Lee Michael Houghton v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors dated 6 November 2025 to refuse the Appellant, Mr Lee Michael Houghton, a further trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Act.

The Appellant appeared in person. The Registrar was represented by written submissions filed under rule 23.

Having heard from the Appellant and considered all the documentary material, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal for the reasons set out below.

The background and chronology are not materially in dispute and may be summarised briefly.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) qualifying examinations on 15 May 2024 and Part 2 on 11 September 2024. He has not yet passed Part 3, which assesses instructional ability.

Between 7 October 2024 and 6 October 2025, the Appellant was granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, permitting him to give paid instruction for an aggregate period of 12 months.

During that period: a) the Appellant failed one Part 3 test; b) two Part 3 tests were cancelled by DVSA; c) one Part 3 test was cancelled by the Appellant himself.

On 26 September 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. By letter dated 3 October 2025 the Registrar notified him that refusal was under consideration and invited representations.

The Appellant made written representations on 8 October 2025, relying principally on difficulties in securing test dates and illness which he said had impacted his ability to make full use of the trainee licences.

On 6 November 2025 the Registrar refused the application. This appeal followed.

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits a person from giving paid instruction in driving unless they are either: a) on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors; or b) the holder of a current trainee licence under section 129.

Section 129 provides a limited power to issue trainee licences to enable applicants to gain practical experience while working towards qualification.

The scheme of the Act makes clear that trainee licences are a) temporary and exceptional; and b) intended to support progression to registration, not to enable long-term paid instruction outside the Register.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is appellate. The question is not whether the Tribunal would have reached the same decision afresh, but whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong, having regard to the statutory purpose, the facts, and the representations made.

The Appellant submits that refusal of a third trainee licence is unfair and disproportionate in his circumstances.

He relies in particular on: a) difficulties in obtaining Part 3 test dates, including cancellations by DVSA; b) illness which he says reduced the effective training time available to him; c) the level of personal and financial investment he has made in pursuing qualification; and d) the impact of refusal on his ability to earn a livelihood as a driving instructor.

In oral submissions, the Appellant accepted that he has not yet reached the required Part 3 standard but contended that a further period under a trainee licence would give him a realistic opportunity to do so.

The Registrar relies on the statutory purpose of section 129 and submits that the Appellant has already received the full benefit of the trainee licensing regime.

Particular emphasis is placed on the following matters: a) the Appellant has held trainee licences for the maximum aggregate period of 12 months; b) no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate lost training time through illness or inability to obtain pupils; c) the Appellant has had repeated opportunities to attempt Part 3, including a further test booked after the decision under appeal; d) trainee licences are not intended to be extended indefinitely until a test is passed.

The Registrar submits that refusal does not prevent the Appellant from continuing to attempt Part 3, and that paid tuition is not essential to preparation for the test.

The Tribunal approaches this appeal with sympathy for the Appellant’s position. It is clear that he has invested time, effort and money in pursuing qualification, and the Tribunal does not doubt his genuine wish to pass Part 3.

However, the Tribunal must apply the statutory scheme as enacted by Parliament. Trainee licences are a limited and exceptional departure from the general prohibition on paid instruction.

The Appellant has already received the full benefit contemplated by section 129, namely two trainee licences covering an aggregate period of 12 months. That is a substantial period in which to make progress towards qualification.

The Tribunal carefully considered the Appellant’s reliance on illness and test availability. While DVSA-initiated cancellations were plainly outside his control, the evidence as a whole does not demonstrate that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to attempt Part 3 within the trainee licensing period.

In particular: a) the Appellant did undertake a Part 3 test and did not pass; b) he cancelled one scheduled Part 3 test himself; c) he has remained able to book and attempt further Part 3 tests outside the trainee licensing regime.

The Tribunal also accepts the Registrar’s submission that paid instruction is not the only route to preparation for Part 3. Alternatives exist, including further training, supervision, and unpaid practice.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar correctly focused on the statutory purpose of section 129 and did not apply the policy mechanically. The Appellant’s representations were considered but did not disclose circumstances sufficient to justify a further departure from the general statutory prohibition.

The Tribunal therefore finds that the Registrar’s decision: a) was reached following a fair process; b) took into account all relevant matters; c) accorded with the statutory purpose; and d) struck a proportionate balance between the Appellant’s individual circumstances and the public interest in regulating paid instruction.

For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s decision was fair, reasonable and proportionate, and therefore lawful.

The appeal is dismissed.