Richard Lightowler v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant, Richar Lightowler appeals against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors dated 12 November 2025, refusing his application for a third trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Appellant has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, but has previously held two trainee licences, which together provided 12 months of supervised instructional experience.

The Appellant failed his first Part 3 instructional ability test and later cancelled a further booked test on 28 July 2025. His next attempt is scheduled for 29 April 2026.

The Registrar refused the third licence on the basis that the statutory scheme provides only limited and time-bound trainee licensing, that the Appellant had already been given ample opportunity to progress, and that his reasons for delay (work commitments and reduced training time) were unsupported by evidence.

Under section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, no person may provide paid instruction unless on the Approved Register or holding a current trainee licence issued under section 129.

A trainee licence under section 129(1) allows temporary, supervised instruction for the purpose of gaining practical experience in preparation for qualifying as an instructor. It is not intended to serve as a continuing substitute for full registration.

On appeal, the Tribunal must determine whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong, unlawful, or based on a material error of fact or approach.

The Registrar was entitled to conclude that the Appellant had already received more than sufficient supervised experience through two consecutive trainee licences totalling 12 months.

The Appellant’s explanations for delay—work commitments, part-time hours, and cancellation of the July 2025 test—were matters within his own control and were not supported by any material evidence. The Registrar expressly considered these points and gave rational reasons for rejecting them.

The Appellant’s failure of one Part 3 test and cancellation of another, despite the lengthy period available for training, support the Registrar’s conclusion that he had been given ample opportunity to reach the required standard but had not done so.

Refusal of a further licence does not prevent the Appellant from preparing for or attempting his April 2026 Part 3 test. The Registrar correctly noted that further training can be undertaken without holding a paid-instruction licence.

I find no procedural unfairness, no material factual error, and no misdirection in the Registrar’s approach. The decision was properly reasoned, proportionate, and consistent with the statutory purpose of section 129.

The Appellant has not discharged the burden of showing that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The refusal of a third trainee licence was a decision open to the Registrar on the evidence before him. The appeal is therefore dismissed.