Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1326
Transport
Heard on: 20 May 2026.
Decision given on: 27 May 2026.
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Geoff Pike
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
Decision: 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
Background:
The Appellant, Mr Geoff Pike, appeals under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the Registrar’s refusal to grant a third trainee licence to give paid driving instruction.
He has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.
He previously held two trainee licences (totalling c. 12 months) intended to enable him to gain practical experience while preparing for qualification.
The Registrar refused a third licence on 5 November 2025 after representations.
Chronology:
07 Oct 2024 – 06 Oct 2025: Two trainee licences granted (covering 12 months);
29 Sep 2025: Application for third trainee licence;
01 Oct 2025: Notice of proposed refusal and invitation to make representations;
03 Oct. 2025: Appellant’s representations (bereavements, loss of training time, financial reliance);
05 Nov 2025 Decision refusing third licence;
25 Nov 2025: Notice of Appeal lodged.
Test history:
Part 2 (driving ability): passed (Jan 2024; Jul 2024).
(instructional ability): failed twice (Dec 2025; Jan 2025).
Final attempt at Part 3 booked: 06 May 2026.
The Issues:
Whether the Registrar lawfully exercised discretion in refusing a third trainee licence.
Whether refusal was unreasonable or disproportionate in light of:
(a) personal circumstances (bereavement, financial hardship),
(b) alleged loss of training opportunity.
Whether the Appellant still requires a licence for the statutory purpose (gaining experience in advance of qualification) or is using it as a means of ongoing income.
Practical issue: Whether the impending / completed final Part 3 attempt renders the appeal academic or bound to fail (as suggested by the Registrar).
Relevant Law:
s.123(1): Paid instruction requires ADI registration or a trainee licence.
s.129:
Registrar may grant trainee licences to allow experience pending qualification.
Licences are temporary and purposive, not an alternative to registration.
Scheme purpose (from Registrar’s statement):
Licences are to facilitate qualification within a reasonable period, not indefinite teaching.
Tribunal approach (well-established):
Broad merits review of Registrar’s discretion.
Weight to statutory purpose and policy against repetitive licences.
Grounds of Appeal:
Personal hardship and disruption to training:
Deaths of family members and a friend.
Financial reliance:
Driving instruction is sole/primary income.
Mortgage and household outgoings cited (~£2,000/month).
Alleged loss:
Loss of bookings and income (~£600/week stated).
Seeks extension to continue working pending qualification.
Registrar’s Response:
The statutory purpose is training towards qualification, not income generation.
The Appellant has already had two licences covering 12 months—a reasonable opportunity.
No evidence provided of lost training time or inability to prepare.
Continued reliance on trainee licence suggests it is being used as an alternative to registration.
Failure to pass Part 3 despite ample opportunity indicates lack of progress toward required standard.
A further licence is not necessary to sit the test or continue training by other means.
the final Part 3 test has been taken; the appeal may be bound to fail on statutory purpose grounds.
Assessment of Merits:
Strengths (Appellant)
Genuine hardship:
A bereavement and financial pressure are plausible and supported at least narratively.
Engagement with process. The Appellant has made representations I an attempt to qualify ongoing.
Core statutory difficulty:
Scheme is clearly time-limited and purposive.
Two licences (12 months) already granted; Tribunal likely to see this as full opportunity.
Failure to pass Part 3:
Two failures after extended period weighs heavily.
No evidence of imminent readiness beyond assertion.
Use as income:
Appellant expressly relies on licence as main income.
This aligns directly with Registrar’s concern and cuts against statutory purpose.
Lack of evidential support:
Bereavement impact not evidenced (medical/training records absent).
No objective evidence of lost training or progress.
Alternative routes available:
Training without paid instruction remains open.
Weakens necessity argument.
Final test issue:
If already taken (May 2026), licence arguably no longer serves statutory purpose.
Strong point for Registrar that appeal is effectively academic or cannot succeed.
Overall Merits:
The Tribunal find Registrar’s case is strong on statutory purpose and proportionality.
While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the Appellant’s plight, the appeal is structurally weak as it relies on hardship rather than demonstrating that a further licence serves the statutory objective.
In light of the absence of compelling new evidence (e.g. clear near-pass trajectory or exceptional disruption), the appeal faces significant difficulty on the statutory tests and regrettably must fail, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Judge Brian Kennedy 20 May 2026.