Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0188
Transport
Before
JUDGE TAFT
Between
CAROLINE SIDDALL
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is struck out
REASONS
The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). She was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 3 February 2026. The Appellant appealed that decision.
In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times.
If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act:
“for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.”
This is commonly known as a trainee licence.
By section 129(3) of the Act:
“The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued.”
Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal.
Under Rule 8(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal may strike out a case where:
the Appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the Appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them;
the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or
the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.
Under Rule 8(4), the Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraphs (2), (3)(b) or (3)(c) without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.
On 16 April 2026, the Respondent filed a GRC5 inviting the Tribunal to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because it said that the Appellant had failed her Part 3 test for the third time on 15 April 2026.
On 23 April 2026, Legal Officer Bringhurst directed the Appellant to make any representations as to why her appeal should not be struck out or alternatively confirm that she wished to withdraw her appeal no later than 7 May 2026. The Tribunal has not received any communication from the Appellant.
Two limbs of Rule 8(3) are made out:
Limb (b): in failing to comply with Legal Officer Bringhurst’s direction, the Appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal; and
Limb (c): the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case succeeding: as she has failed her Part 3 test for the third time, she must now start the process of qualification again. She is not entitled to a trainee licence until such time as she passes Parts 1 and 2.
Signed Date: 20 May 2026
Judge Taft