop v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 16.00. Neither party, nor any representative on their behalf, appeared. Further, neither party, nor any person on their behalf, had made any contact with the Tribunal since this appeal was listed for hearing. The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of the parties at 16.10 and determined this appeal on the papers only without a hearing. It subsequently emerged, before this Decision was promulgated, that the Appellant did not, it seems, correctly follow the joining instructions for the hearing of her appeal and, indeed, connected remotely to a hearing in another Chamber entirely at some point. The Tribunal requested that the Decision not be promulgated pending the outcome of the Appellant’s third, and final, maximum permitted attempt at passing her instructional ability test (hereafter the ‘Part 3 test’) that was to take place on Friday, 1 August 2025. The Tribunal was advised today, Tuesday, 5 August 2025, that the Appellant had failed her said third, and final, maximum permitted attempt to pass her Part 3 test. Pursuant to Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, a trainee licence remains in force only until the day immediately following an Appellant’s third unsuccessful attempt to pass the said Part 3 test. The decision refusing this appeal is now to be promulgated and issued to the parties in those circumstances.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 22 January 2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 3 December 2024. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant in a letter dated 5 January 2025, namely, that she had a number of repeated mechanical issues with her vehicle over repeated periods of time as a result of which her vehicle was unavailable for repeated periods as it needed repairs carried out. In her Notice of Appeal dated 3 February 2025, the Appellant, essentially, reiterated those representations that, she submitted, prevented her gaining sufficient experience in driving tuition during the currency of her previous two trainee licences to reach the qualifying standard, by passing her instructional ability test (hereafter her ‘Part 3 test’) to be entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’) – the sole purpose of granting a trainee licence - and that these problems were unforeseen and beyond her control. She submitted to the Respondent receipts and invoices for repairs, including a schedule of dates when the Appellant’s vehicle was unavailable. The Respondent’s decision submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the Appellant of, for example, a loss of practice time due to issues experienced by the Appellant arising from problems with her vehicle. However, the Tribunal declined to find that as a fact as the Appellant had referred to such issues in her said representations to the Respondent when it advised her of its intention to refuse her application for a third trainee licence.

This, in itself, however, was not sufficient to allow this appeal for the reasons advanced by the Respondent as set out below and accepted by the Tribunal.

The Respondent submitted in its said decision, the decision under appeal, and in its Response dated 19 June 2025 to this appeal, that the Appellant had received the benefit of two trainee licences, covering a 12 month period from 18 December 2023 to 17 December 2024, a period that, it submitted, was a very reasonable period to reach the said qualifying standard; that it was not the intention of Parliament that trainee licences be issued for as long as it takes an ADI candidate to pass their Part 3 test and that the trainee licence system could not be an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of a trainee licence application was not a bar to taking a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s second trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal as she had applied for a third trainee licence before the expiry of her second trainee licence (that, in practical terms, meant she had the benefit of a trainee licence for almost 21 months); that holding a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test or to obtain further training such as, attending a training course or studying or practising with an existing ADI or provide unpaid driving tuition – a course adopted by other ADI candidates, some of whom had never held a trainee licence.

The said Response of the Respondent also confirmed that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test twice - on 11 October 2024 and 4 March 2025, respectively - and that she had cancelled Part 3 test appointments on three other occasions. The said Response also confirmed that the Appellant would be undertaking her final attempt to pass a Part 3 test on 1 August 2025.

In her said Notice of Appeal, against the said decision of the Respondent, the Appellant, essentially, repeated her said representations to the Respondent as to why her application for a third trainee licence should not be refused, but in greater detail. The grounds advanced by the Appellant did not, in fact, fully address the Respondent’s reasons for refusing her 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 her 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 considered all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.