Lirong You v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 7 January 2026 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's request for a 3rd (trainee) Licence.

What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference in this decision to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

In the GRC1 form the Appellant indicated that because English is not her first language a Mandarin language interpreter would be needed for the hearing and this was provided. The Appellant was asked whether she was satisfied that the papers, such as her appeal form and witness statement, both written in English, contained what she wanted to say. She said they did and that she had signed them. At the end of the hearing she said that she had understood what had happened and what had been said.

Mr Rawlins accompanied the Appellant as allowed by rule 11(5) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules") which assisted the Tribunal to deal with the case fairly and justly. He is a qualified driving instructor, also speaks Mandarin, and has been involved in the training and development of the Appellant as she has been preparing for part 3. He has observed her teaching since early April 2026. He provided a statement and is supportive of her appeal.

The Registrar did not attend. His position was taken to be as set out in his letters of 4 December 2025 and 7 January 2026 and in his response to the appeal. By rule 36 2009 Rules:-

I am satisfied that the Registrar was aware of the date and time for this appeal hearing. In my view, having also considered the overriding objective in rule 2 2009 Rules, it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrar even though some evidence, upon which this decision is made, was not known to the Registrar when he made the Decision and when he responded to the appeal.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and she is therefore prohibited from giving paid (as defined) driving instructions by section 123(1) of the Act unless she holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regs").

To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This is granted "...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 referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct."A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not required to be able to take part 3.

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." If he does so he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8)(c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act:-

Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a) to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-

The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities.

When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions (see Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011). It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances.

For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 49 pdf pages, I had two witness statements and I heard from the Appellant and Mr Rawlins with the assistance of the translator.

The Appellant agrees and I accept that:-

This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 19 January 2026. Thereafter:-

I was also told (and accept) that the Appellant failed part 3 for a 2nd time on 15 April 2026 and had now applied again and is awaiting a test date.

In the representations and appeal form the Appellant referred principally to difficulties in getting part 3 test dates and a particular medical issue. In reply to some of the Registrar's concerns she said:-

She explained her commitment to becoming an ADI saying:-

At the appeal, the Appellant provided more information about the relevant medical issues. It is not necessary to set these out in any detail but of note is that the main issue negatively impacted her ability to progress for the three months of September, October and November 2025. She explained that the other issue referred to in the evidence had only a minor impact.

The Appellant was asked what she had done after the Decision was issued about continuing (as allowed) to provide driving instruction for payment. She said that she did this for a while to ensure that her then pupils had continuity but that this reduced and she has more recently only been providing tuition to friends and people she knows personally and she is not charging for this. Mr Rawlins added that part of reason for this reduction in paid pupils was because, as the date for this appeal got closer, the Appellant was reluctant to take on new paying pupils in case the appeal went against her as she would then have to stop being their instructor. This risk was considered unfair on any pupils concerned.

The Appellant indicated that she felt it likely that a 3rd (and final) part 3 would become available within the next two to three months in particular if there was a cancellation, although this could not be guaranteed. Mr Rawlins agreed.

Mr Rawlins was asked whether he had confidence that the Appellant would pass part 3 within the suggested time scales bearing in mind that she had not done so on 5 previous occasions. Mr Rawlins explained his view of the history of the Appellant's training to become an ADI. In summary he said that it was his view that for the initial period of her training the tuition had been inappropriate for the Appellant because it did not take adequate or effective account of the language barrier and cultural differences in learning. This left the Appellant uncertain about what was expected in the part 3 test. He said that because he spoke Mandarin he had been able to assist more effectively in preparing the Appellant for part 3 and that she was now making excellent progress. He said that it was his view that if the Appellant continued to make the progress she was making she had good prospects of passing part 3 within two to three months.

It was accepted by the Appellant that the Licence did not exist to assist an applicant for as long as it took to pass part 3. However Mr Rawlins also said that he considered being able to have paid pupils at this stage was a far more effective way for the Appellant to prepare than if she continued assisting friends and family.

