Hoi Wang Chan 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, that changing from a request for a hearing, there being no objection from the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 30 January 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 9 December 2025 for a further, and third, trainee driving instructor licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations made by email dated 18 December 2025, on the grounds that there was no evidence provided by the Appellant of him having lost training time; that he had already been granted two trainee licences, covering the period from 13 January 2025 to 12 January 2026, inclusive (a period extended by a further period of almost five month until the determination of this appeal, making almost 17 months in total). The Respondent submitted that even having the benefit of a trainee licence for 12 months was a more than adequate period of time in order to gain sufficient practical experience in teaching members of the public with a view to passing his 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 30 January 2026, the Appellant submitted that having failed his attempts at passing his Part 3 test, demonstrated that he required additional time and supervised practice to develop his instructional skills. However, the Tribunal considered this submission was undermined by the fact that the Appellant had another full-time job. He further submitted that he was committed to improving his teaching ability and meeting the Respondent’s standards throughout the period of his two trainee licences; that he had undertaken further professional training, in accordance with the Respondent’s Guidance, following each unsuccessful attempt to pass his Part 3 test, focussing on areas identified for improvement, thereby demonstrating, he submitted, ongoing commitment to develop and to becoming a ‘safe, effective, compliant Approved Driving Instructor’ (‘ADI’). The Appellant went on to submit that he had difficulties in obtaining a date for a Part 3 test during the period of his two trainee licences. However, the Tribunal was not persuaded by that argument since he had unsuccessfully attempted to pass his Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 2 July 2025 and17 October 202, with his final permitted third attempt to take place on 17 June 2026 – only 8 days away.

The Respondent, in his Response dated 5 May2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal, noting that the Appellant’s representations, received in advance of the decision under appeal being made, referred only to alleged difficulties he experienced in obtaining a Part 3 test date. 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 – alternatives successfully used by some aspiring ADIs who had never held a trainee licence.

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.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the written evidence and submissions I received, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal. I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has satisfied the burden of proof that rests on him to allow a third trainee licence to be granted to him.

There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.