Euan Cameron v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

On 5 June 2026 the Respondent filed an application for the Appellant’s appeal to be struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 on the basis that, as the Appellant passed Part 1 of the test on 4 June 2024 he can no longer fulfil the condition contained in regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. 

The Appellant responded the same day with a form GRC5 asking for strike out to be reconsidered, which I have taken as being his representations as to why the matter should not be struck out under Rule 8(4). The Appellant provided the following explanation “The reason for which I am in this situation is due to the length of time it has taken to book a part 3 test as there is a lack of availability as everyone in the industry acknowledges. The lead time for my first part 3 test was almost 6 months. I am asking for this decision to be reconsidered based on the fact my situation is as it is due to the DVSA system issues and not from anything I have done.”

Having considered all the papers in this appeal, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appeal succeeding because more than two years have elapsed since the Appellant passed Part 1 of the test on 4 June 2026, and accordingly, I find that as a matter of fact he can no longer fulfil the condition contained in regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. The reasons given by the Appellant do not change this position, as the Tribunal has no discretion to extend the time for training.

The appeal is therefore struck out under Rule 8(3)c because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.