Appeal Number: FT/D/2026/0056
Transport
Heard on: 2 June 2026.
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
David Wilfred Onions
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
DECISION NOTICE: The Tribunal dismiss the appeal. The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND:
This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar dated 13 January 2026 refusing the Appellant’s application for the grant of a third trainee driving instructor licence.
The Appellant has not been admitted to the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADI Register”).
He has previously been granted two trainee licences, affording him a combined period of licensed experience of approximately 12 months for the purpose of preparing for the Part 3 (instructional ability) examination.
The Appellant seeks a further licence to enable him to continue training and to attempt to qualify as an approved driving instructor.
CHRONOLOGY:
During 2023–2024 the Appellant was granted two trainee licences.
On 15 May 2024 he passed the Part 1 (theory) test.
On 29 October 2024 he passed the Part 2 (driving ability) test.
During 2025 the Appellant undertook a number of Part 3 tests, including a failed attempt on 16 July 2025. There were also a number of cancellations, some attributable to the Appellant and some to the DVSA.
On 25 November 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence.
On 2 December 2025 the Registrar indicated that refusal was under consideration and invited representations.
On 18 December 2025 the Appellant submitted representations relying, in summary, upon alleged deficiencies in his initial training and interruption caused by trainer illness.
By decision dated 13 January 2026 the Registrar refused the application.
The Appellant subsequently undertook a further Part 3 test on 31 March 2026 and failed. A further attempt was listed for late May 2026
ISSUES:
The issues for determination are:
Whether, having regard to the statutory scheme, it is appropriate to grant a third trainee licence where the Appellant has already benefited from two licences totalling approximately 12 months;
Whether the Appellant has had a fair and sufficient opportunity to qualify as an approved driving instructor;
Whether any alleged deficiencies in training or interruptions amount to exceptional or compelling circumstances warranting the grant of a further licence;
Whether the Registrar exercised his discretion lawfully, rationally and proportionately in refusing the application;
The extent to which the proximity of a further Part 3 test affects the utility and purpose of any further licence.
RELEVANT LAW:
Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 governs the regulation of driving instruction for reward.
By section 123(1), it is an offence to give paid instruction unless the individual is either registered as an approved driving instructor or holds a current trainee licence.
Section 129 provides for the grant of trainee licences for the purpose of enabling an individual to gain practical experience in preparation for admission to the ADI Register.
Such licences are time-limited. The statutory scheme is facilitative, enabling experience to be obtained, but does not contemplate indefinite or repeated extensions.
The Tribunal’s role is to determine whether the Respondent’s decision was lawful and should stand. In doing so, the Tribunal applies public law principles, including whether the decision was one which was open to the decision-maker: see, by analogy, R (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd) v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
The Tribunal also has regard to principles of proportionality and rationality in regulatory decision-making see, for example, Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, in so far as proportionality informs the structured assessment of discretionary decisions affecting individuals.
SUBMISSIONS:
Appellant:
The Appellant submits, in summary, that:
His initial training was inadequate, lacking structure and consistency;
His progress was adversely affected by a period of interruption due to trainer illness;
Since engaging a different trainer his performance has improved;
He has not therefore had a fair or genuine opportunity to pass the Part 3 test;
A further trainee licence would enable him to complete his training and qualify.
Respondent:
The Respondent submits:
The statutory scheme provides only a limited opportunity to gain experience and is not intended to permit successive extensions;
The Appellant has already received the full benefit of two trainee licences, amounting to approximately 12 months;
There is no evidential support for the Appellant’s assertions as to inadequate training or lost time;
The Appellant’s performance history, including failed tests and cancellations, does not demonstrate that further licensed experience would alter the outcome;
A trainee licence is not required either to undertake further training (on an unpaid basis) or to sit the Part 3 test;
In light of the imminent further test, the grant of a further licence would serve no proper statutory purpose.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence and submissions with care.
The starting point is the statutory scheme. A trainee licence is intended to afford a limited period during which a candidate may acquire practical experience as a precursor to qualification. It is not designed to provide an open-ended or repeatable entitlement.
The Appellant has had the benefit of two trainee licences, amounting to approximately 12 months of licensed experience. That is a substantial period within the contemplation of the scheme.
The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant has advanced explanations for his lack of success to date, including alleged deficiencies in training and a period of interruption. However, those matters are unsupported by independent or corroborative evidence.
Even taking the Appellant’s case at its highest, the Tribunal is not satisfied that such matters amount to exceptional or compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the ordinary operation of the statutory scheme.
The Tribunal further notes that the Appellant has had multiple opportunities to undertake the Part 3 test, including attempts which did not result in a pass. While some cancellations were not of his making, others were.
Importantly, a trainee licence is not a prerequisite either to undertaking further training or to sitting the Part 3 test. The Appellant is therefore able to continue his progression towards qualification without the grant of a further licence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the grant of a third licence would have limited, if any, utility in advancing the statutory purpose.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent properly directed himself as to the statutory framework, took into account the Appellant’s representations, and reached a decision which was rational and proportionate.
The decision cannot be characterised as one which was outside the range of reasonable responses open to the Registrar.
Drawing these matters together, the Tribunal finds that:
The Appellant has been afforded a sufficient opportunity to qualify;
No exceptional or compelling circumstances have been established;
The Respondent’s decision was fair, rational and proportionate.
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
DECISION:
Accordingly, for all the above reasons he appeal is dismissed.
Judge Brian Kennedy KC
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Date: 2 June 2026.