Mark Holliday v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 3 September 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The Appellant is trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two six-month periods from 4 August 2024 to 4 August 2025. He was refused a further licence. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 13 September 2025 relies on the grounds that there were delays in booking his Part 3 tests, he continued training while caring for his seriously ill parents, and he went ahead with a second attempt but did not pass due to these personal circumstances.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 25 November 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the purpose of the licence is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Part 3 test. The Appellant has failed the test twice and cancelled one attempt. The Registrar says that the Appellant can still attempt the test and obtain unpaid experience without a further licence.

The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of 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 is made up of: 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 two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.

A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, 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 burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 21 pages.

This includes evidence of the Appellant’s full licence history from the Registrar. This shows that the Appellant failed the Part 3 test on 16 December 2024 and 11 June 2025, and cancelled an attempt on 21 March 2025. Another test was booked for 21 January 2026. I do not know whether this test went ahead.

I have also seen the Appellant’s representations to the Registrar, which say that both of his attempts at the Part 3 test were affected by family emergencies.

I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. As the Registrar has said, it is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

I do have some sympathy for the Appellant’s personal circumstances which may have affected his ability to pass the two tests he had attempted. However, he has not provided any evidence of lost training time.

As the Appellant applied for a third licence before the second one expired, the licence has remained in force until this hearing and he has had the opportunity to attempt the test again after submitting this appeal. If the third attempt went ahead on 21 January 2026, this appeal cannot succeed – because the Appellant will either have passed and become qualified, or failed for the third time which means he can no longer hold a trainee licence. If not, any third six-month licence would have expired on 3 February 2026 in any event, two days before I make this decision. I could not find that the Appellant should have been granted a licence beyond 3 February.

The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and I now dismiss this appeal.