The Registrar's grounds of refusal in the Decision as further explained in the Response were because he said:-

With the assistance of the translator and having observed the Appellant at the CVP I was satisfied that she was able to participate fully in the proceedings.

I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's views. I accept, for example, his submissions about the ability to train and take part 3 without a Licence and that two Licences are normally adequate to gain sufficient experience. I also accept that the statutory purpose of a Licence does not include being an alternative to registration as an ADI nor to give an applicant as long as needed to pass part 3.

Even if one ignores the Licences granted between 2022-2024 the Appellant had, by the time of this appeal, been in receipt of Licences since December 2024 (a period of nearly 17 months). Additionally while the Appellant's reasons for not continuing, for long, after the Decision to give paid instruction may have been understandable she did have the right to do so and had a 3rd Licence been granted there would now be just 4 weeks left of that third 6 month period. I was however satisfied from hearing from the Appellant and Mr Rawlins and from the chronology that the Appellant was genuinely trying to become an ADI and was not seeking Licences as an alternative to registration.

As regards the medical issue I considered what the Appellant said and the evidence in the bundle. I accept this evidence but at most it impacted the Appellant for 3 months. On its own, in the context of the chronology in this appeal, this would not have been enough for the Appellant to persuade me that the Decision had been wrong.

As regards the concern about obtaining part 3 test dates I accept that this can be an issue for applicants but in this particular case, by the time of the appeal, the Appellant had managed to obtain a part 3 test date on 26 June 2025, 14 August 2025 and 15 April 2026. I also noted that the Appellant and Mr Rawlins told me that they thought it likely that a part 3 test would become available within the next two to three months and that a cancellation may be sooner. Bearing in mind the chronology in this appeal I did not accept that any issue in obtaining part 3 test dates was materially impactful when considering whether or not a 3rd Licence should have been issued.

As he was not at the appeal hearing the Registrar was not able to respond to the evidence given by Mr Rawlins about the Appellant's previous training. This aspect of the Appellant's case would also not have been apparent from reading her representations or the appeal form. I was however satisfied that the Registrar was aware of the time and date for the appeal, could have seen from the witness statements submitted on the 12 April 2026 that evidence would be given by Mr Rawlins and that in the Appellant's statement issues caused by English not being the Appellant's first language had been mentioned. Had the Registrar wished to challenge the content of the witness statements by way of submissions or cross examination he could have attended or been represented at the appeal hearing.

Bearing in mind the need to deal with cases in light of the overriding objective and also bearing in mind the impact of section 129(6) of the Act on delay in the outcome of this appeal it was not, in my view, appropriate to adjourn the appeal hearing to ask the Registrar to respond to these submissions and this evidence.

Mr Rawlins' view on the adequacy of the Appellant's training was careful, balanced and detailed. Although his evidence is not opinion evidence it is from someone with relevant experience who explained why his knowledge of Mandarin was impactful and who has seen and described the progress now being made by the Appellant. Had it not been for this evidence I would not have allowed the appeal but I accept Mr Rawlins' evidence as supported by the Appellant on this point and it is for this reason only that the appeal is allowed.

By section 131(3) of the Act the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it thinks fit.

I considered whether to remit the matter to the Registrar, pursuant to section 131(4A) of the Act, for a reconsideration of the Decision on the basis that the Registrar had not been aware (at least not in the detail the Tribunal became aware) of the concerns raised about the early part of the Appellant's training. I concluded that doing so would create further uncertainty for the parties and would result in further delay and potentially unnecessary costs. I concluded that it is more proportionate and appropriate to allow the appeal.

However I did not conclude that it was appropriate to allow an additional 6 months from the date of this appeal because, as set out above, by the time of this appeal the Appellant had already had the benefit, if she had chosen to use it, of an additional 5 months since the expiry of the 2nd Licence. Instead I took note of the position put to me by both Mr Rawlins and the Appellant that they thought that a test would most likely become available within the next two to three months and have concluded that a further 10 weeks is the appropriate additional time to grant.

The appeal is allowed and I direct that the Appellant’s trainee Licence is extended to 5pm on 5 August 2026.