Paul Hyde v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal by Paul Hyde against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) dated 9 January 2026 refusing his application for a third trainee licence under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Appellant is not on the Approved Driving Instructors Register and seeks to qualify. He has previously held two trainee licences for a total period of 12 months.

The central question raised by the appeal is whether there is any sufficient basis, having regard to the statutory scheme, to depart from the usual expectation that two trainee licences provide a finite opportunity to obtain the necessary practical experience for the Part 3 examination.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the ADI examination on 7 May 2024 and Part 2 on 8 August 2024.

He held two trainee licences between November 2024 and November 2025, amounting to 12 months’ experience.

During that period, he failed the Part 3 examination on 11 April 2025.

Further Part 3 tests were cancelled on several occasions in 2025.

On 13 November 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. The Registrar indicated an intention to refuse and invited representations, which were made on 26 November 2025.

The application was refused on 9 January 2026.

The Appellant subsequently took a further Part 3 test on 20 February 2026, which he failed, and has a further test booked for 21 July 2026.

The hearing of the appeal took place today. The Appellant did not attend. Instead, he sent two emails to the Tribunal indicating that he was unable to attend due to work commitments and referring to his forthcoming test booking and requesting further time.

The Respondent addressed those emails submitting in response that a trainee licence is not required in order to sit the Part 3 test and reiterating the statutory purpose of the licensing regime.

Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that paid instruction in driving may only be given by a person who is registered or who holds a valid trainee licence.

Section 129 governs the grant of trainee licences. The scheme permits the Registrar to grant licences of limited duration in order to allow prospective instructors to gain practical experience prior to qualification.

The statutory purpose of the scheme is clear. A trainee licence is not an alternative to qualification. It provides a finite opportunity to obtain experience and is not intended to be extended indefinitely or used as a substitute for achieving the required standard.

In determining appeals of this nature, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar’s refusal falls within the proper exercise of discretion, having regard to that statutory purpose, and whether any exceptional or compelling circumstances justify departure from the usual approach.

The issues for determination are:

On behalf of the Appellant, it is argued that his ability to utilise the second trainee licence was significantly constrained by full-time work commitments, resulting in limited opportunity to gain practical teaching experience.

It is further said that his circumstances have now improved, that he is committed to completing his training, and that a further licence would enable him to achieve qualification.

In his emails to the Tribunal (received before the hearing commenced) the Appellant refers to his inability to attend the hearing due to work commitments and made refence to his forthcoming Part 3 test and seeks further time.

The Respondent’s position is that the Appellant has already had two trainee licences, amounting to more than sufficient opportunity to obtain the necessary experience.

The Respondent further submits that the evidence does not demonstrate any exceptional loss of opportunity, that the Appellant’s work commitments were not unforeseen, and that his examination history is adverse, including failures and cancellations.

In response to the Appellant’s emails, the Respondent submits that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to take the Part 3 test and reiterates that the licensing regime is not intended to be extended indefinitely.

The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the appeal in the Appellant’s absence. He elected not to attend, albeit providing written explanation, and the issues have been fully set out in the papers and submissions.

I have taken the Appellant’s emails into account. However, they do not materially advance his case beyond what was already before the Registrar.

The central difficulty for the Appellant is that he has already had the full benefit of two trainee licences over a period of 12 months. The statutory scheme envisages that this constitutes a finite and ordinarily sufficient opportunity to obtain the necessary experience.

I accept that the Appellant experienced constraints arising from work commitments. However, the evidence does not establish that these constraints amounted to exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances which deprived him of the opportunity inherent in the licences. In particular, those constraints appear to have been present during the period in which the licences were held, rather than arising subsequently.

I further accept the Respondent’s submission that the evidence does not provide any clear or quantified demonstration of significant lost training time.

The Appellant’s examination history is also material. The Tribunal notes failures and cancellations of the Part 3 test. This tends to support the Respondent’s position that the difficulty lies not in lack of opportunity but in failure to attain the required standard within the opportunity already afforded.

As to the Appellant’s current position and forthcoming test, I accept the Respondent’s submission that a trainee licence is not required in order to sit the Part 3 examination. Those matters therefore do not materially affect the assessment of whether a third licence should be granted.

More broadly, the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory purpose of the scheme. To grant a further licence in the absence of clearly exceptional circumstances would be inconsistent with that purpose and would risk converting a finite training regime into an open-ended alternative to qualification.

I am satisfied that the Registrar considered the Appellant’s representations and reached a decision that was consistent with the statutory framework and properly within the scope of the discretion conferred.

Drawing these matters together, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated any exceptional or compelling circumstances capable of justifying a departure from the ordinary application of the statutory scheme.

I find nothing in the Appellant’s written communications, or otherwise in the material before the Tribunal, which undermines the Respondent’s reasoning or suggests that the decision was outside the proper exercise of discretion or in any way unfair or disproportionate.

For those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.