Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0881
Transport
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE FINDLAY
Between
NIKOLETT GOMBOS
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTIONS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is allowed.
REASONS
Mode of Hearing
The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 29 pages.
The Law
To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“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 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. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.
The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act.
When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“RADI”) and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the RADI’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the RADI’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.
Background
The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.
On 21 July 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 22 July 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of her application for a third licence. By way of an email received on 4 August 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations.
After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application on the grounds that the Appellant had had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months and although she had caring responsibilities she would have been aware of this before starting the process and should have factored this in when considering how and when they would make use of her licence. The circumstances were not unforeseen and did not warrant the issue of a third licence.
The reasons for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the application for a third licence were as follows:
The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration.
The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal.
Since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. (Annex A). Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI.
The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI or give tuition on her own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.
The Appellant booked a second attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 30 January 2026. The outcome of the test was not known to the Tribunal.
Appeal to the Tribunal
In her email dated 4 August 2025 the Appellant relies on the following grounds:
She failed the first attempt at the Part 3 tests on 16 December 2024 because just days before the test the original pupil became unavailable and she had to rely on a family friend as a replacement. The lack of consistent practice impacted on her performance.
The examiner on 16 December 2024 offered constructive and the areas requiring improvement she has worked on with her trainer.
It had taken her a long time to rebook due to ongoing personal challenges particularly regarding her daughter who has significant mental health difficulties. The Appellant has filed documentary evidence of her daughter’s condition and the demands on her
The personal demands on her time have limited the number of pupils she has been able to support. She has mainly worked with test-ready learners which has reduced her opportunities to train for the Part 3 test.
She is fully committed to becoming a ADI.
She understands the importance of maintaining high standards in the profession.
The Appellant had filed a letter from her manager who confirmed that the difficulties experienced by the Appellant impacted on her opportunities to commit to beginner-level learners. The manager confirmed his knowledge and understanding of the Appellant’s personal family commitments and caring responsibilities which had impacted on her ability to progress as quickly as expected. The manager supports the Appellant’s application for a third licence.
The Appellant filed supportive medical evidence.
The Respondent submitted that although the Appellant had caring responsibilities she would have been aware of this before starting the process. She has been granted two trainee licences for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience to pass Part 3 of the ADI Qualifying Examination. This was more than an adequate period of time.
Conclusion
The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s representations and the evidence filed in support and considered it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a further trainee licence to enable the Appellant to take the Part 3 test on the last occasion. It is reasonable to give her this opportunity.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Signed Date: 20 February 2026
J Findlay
Judge of the First-tier Tribunal