Matthew Alexander Guy v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 7 January 2026 at 16.00. Neither the Appellant, nor a representative of the Respondent appeared, nor made any contact with the Tribunal.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 2 July 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 3 June 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, on 12 June that he had become a father for the first time and that the said decision under appeal, not to be granted a third trainee licence, would have a financial impact.

The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 10 July 2025 against the said decision of the Respondent, noting, among other submissions, that his third, and final, permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test was booked, on hold, awaiting a date.

The Respondent, in their Response dated 1 December 2025 reiterated the reasons for their decision, in greater detail, noting that the Appellant’s third, and final, permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test was scheduled to take place on 22 December 2025.

In an application dated 23 December 2025, copied to the Appellant, the Respondent made an application to strikeout this appeal, pursuant Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules, as having no reasonable prospect of success since the Appellant had failed his third, and final, permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test on 22 December 2025.

In the circumstances set out in paragraph 5 above, this appeal must, by statute, fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that the applicant can gain the required practical experience to take a Part 3 test.

Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Car (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 provides that an existing trainee licence remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee’s third unsuccessful attempt to pass his Part 3 test.

While the Appellant is entitled, pursuant to Rule 8(4) of the Rules to make written representations as to why his appeal should not be struck out, the circumstances that exist here would makes this a nugatory exercise.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.