Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1440
Transport
Heard on: 14 May 2026.
Decision given on: 26 May 2026.
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Andrew Richard Gaunt
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.
DECISION NOTICE
The Tribunal dismiss the appeal. The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background:
This is an appeal brought by the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent dated 10 December 2025 refusing his application for a further trainee driving instructor licence pursuant to section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The Appellant seeks a third trainee licence to enable him to continue giving paid instruction whilst preparing for the Part 3 (instructional ability) examination required for registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).
The Respondent refused the application on the basis that the Appellant had already been afforded sufficient opportunity to gain experience under previous licences and had not demonstrated that further licence entitlement was justified within the statutory scheme.
Chronology:
The relevant chronology is as follows:
The Appellant has undertaken the ADI qualification process and passed the relevant preliminary stages (Part 1 and Part 2 tests).
The Appellant has been granted two trainee licences, amounting to approximately 12 months of authorised paid instructional experience.
During that period, the Appellant has failed multiple Part 3 tests and cancelled at least one further test.
On 10 November 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.
By correspondence dated 13 November 2025, the Respondent indicated that refusal was being considered and invited representations.
The Appellant provided representations dated 21 November 2025, relying principally upon mental health difficulties affecting test performance and delays in securing test dates.
By decision dated 10 December 2025, the Respondent refused the application.
Issues:
The Tribunal identifies the central issue as whether, applying section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime, the Appellant is entitled to a further trainee licence.
That requires consideration of:
whether the Appellant has already had sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience;
whether there are exceptional or compelling circumstances justifying departure from the ordinary limits of the scheme;
whether the Respondent’s decision accorded with the statutory purpose and framework.
The Law:
Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction unless the instructor is registered as an ADI or holds a valid trainee licence.
Section 129 provides the statutory framework for trainee licences. In summary:
A licence may be issued to enable a person to gain experience whilst preparing for the Part 3 test;
The Respondent retains a discretion to refuse an application;
The scheme is intended to be time-limited and facilitative, not a substitute for registration.
The statutory purpose, consistently articulated in the Respondent’s materials, is that:
trainee licences provide limited, time-bound experience;
they are not intended to permit indefinite or repeated teaching pending eventual success; and
the integrity of the ADI register requires that candidates demonstrate competence within that structured framework.
The Appellant’s Case:
The Appellant submits, in summary:
that mental health difficulties (including anxiety) materially affect his performance in test conditions;
that delays in obtaining test dates have disadvantaged him;
that fairness requires his circumstances to be treated analogously to a disability;
that the further licence sought is limited and proportionate, enabling him to take a final test.
The Respondent’s Grounds (repeated in substance)
11.The Respondent’s decision was based on the following grounds:
Statutory purpose: the trainee licence regime exists to provide limited practical experience and must not become an alternative to registration;
Sufficiency of opportunity: the Appellant has already had two licences, amounting to a substantial and more than adequate period to reach the required standard;
Failure to achieve the required standard: despite that opportunity, the Appellant has failed the Part 3 test on multiple occasions and cancelled a further attempt;
Lack of supporting evidence: no independent medical evidence or evidence of lost training time has been provided to substantiate reliance on mental health difficulties;
Alternative routes remain available: the Appellant does not require a trainee licence to sit the Part 3 test and may continue to train through other lawful means;
Structural limitation of the scheme: a further licence is not justified where the statutory purpose has already been fulfilled and where continued extension would undermine the scheme.
Findings and Conclusions:
The Tribunal has considerable sympathy for the Appellant’s position. His evidence, both written and oral, demonstrates a genuine belief that anxiety affects his performance in examination conditions.
13.However, the Tribunal must determine the appeal by reference to the statutory framework.
14.The Tribunal finds as follows:
The Appellant has been afforded substantial opportunity, including two trainee licences amounting to approximately twelve months of authorised experience.
Despite that opportunity, he has not demonstrated the ability to meet the Part 3 standard, having failed multiple attempts.
Whilst the Tribunal accepts that anxiety may affect performance, there is no independent medical evidence before the Tribunal substantiating the extent or impact of any condition.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the absence of such evidence permits departure from the ordinary operation of the statutory scheme.
The statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime is limited and time-bound and does not extend to repeated or indefinite renewal until success is achieved.
The refusal of a further licence does not prevent the Appellant from qualifying, as he may still undertake the Part 3 examination and continue training by other means.
15.In those circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that the Respondent’s decision:
accords with the statutory purpose;
(ii) is proportionate; and
(iii) discloses no error on the merits.
Conclusion:
For those reasons, and for the grounds set out by the Respondent and repeated above, the appeal is dismissed.
Brian Kennedy KC 15 May 2026.