Christopher Billinge v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 5^th March 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

The matter was decided without a hearing, both parties having consented to that being the case.

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 11^th April 2024 and Part 2 on 2^nd May 2024.

The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 22^nd April 2024 to 21^st January 2024.

On 20^th January 2024 the Appellant applied for a second 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 his appeal to this Tribunal.

On 30^th January 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 4^th February 2025. He noted that his trainer had suffered a heart attack in August 2024 and that he had not been able to find an alternative trainer with capacity before November 2024. He had not managed to complete his supervisory hours within the initial three months of the license for that reason. His original trainer came back to work for a short period but was quickly unwell again and unable to teach. The Appellant felt he had been misled by DVSA as to which type of trainee license he should apply for and he eventually instructed a new trainer. The date was not provided but the Appellant booked his part 3 exam.

The application was refused on 5^th March 2025.

The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of the first license, having not informed DVSA of the issues with the trainer’s health. Six months was considered adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass the Part 3 examination.

On 7^th April 2024 the Appellant failed his first attempt the Part 3 test.

A further attempt at the Part 3 test was booked on 6^th August 2025. The outcome is not known to the Tribunal deciding this matter on 11^th August 2025.

The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 15^th March 2025.

The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that he had lost a large amount of training time owing to the ill health of his trainer and had contacted DVSA about this and been advised that his license could be extended. He had

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 accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the health issues suffered by his trainer and the consequent loss of training time.

The Respondent’s position, which was that the Appellant had failed to provide that information, was slightly disingenuous given that the information was provided at the time the Respondent was asked to reconsider the position.

I note that the Appellant was in receipt of a trainee license between 22 July 2024 and 21 January 2025 and then, by virtue of this application, up to today’s date. Regardless of the fact that his training time was significantly disrupted by the lack of training available to him, he has now achieved his aim of extending his trainee license by six months from 20^th January 2025, simply by filing an appeal.

I do not have access to any information with regard to the test on the 6^th August 2025, that date having passed.

I am conscious, though, that the Appellant may have failed that test. If he has, he is entitled to one further attempt, so long as it is booked within the relevant time period, and I am also conscious that his training was significantly disrupted between August 2024 and January 2025.

I therefore make the decision to allow the appeal, insofar as that is lawfully possible, allowing an extension of the trainee license until 21 January 2026.

Of course, if the Appellant passed the test on 6^th August, this decision will be of no effect.