Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1456
Transport
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE MATON
Between
IOAN TIBERIU SAVU
Appellant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Representation:
The Appellant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.
REASONS
This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 9 December 2025 that the Appellant should not be granted a third trainee licence.
The Tribunal received and considered a bundle of documents, and the Appellant attended an oral hearing by Cloud Video Platform.
The Registrar has notified the Tribunal that he does not propose routinely to attend appeals against refusals to grant trainee licences.
By rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, a hearing can proceed in the absence of a party if the Tribunal is satisfied that the party had notice of the hearing and that it is in the interests of justice to proceed.
I am satisfied that these requirements were met in this case, and that this was a fair and just way to decide the Appeal.
At the hearing the Appellant raised matters relating to a medical condition and its impact on his training and the timing of his Part 3 test, which he said had been referred to in correspondence between him and the Registrar. I considered that these matters could be material to the appeal and they had not been referred to in the bundle. I directed the Appellant to provide documentary evidence of these matters, which he did by email on 11 May 2026.
I have considered that evidence in deciding this appeal. I do not consider that there is any unfairness to the Registrar in my having done so, as the evidence which I directed was limited to correspondence between the parties, of which the Registrar has had notice. I have not considered any documents provided by the Appellant which go beyond the scope of my directions dated 11 May 2026, as to do so would be unfair to the Registrar.
Relevant law
The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide driving instruction for payment before they are qualified.
A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
In order to qualify as for registration as an approved driving instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: a written examination (“Part 1”); a driving ability and fitness test (“Part 2”); and an instructional ability and fitness test (“Part 3”).
Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.
The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an approved driving instructor without having held a trainee licence. Under s129(2) of the Act, the Registrar must grant a licence to an applicant who fulfils specified conditions, including that they have passed Parts 1 and 2. Under s129(3) the Registrar has discretion to refuse an application for a second or subsequent licence.
Under s129(6)(b), where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by them and current at the date of the application, the previous licence will not expire if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limit for an appeal against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of.
The powers of the Tribunal in relation to appeals against decisions not to grant trainee licences are set out in s131 of the Act. When making a decision on any such appeal, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions.
Background
The Appellant was granted two consecutive trainee licences valid from 18 November 2024 to 17 November 2025.
The Appellant applied for a further trainee licence on 4 November 2025, and in an email on the same day the Registrar advised that he was considering refusing the application and invited the Appellant to make representations regarding this. The Appellant made representations in an email dated 5 November 2025. The Registrar wrote to the Appellant by email dated 9 December 2025, refusing the application.
The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.
The Appeal
The Appellant submits that:
initially he had limited student numbers;
he suffered two bereavements of close family members during the period of his training, in July and August 2025; and
he does not want to abandon students during their training.
The Registrar submits that:
the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration; the system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration;
the licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction; that this provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition; moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence remained in force and would allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the Appeal;
since passing his driving ability test the Appellant had failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled a further booking; and that despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant had not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an approved driving instructor;
the refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting Part 3; he does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training; and that alternatives are available to acquire registration without obtaining a licence.
The Registrar noted at the time of filing his response to the appeal dated 6 March 2026 that the Appellant had a further Part 3 attempt booked awaiting a date. On the Appellant’s evidence at and following the hearing this test has been rescheduled to 1 June 2026.
Discussion
The Appellant has had the benefit of two six-month licences, as well as the effective extension of his licence period during the course of this appeal.
On the Appellant’s evidence his bereavements resulted in an enforced two-month break from training. His further evidence at and following the hearing shows that a medical diagnosis in early January 2026 led to a further enforced break, and that he had resumed training by 23 February 2026. The Registrar agreed to postpone his Part 3 test which had been booked for 5 March 2026.
While I have great sympathy with the difficulties which the Appellant will have experienced resulting from this diagnosis, having considered this evidence it relates to developments more than two months after the Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant a further licence, and is not a factor to take into account in deciding whether that decision was wrong.
Conclusion and decision
Having considered the matters set out above, I find that, although the Appellant initially had difficulty securing students, and has suffered some loss of training time for reasons outside his control, he has still had substantial training time during the currency of his licence period, and the loss of training time does not outweigh the Registrar’s reasons for refusing him a third trainee licence.
Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong, and I dismiss the Appeal.
Signed Date:
Judge Maton 18 May 2026