David Gbadebo Ojo v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown:

This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted a Licence. The Appellant applied for a second Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

The Registrar’s Decision stated that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his first Licence.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated that he had unsuccessfully undertaken the ‘Part 3’ Test on 9 December 2025 and that he had immediately reapplied to retake the test again. He stated that he had completed the requisite training and believed that he had met all requirements for a second Licence to be granted.

The Appellant also stated that he would like a second Licence to be granted in order to continue teaching students which were already allocated to him.

The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that:

The Registrar also stated that the Appellant has his second attempt at the ‘Part 3’ Test booked for 15 July 2026.

The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal and the Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing.

The Registrar did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions (including those made during the hearing) were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision.

Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of:

An application to take the ‘Part 3’ Test must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing the ‘Part 3’ Test. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and the 2005 Regulations.

An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ Test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 14 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take the ‘Part 3’ Test or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence.

An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years.

During the hearing, the Appellant accepted that he had not complied with the requirements to undertake a minimum of 20 hours of training within the first three months of the validity of his Licence and to notify the Registrar within that period by way of a completed form ADI 21AT.

However, the Appellant stated that he was unaware of the requirements. He stated that he had done five hours of “in-car training” within the first three months of the duration of his Licence but not the additional online training. When questioned further during the hearing about his understanding of the requirements, the Appellant stated that he could not recall if his driving school (the AA) had made him aware of them, but that there was a lot of information available on its website. He explained that if he had known what the requirements were then he would have met them. He stated that there was nothing deliberate or vindicative about not completing the requirements and that once he was aware of them then he promptly completed the requirements and notified the Registrar on form ADI 21AT.

The Appellant also explained that he used a car provided by the AA in order to give driving lessons to his students and that the AA also provided him with his students. The Appellant stated that he had left his previous work in order to focus on qualifying as an ADI and therefore being paid to give instruction was his only source of income.

The Appellant accepted that Licences were not intended to be granted for the purpose of providing a means of income to a potential ADI. He also recognised that there was no need for him to hold a Licence in order to practice and qualify as an ADI. However, the Appellant explained that he was seeking his second Licence because:

Failing to comply with the conditions for holding a Licence is a serious matter. I understand why the Registrar considered that it would not be appropriate to grant the Appellant a second Licence. I also understand the Registrar’s concerns about Licences not being used as an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI.

However, I found the Appellant’s evidence to be sincere and his views to be genuinely held. I consider that he is motivated to become an ADI and it appeared to me that he intends to operate to high standards. I also accept, for the reasons he gave, that the Appellant is likely to encounter difficulties practising for, and undertaking, the ‘Part 3’ Test, if he does not hold a Licence. Taking into account all of the specific circumstances of this case, I consider that it is appropriate for the Appellant to be granted a second Licence.

For all of the reasons I have given, I conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. I therefore allow the appeal and I order that the Application be granted. Pursuant to regulation 14 of the 2005 Regulations, the duration of the second Licence shall be 6 months commencing on the date of the grant of it (although the Licence shall cease in force earlier if a final attempt at the ‘Part 3’ Test is failed, or if the Appellant passes the ‘Part 3’ Test).

By way of additional comment, the Appellant should ensure that he fully familiarises himself with the conditions of holding a Licence (and, if applicable in the future, the conditions of being an ADI). It should be self-evident that any future transgressions could result in him ceasing to be eligible to hold a Licence (or, if applicable in the future, not being eligible to have his name entered in the Register).