Dean Johnson v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated 11 February 2026 that the Appellant should not be granted a third trainee licence.

The Tribunal received and considered a bundle of documents.

The Appellant said that he wants the appeal to be determined without a hearing, and the Registrar has notified the Tribunal that he does not propose routinely to attend appeals against refusals to grant trainee licences.

By rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, an appeal can be decided without a hearing if each party has consented to this, and if the Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing.

I am satisfied that these requirements were met in this case, and that this was a fair and just way to decide the Appeal.

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.

A licence under s129(1) of the Act 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 [...] as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.”

In order to qualify 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.

The Appellant was granted two consecutive trainee licences valid from 23 December 2024 to 22 December 2025.

The Appellant applied for a further trainee licence on 11 December 2025, and in an email dated 15 December 2025 the Registrar advised that he was considering refusing the application, and invited the Appellant to make representations regarding this. The Appellant made representations in a letter dated 23 December 2025. The Registrar wrote to the Appellant by email dated 11 February 2026, refusing the application.

The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

In his notice of appeal the Appellant provides detailed information about his training since being issued with his first licence in December 2024, including having experienced difficulties maintaining consistency of lessons in the early part of his training, and difficulties obtaining a test date for Part 3. He provides some information about a serious illness in February 2024 but does not indicate that this has affected his training during his licence period.

In his letter of representations to the Registrar dated 23 December 2025, the Appellant provided much the same information, as well as references to needing to support his children through their education during the early part of his training. He does not provide any evidence to support these statements or any indication of what the impact was on his training.

The Registrar submits that:

Although the Registrar’s submissions say that the Appellant has failed Part 3 once, the evidence indicates that this has happened twice.

The Registrar noted at the time of filing his response to the appeal dated 8 May 2026 that the Appellant had a further, final Part 3 attempt booked awaiting a date.

I accept that the Appellant has had difficulty booking Part 3 tests, having been unable to secure a slot in his first 6-month licence period. However, he has had the benefit of two 6-month licence periods, and the statutory extension to his licence during this appeal is almost as long as the six months for which he applied.

He provides no evidence of having lost training time, and has been able to use his licence for its intended purpose. His support for his children’s education, which is admirable, does not seem to have been exceptionally disruptive to his training.

Having considered the matters set out above, I find that, although the Appellant had difficulty securing attempts at Part 3, this does not outweigh the Registrar’s reasons for refusing the Appellant a third trainee licence.

Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong, and I dismiss the Appeal.