Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1227
Transport
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Kim Man Leung
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
DECISION NOTICE
The Tribunal dismiss the appeal.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background:
This is an appeal under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the Registrar’s decision of 3 November 2025refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence under s.129 of the Act.
The Appellant has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He previously held two trainee licences between 1 October 2024and 30 September 2025, providing him with a total of 12 months in which to gain practical instructional experience.
The Appellant passed Part 1 on 2 May 2024 and Part 2 on 10 July 2024. He has since taken multiple Part 3 instructional ability tests, failing two (27 March 2025 and 5 February 2026), cancelling two others himself, and having one test cancelled by DVSA.
The Registrar’s Decision:
On 21 September 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. Following an invitation to provide representations, and after considering the Appellant’s explanation of difficulties obtaining Part 3 test dates, the Registrar refused the application.
The Registrar’s reasons included:
trainee licences are intended only to afford limited, temporary experience while preparing for registration, not a long-term alternative to qualification;
a six-month trainee licence normally provides sufficient experience, and the Appellant had already had 12 months through two licences;
despite ample opportunity, the Appellant had not reached the required standard, having failed Part 3 twice and cancelled two further tests;
holding a trainee licence is not requiredeither to undertake further training or to attempt the Part 3 test;
no exceptional circumstances justified further extension.
The Appellant’s Case:
In his representations and Notice of Appeal, the Appellant states that he faced difficulties in obtaining test datesand refers to a DVSA cancellation in November 2025. He argues that a third trainee licence is necessary to allow him to continue gaining practical experience and to prepare properly for the Part 3 test.
The Appellant provides no supporting documentation evidencing any prolonged loss of training opportunity or other extraordinary impediment.
Issues for the Tribunal:
The issues for determination are:
Whether the Registrar acted fairly, reasonably and proportionately in refusing a third trainee licence.
(2) Whether the Appellant has demonstrated exceptional or extraordinary circumstancesthat justify a departure from the ordinary policy limiting trainee licensing periods.
(3) Whether the Appellant has been denied adequate opportunity to obtain practical instructional experience.
Tribunal’s Findings:
I have considered the bundle carefully. I find that the Registrar’s decision was fair, reasonable and proportionate. The Registrar applied the correct statutory purpose: trainee licences exist to provide a limited and temporary period of experience and must not function as an open-ended substitute for meeting the required standard.
The Appellant enjoyed 12 months of licensed instruction—twice the usual six-month period contemplated by the legislative framework. He also benefited from the continuation of his second licence up to the determination of this appeal, giving him even more time to teach on a paid basis.
The Appellant has had multiple test opportunities, including two complete attempts at Part 3, together with two appointments that he himself cancelled. One DVSA cancellation does not amount to an exceptional circumstance, nor does it explain the failure to reach the required standard across the totality of attempts.
Crucially, the refusal of a third licence does not prevent the Appellant from continuing his preparation for the Part 3 test, nor does it prevent him from taking that test. He may undertake professional training, observe or practise with an ADI, or practise unpaid, none of which requires a trainee licence.
The Appellant has provided no evidence of significant lost training time, systemic obstruction, or any exceptional factor capable of displacing the Registrar’s policy considerations.
I therefore accept and adopt the Registrar’s reasoning in full. Nothing in the Appellant’s submissions or the evidence demonstrates that the decision was wrong or disproportionate.
Conclusion
The appeal is dismissed.
The decision of the Registrar dated 3 November 2025 stands.
Judge Brian Kennedy KC 13 March 2026.