Paul Sydes v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant, Mr Paul Sydes, is a trainee driving instructor who has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADI”). Two trainee licences were previously granted to him under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, covering the period 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025.

On 9 September 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. The Registrar issued a notice on 10 September 2025 indicating that refusal was being considered, inviting representations.

The Appellant responded stating that progress had been delayed due to bereavement, rescheduled test dates, and one DVSA-cancelled test.

On 1 October 2025, the Registrar refused the application on the basis that the Appellant had already had the benefit of the maximum normal period of trainee licensing (twelve months), had not demonstrated sufficient progress, and had provided no supporting evidence for the claimed lost training time.

The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal’s function is not to remake the decision on the basis of what it might have done, but to determine whether the Registrar’s refusal of a third trainee licence was: Reasonable, properly directed, proportionate, and supported by material evidence, having regard to the statutory purpose of trainee licences and the evidence before the Registrar at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal also considers whether there is any exceptional, extraordinary, or compelling circumstance that would justify interfering with the Registrar’s judgement.

The Registrar correctly reminded himself that trainee licences exist to give candidates limited, temporary access to real-world instructional experience while preparing for the qualifying examinations and must not be treated as an open-ended alternative route to operating as a driving instructor.

The Appellant had already received two licences covering twelve months, which is the standard maximum period envisaged. Applying for the third licence shortly before expiry meant that the second licence remained active throughout the appeal process, giving further opportunity to instruct lawfully.

The Appellant has passed Part 1 and Part 2, but has:

The Registrar was entitled to conclude that despite significant opportunity, the Appellant had not yet demonstrated the progress ordinarily expected at this stage.

The Appellant referred to bereavement and disruptions affecting preparation. He supplied no evidence supporting the claimed lost training time or demonstrating that such factors prevented progress for a material period.

The Registrar was entitled to rely on the absence of supporting information, particularly where a third licence is an exceptional measure requiring justification beyond ordinary training difficulties.

The Registrar noted, correctly, that refusal of a trainee licence does not prevent the Appellant from undertaking training or attempting Part 3 without holding a licence, provided no paid instruction is undertaken. These lawful alternatives significantly reduce any impact of refusal.

Nothing in the bundle indicates procedural unfairness, a material error of fact, irrationality, or circumstances so compelling as to require departure from the Registrar’s usual approach.

Having considered all the papers, I am satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was fair, reasonable, and proportionate in all the circumstances.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed and the Registrar’s decision dated 1 October 2025 refusing to grant a third trainee driving instructor licence is upheld.