Christopher Smith v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 31 January 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

In his Appeal Form dated 7 February 2025, the Appellant requested an oral hearing. By the time he completed the Tribunal’s case management questionnaire on 2 March 2025, the Appellant requested a determination without a hearing. As both parties had consented, the Tribunal directed that the appeal be decided on the papers in case management directions of 6 June 2025. I am satisfied that I can properly decide the issues without a hearing in line with Rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 40 numbered pages, plus index.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal relies upon the Registrar refusing him a third trainee licence before his complaint to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (‘DVSA’) had been resolved. The complaint concerned the Examiner and their reasons for failing the Appellant upon his second attempt at the Part 3 test.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 20 June 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two licences for 12 months. The fact he is disputing the Part 3 test result has no bearing on the use of his trainee licence.

The Appellant did not provide a reply to the Respondent’s Statement of Case.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’). A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in section 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.’

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 examination must be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an ADI, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). 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 Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 10 July 2023 and passed Part 2 on 25 September 2023. He failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 7 June 2024, and the second attempt on 23 August 2024 (which was the subject of his complaint to the DVSA).

On 27 August 2024 the Appellant complained/appealed to customer services at DVSA that the Examiner for his Part 3 test was rude throughout, kept speaking to him whilst teaching and telling the Appellant that he was running out of time whilst trying to fix a serious situation. The Appellant complained that several items of feedback were factually incorrect. He would have broken the Highway Code to fit in with the Examiner’s assessment, which he had explained to the Examiner at the time. The Appellant requested a re-test with another Examiner.

The Appellant is not now and never has been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

Two licences were granted to the Appellant under section 129 of the Act to gain practical experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination. The licences were valid from 15 January 2024 to 14 January 2025.

On 7 January 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, the trainee licence has continued in force pending the outcome of this appeal (section 129(6)). Therefore, the Appellant has had the benefit of a trainee licence for 19 months by the time of the paper hearing.

By email sent on 7 January 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant that he was considering refusal of the application for a third licence.

The Appellant made representations in response on 8 January 2025 referring to the email chain for his outstanding appeal against the outcome of his second attempt at the Part 3 test. He believed that the reason given “was invalid and would have violated the law”. The Appellant was informed that the appeal would be decided within 10 working days, but he had still not heard nearly 6-months later. He had not booked another test while awaiting the outcome because he would have to surrender his licence if he failed the test again.

Having considered those representations, the Registrar gave notice to refuse the licence application on 31 January 2025. In summary, the reasons for the Registrar’s decision were:

By email sent to the Appellant on 13 January 2025, the DVSA apologised for the time taken to respond to his complaint. The reply stated that the ADI Examiner had conducted the Part 3 test in accordance with the guidelines and had recorded the correct result, which cannot be changed. The reply was stated to be in line with the first stage of the DVSA’s complaints procedure.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal of 7 February 2025 are summarised as follows:

The outcome sought in the Notice of Appeal is a third trainee licence. The thrust of the appeal relies upon the Appellant’s grievance at the outcome of his failed second attempt at the Part 3 test. The reasons for that complaint are outside the remit of this appeal. I note that a response to that complaint was given on 13 January 2025.

In the meantime, the Appellant has benefited from a trainee licence for 19 months pending the outcome of this appeal. But for the appeal, the third licence would have expired had it been granted. In effect the Appellant has already had the benefit of a third 6-month trainee licence.

The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act. The trainee licence is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

The refusal of a third trainee licence does not bar the Appellant attempting the instructional ability test again. A licence is not needed for that purpose. All things considered I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed.