Adam Stephen Morris v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 8 th April 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The appeal was decided without a hearing. Legal Framework

3. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

4. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

5. A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

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

7. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

8. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Factual Background to the Appeal

12. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 8 th December 2023 and Part 2 on 19 th December 2023.

13. The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 18 th March 2024 to 17 th September 2024 and a second trainee license, valid until 17 th March 2025.

14. On 6 th March the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the second trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application.

15. The Appellant failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 5 th September 2024. A second attempt was booked on 6 th February 2025 but was cancelled by DVSA. A second attempt was taken and failed on 30 th April 2025. According to the Respondent, as at 25 th October, the Appellant had not booked a further Part 3 test.

16. On 11 th March the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

17. The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 12 th March 2025. He said that he had only been able to manage one attempt at the Part 3 test given that one had been cancelled and that he hoped to have the license extended so that he could offer paid training prior to taking a further attempt on 30 th April.

18. The application was refused on 8 th April 2025.

19. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence of lost practice time had been provided and the Appellant had had sufficient time to reach the required standard . Appeal to the Tribunal

20. The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 15 th April 2025.

21. The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that: a. the decision not to grant a second license was wrong, given that it is difficult to obtain a Part 3 test; b. if the DVSA cannot offer him a Part 3 test, the Appellant does not see why he should be without a trainee license.

22. The Respondent, in his response, stated: a. the Appellant had not provided any evidence of lost training time and had had the benefit of two trainee licenses for twelve months; b. the Appellant has had sufficient time to prepare, from the granting of the license to the determination of the appeal; c. despite having had ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; d. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. e. it should be noted, as at 23 rd October that the Appellant had a final attempt at the part 3 test on hold. Evidence

23. I read and took account of a bundle of documents prepared by the Respondent. Discussion and Conclusions

24. I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

25. I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulty in obtaining tests. However I note that his original objective was to be able to offer paid training until his test on 30 th April. He has achieved that aim by virtue of his appeal and I note that he has not booked a further attempt.

26. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of trainee licences, initially covering a period of twelve months from 18 th March 2024 to 17 th March 2025 and, by virtue of this application, up to today’s date. This is almost 18 months, which should have been adequate time to prepare.

27. The trainee license is not a substitute for taking and passing the test. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

28. The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Respondent’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Respondent’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.