Sandor Jozsef Molnar v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 24^th February 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The matter was determined on the papers, by agreement with the parties.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘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.’

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, 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 final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, 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. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor 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 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.

The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The Appellant had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 19^th October 2023 and Part 2 on 27^th November 2023.

The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 4^th March 2024 to 3^rd September 2024 and which was later extended by the Respondent until 3^rd March 2025.

The Appellant has had a number of opportunities to take the Part 3 test. He failed it on 15^th August 2024 and again on 8^th May 2025. It has been booked on a further five occasions, of which four were cancelled by the Appellant and one was marked by DVSA as “unknown”.

The last booked test, on 1^st September 2025, was marked as cancelled by the Appellant.

On 2 February 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the second trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application and this appeal.

On 5^th February 2025 the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 10^th February 2025. He stated that getting a test in the local area, where he knew the roads, was difficult and that without a trainee license he was not able to work for his employer. Without that employment he was not able to have a training vehicle or access to learners. This would make his ability to attend part 3 “virtually zero”.

The application was refused on 24^th February 2025.

The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence of lost practice time was provided and the Appellant had already had a trainee license for twelve months, sufficient time to obtain the experience to pass the Part 3 test.

The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 3^rd March 2025.

The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that:

The Respondent, in his response, states:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of trainee licences from 4^th March 2024 until today’s date. This has given him almost 18 months, which should have been adequate time to prepare.

I have seen no evidence from the Appellant as to why at least four, and possibly five test opportunities, had been cancelled. There is no evidence of a further test having been booked or placed on hold further to the cancelled test on 1^st September 2025.

The Appellant sought to have his license extended to May 2025. He has more than exceeded that goal by virtue of filing this appeal.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Respondent’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with theRespondent’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.