Colin Pattison v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal brought by the Appellant, Mr Colin Pattison, against the decision of the Respondent, the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, dated 18 November 2025 refusing his application for the grant of a second trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Tribunal heard the appeal on 14 May 2026. The Appellant appeared in person. The Respondent was represented through its written Rule 23 response.

The Tribunal records that the Appellant gave his evidence candidly and sincerely. He explained the personal and practical difficulties he has faced and emphasised the importance of this work to his livelihood and family.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the qualifying examinations on 28 November 2024 and Part 2 on 8 March 2025.

A first trainee licence was in force between 14 April and 13 October 2025.

On 8 October 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. Following an invitation to make representations, the Respondent refused that application on 18 November 2025.

The Appellant has since undertaken the Part 3 (instructional ability) test but failed the attempt on 14 January 2026. A further test has been booked.

The issues for determination are:

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction unless a person is registered as an approved driving instructor or holds a trainee licence.

Section 129 provides the Respondent with a discretion to grant trainee licences, including second licences. That discretion must be exercised consistently with the purpose of the statutory scheme.

The Tribunal accepts the following principles:

The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions before it.

The Appellant relies on a number of matters in support of his appeal, including illness, bereavement, disruption arising from the COVID period, and practical difficulties in progressing his training and securing tests.

The Tribunal accepts that these matters are genuine and that the Appellant has faced real personal challenges. The Tribunal further accepts that he is motivated to qualify and to support himself and his family through this work.

However, the appeal turns on the requirements of the statutory scheme and, in particular on compliance with the conditions attached to the grant of a trainee licence. Sympathy cannot displace those requirements.

The Tribunal considers that the most significant feature of this case is the Appellant’s failure to comply with a core condition of the first trainee licence, namely the requirement to provide evidence of training in the prescribed form, including ADI 21AT records.

That requirement is not merely administrative or ancillary. It goes to the essence of the scheme which depends upon demonstrable, structured training and documented progress during the limited period in which paid instruction is permitted.

In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the first trainee licence was used in accordance with its intended purpose. The failure to provide those records is therefore not a minor omission but a fundamental deficiency.

The Tribunal has considered whether the Appellant’s explanation for that failure provides sufficient justification. It does not. While the matters relied upon provide context, they do not explain why required documentary evidence of training was not produced, nor do they amount to a basis upon which the Tribunal could properly disregard a clear condition of the licence.

The Tribunal finds that this non-compliance is, of itself, strongly indicative that the threshold for the grant of a second trainee licence has not been met.

In addition, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that demonstrable progress during the currency of the first licence was limited. The Appellant has failed the Part 3 test and has not yet established the level of instructional competence required for registration.

When these matters are taken together—material non-compliance with licence conditions and insufficient demonstrated progress—the Tribunal considers that the Respondent was not only entitled, but in substance justified, in refusing a further licence.

The Tribunal further accepts the Respondent’s submission as to the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime. It is a time-limited mechanism to facilitate progression to qualification, not a means of extending paid instruction in circumstances where progress and compliance have not been established.

To grant a second trainee licence in the present circumstances would risk undermining that statutory purpose, particularly where a key safeguard—documented evidence of training—has not been satisfied.

The Tribunal has considered proportionality and fairness. However, the regulatory framework necessarily applies to all prospective instructors. The factors relied upon by the Appellant, while sincere and understandable, are not unusual in character and cannot justify departure from the scheme’s requirements.

The Tribunal also notes that refusal of a second trainee licence does not prevent the Appellant from continuing his efforts to qualify. He may continue training and present himself for the Part 3 examination without holding such a licence.

The Tribunal recognises the Appellant’s genuine commitment and his difficult personal circumstances.

Nonetheless, for the reasons set out above, the Appellant has not demonstrated that the Respondent erred in refusing the application for a second trainee licence.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.