Yuk Nang Yiu v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing, at the request of the Appellant, there being no objection from the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 7 January 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 3 December 2025 for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by email dated 15 December 2025 (not by letter received 16 December 2025 as stated by the Respondent in the decision under appeal), on the grounds that there was no evidence provided by the Appellant of him having lost training time; that he should have been aware of his other work commitments before applying for a third trainee licence; that he had already been granted two trainee licences, covering a total period of 13 January 2025 to 12January 2026 (a period extended by a further period of over three months until the determination of this appeal, making almost 16 months in total) that, the Respondent submitted, was a more than adequate period of time to gain sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee instructor be issued with a trainee licence for however long it took him to pass a Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to achieving registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it was not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of this application for a 3^rd trainee licence was not a bar to the Appellant undertaking a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing (2^nd) trainee licence remained valid until this appeal was determined.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 1 December 2025, the Appellant offered a slightly different account than those offered to the Respondent in his said representations: he stated he had struggled and found it stressful to train along with his ‘other full-time employment’, whereas in his Notice of Appeal, he focussed on what he described as ‘exceptional circumstances’, namely, his alleged inability to practice for over two months due to the Respondent cancelling and re-scheduling his Part 3 test, meaning, he submitted, he was ‘unable to practise legally under a trainee licence’, that significantly affected his ability to maintain his teaching standards and test readiness through no fault or delay on his part. This is not accepted as a valid ground to allow this appeal. The Appellant also submitted in his said Notice of Appeal that he had difficulty ‘securing and retaining a suitable pupil’ for his Part 3 test as, he wrongly stated, he ‘could not provide lawful instruction without a trainee licence’, thus, he submitted, disadvantaging his ability to prepare effectively for a Part 3 test. He also referred to vehicle insurance implications causing a serious and practical barrier should he not be granted a third trainee licence. This, too, was also wrong in law in the context of a trainee licence.

The Appellant also submitted a written Statement dated 27 January 2026 reiterating that the decision under appeal did not adequately consider what he described as ‘exceptional circumstances’, loss of effective training time and the disproportionate impact of external delays; that he had consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to becoming an ADI with structured training, supervised teaching, active preparation to take a Part 3 test and a significant investment by him of time and financial resources. He reiterated that while he had been granted two trainee licences, his actual effective training and assessment time had been substantially reduced due to Part 3 test ‘cancellations’ (albeit there had only been one cancellation – on the part of the Respondent); ‘limited DVSA availability and unavoidable scheduling delays beyond my control’, resulting in him not, in practice, having sufficient opportunity under two trainee licences [presumably meaning sufficient opportunity to gain practical experience in teaching members of the public]. This, too, is rejected as wrong proposition in law in the context of the grant of trainee licences. The Appellant further submitted that to allow this appeal and grant him a 3rd trainee licence would be a fair and proportionate response in the circumstances and would support the Respondent’s objective of ensuring high quality, competent driving instructors and not compromise public safety. This latter submission was rejected as having no basis to allow this appeal and grant a 3rd trainee licence to the Appellant.

In a written submission dated 3 April 2026, the Appellant confirmed that his third, and final permitted attempt to pass a Part 3 test was booked for 23 June 2026 – 14 days from today’s date. He submitted that two trainee licences, totalling 12 months was not a ‘more than adequate time’ to gain sufficient experience in teaching members of the public in view of the waiting times for a Part 3 test [for which holding a trainee licence was not required]; that a trainee ‘requires several months of initial practice before even being ready for a first attempt to pass a Part 3 test’. This submission, too, is rejected as having no substance in law. He also submitted that the overall pass rate for Part 3 tests was 30-40%, showing that the standard is exceptionally high and very often, he submitted, required more than 12 months cumulative experience in providing practical experience in teaching members of the public. This submission, too, rejected as having any substance in determining this appeal, particularly when, in effect, the validity of the Appellant’s existing (2^nd) trainee licence was extended by an addition period of almost 4 months (therefore having the benefit of a trainee licence of a total period of almost 16 months). The Appellant concluded by requesting a 3^rd trainee licence to cover the period up to the date of his final attempt at passing a Part 3 test on 23 June 2026 and that this would be fair and proportionate. However, a trainee licence may not be issued for such purpose.

The Respondent, in his Response dated 31 March 2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, he submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training by undertaking a training course, or studying and practising under an ADI or proving unpaid tuition; that the Appellant had failed their Part 3 test twice, on 5 August 2025 and 24 March 2026, respectively, while the Respondent had cancelled a booked Part 3 test to have taken place 26 January 2026 and that his final permitted attempt at a Part 3 test was booked on hold (albeit this would now take place on 23 June 2026).

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision were the reasons set out in his decision notice, reiterated in his Response document.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.