The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), each for a six-month period that ran back-to-back from 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025.

They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 27 November 2025.

The Appellant now appeals that decision.

The Appellant was expected to attend the hearing via CVP but the Respondent, in line with its usual practice, was not expected to attend and instead sought to rely on the written submissions alone. When the matter was called on at 1400 the Appellant had not joined the CVP hearing room and no communications had been received to indicate that they would not attend. The Tribunal made a series of telephone calls and eventually managed to contact the Appellant who was now unable to attend the hearing and asked that the matter proceed on the papers in their absence. The Tribunal was satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless they hold a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence if they meet all the relevant conditions (including as set out in s.129(2)(b) the requirement in s.125(3)(e) that the individual is a fit and proper person) .

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence and the statutory framework does not require persons to hold trainee licences when undertaking the Part 3 exam.

By section 129(3) of the Act

By section 129(8)(c) of the Act

By section 129(6) of the Act:-

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 12 December 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:

The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is to obtain “to receive my third trainee licence so I can continue building my experience for my upcoming test in March”.

The Appellant’s representations to the Registrar of the 28 October 2025 set out essentially the same grounds as those in the notice of Appeal.

The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 27 November 2025, takes the representations made by the Appellant into consideration and states the reasons for the refusal as:

The Registrar’s statement of case dated 3 March 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

We considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 numbered pages.

The Tribunal is aware that it can be difficult to book a Part 3 test (and in fact other related tests), with significant delays being faced at various centres across the country. We note that the Appellant is unfortunately one of the individuals who has been impacted by this delay during the course of their period training. However, we note that since obtaining a trainee licence the Appellant has been able to sit the Part 3 test at least twice (on the 27/10/25 and on the 2/3/26) albeit they were unsuccessful. Additionally there is no statutory requirement for an individual to hold a trainee licence at the time of the Part 3 test nor is it even necessary for an individual to have ever held a trainee licence before they take or perhaps even pass the Part 3 test. Trainee licences are available to help individuals obtain sufficient “practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars” to pass the Part 3 test but this experience can also be obtained in other ways such as by instruction that is not paid for or through specialist training providers. Consequently, the Tribunal is not convinced that the unfortunate delay in test dates is itself a reason to grant a further licence given it is not necessary to have such a licence in order to take and pass the Part 3 test.

The Appellant has stated that in the period of their first trainee licence their ability to gain experience was severely limited because of the ill-health of a family member that led to the Appellant needing to take a two month break from teaching and then gradually return over the following three month period. However, the Appellant has provided no supporting evidence regarding these assertions. Even taking these arguments at face value there remains the issue that the Appellant in this case has had the benefit of not one but two Trainee Licences already and these ran for two consecutive 6 month periods between 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025. Additionally, because of the rules regarding appeals set out above the Appellant has additionally benefited from a further period of over 6 months where the last Trainee Licence was extended till this appeal has been determined. Consequently the Appellant has had over 18 months where they were able to obtain the benefits of the trainee licence. So even if the first six month period is written off in it’s entirety for the reasons set out by the Appellant that still leaves over 12 months where the Appellant benefitted from a trainee licence and where there is no allegation that they were hindered in their ability to gain experience as a driving instructor. Many individuals who train to be driving instructors only receive a single period of six months for the purposes of obtaining this experience and some individuals pass Part3 and become fully qualified having never obtained a Trainee licence. The Tribunal is therefore not convinced that the unfortunate circumstances set out by the Appellant are such that, in the particular circumstances present here, the granting of a further licence is justified.

Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test.

The Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, we agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.