AG v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal dismiss the appeal . The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a second trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld . Background:

1. The Appellant, AG (name anonymised under rule 14) holds PRN 292178 and was granted her first trainee licence (ADI 21AT) under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the period 26 May 2025 to 25 November 2025.

2. That licence required completion of at least 20 hours of additional supervised training with the Advanced Driving Instructor (“ADI”) school (AA/BSM) and return of the ADI 21AT training record.

3. On 13 October 2025, before expiry of the first licence, AG applied for a second trainee licence.

4. On 19 November 2025, the DVSA notified AG that the Registrar was considering refusing the second licence because: a) only one 6-month trainee licence is ordinarily permitted for gaining experience; b) AG had not returned the mandatory ADI 21AT form confirming 20 hours’ training.

5. AG made no representations within the 14-day period.

6. On 15 December 2025, the Registrar refused the application for a second licence, giving statutory notice under s.129(4) RTA 1988 .

7. AG appealed on 16 December 2025, stating she misunderstood the requirement to reply because the driving school (AA) had also sent materials. Chronology: (a)–(o) a) 26 May 2025 – First trainee licence issued, valid to 25 Nov 2025 (D1). b) 17 Jul – 9 Nov 2025 – Various supervised training sessions recorded (multiple ADI 21AT forms). c) 29 Apr 2025 – Part 2 driving ability test passed (pre-licence history). d) 13 Oct 2025 – Application for second trainee licence submitted (D2). e) 19 Nov 2025 – DVSA email warning of potential refusal; request for ADI 21AT; 14-day representation window (D3). f) 19 Nov – 25 Nov 2025 – Multiple ADI 21AT declarations appear completed and signed by various ADIs. g) 25 Nov 2025 – First trainee licence expiry date. h) No response received by DVSA within the statutory 14 days. i) 15 Dec 2025 – Registrar issues formal Refusal Letter (D5). j) 16 Dec 2025 – AG completes appeal form and statement of truth. k) 4 Feb 2026 – AG undertakes first attempt at Part 3 (instructional ability test) and fails (test history p.38). l) Feb 2026 – Second attempt at Part 3 booked but pending (Registrar’s statement, §7). m) 24 Feb 2026 – Registrar’s Rule 23 Statement finalised. n) Mar 2026 – Matter comes before the Tribunal on the papers. o) Licence continues in force until determination of appeal ( s.129(6) RTA 1988 ). Issues:

8. Whether AG complied with the conditions of her first trainee licence, specifically: a) completing and evidencing 20 hours of additional ADI-supervised instruction; b) returning the ADI 21AT training record to DVSA within 3 months of issue.

9. Whether the Registrar lawfully exercised discretion in refusing a second licence under s.129(3) – (4) RTA 1988 .

10. Whether the evidence of training submitted in the appeal (multiple ADI 21AT forms) can be accepted despite not being provided during the representation period.

11. Whether misunderstanding / administrative confusion with driving school correspondence constitutes a sufficient explanation for non-compliance.

12. Whether a second trainee licence is appropriate, considering: a) purpose of trainee licences is limited, temporary supervised experience; b) AG has one failed Part 3 attempt; c) ability to take Part 3 does not require a trainee licence. Relevant Law: Road Traffic Act 1988 , Part V: a) s.123(1) – No paid instruction unless ADI-registered or holding s.129 trainee licence. b) s.129(1) – Registrar may issue trainee licences to gain experience for qualification. c) s.129(3) – Registrar may refuse a trainee licence. d) s.129(4) – Registrar must give notice of refusal and reasons. e) s.129(6) – Existing licence continues until appeal determination.

13. Regarding the Registrar’s statement. Trainee licence policy principles: a) Trainee licences are not to be used as an extended alternative to full ADI registration. b) The six-month period is ordinarily sufficient to obtain experience and pass Part 3. c) Failure to complete mandatory supervised training is a material breach. Submissions:

14. The Appellant: a) She believed the driving school (AA) was handling submission of the training documents. b) States she was unaware she personally needed to respond to the DVSA email. c) She underwent training and attaches multiple ADI 21AT forms signed by several instructors. d) Requests a further “pink licence” to continue teaching while preparing for her scheduled second Part 3 test (Feb 2026). e) Asserts she has experienced delays in obtaining Part 3 test dates (8-month wait).

15. Registrar (DVSA) a) No representations were received despite clear statutory notice. b) AG did not return the mandatory ADI 21AT within the timeframe required. c) The Registrar emphasises: ◦ trainee licences are not meant to continue indefinitely; ◦ AG has had ample time to gain experience and pass; ◦ refusal does not prevent AG from taking the Part 3 test; ◦ AG can practise without payment to gain further training. d) Evidence shows AG: ◦ passed Part 2; ◦ failed Part 3 once; ◦ holds a booking for the second attempt. REASONS

16. Compliance with Mandatory Training Condition. The bundle contains multiple ADI-signed 21AT declarations, apparently evidencing the requisite 20 hours’ supervised training. However, the core issue is not whether training occurred, but that AG did not submit the ADI 21AT to the Registrar within the prescribed period, despite explicit notice. The statutory and policy framework treats timely submission as a condition of the licence — not a mere administrative nicety. The Registrar was therefore entitled to treat non-submission as material non-compliance.

17. Multiplicity and Timing of Training Forms. The unusually high number of ADI 21AT declarations (with several instructors, over similar date ranges) may suggest genuine training, but also raises concerns about administrative irregularity, late collation, or retrospective assembly. The Tribunal need not make findings on authenticity but note: a) none were provided to DVSA within the 3-month window; b) all surfaced only after refusal and within the appeal. c) this undermines their value in assessing the Registrar’s contemporaneous decision.

18. Registrar’s Procedural Fairness. The Registrar gave clear written notice on 19 November 2025, afforded 14 days for representations, explained exactly what was missing (the ADI 21AT), and set out the consequences of non-response. The Registrar is not expected to chase an applicant. The process appears procedurally fair, and the absence of any representation amounts to a failure by AG, not a failure by the regulator.

19. The Appellant’s Explanation. AG’s explanation — that she believed the AA/BSM driving school was handling matters — does not amount to good reason for failing to comply. The statutory responsibility rests with the trainee licence holder personally . Misunderstanding or reliance on the driving school does not displace the legal duty. Further, AG did not act promptly once the warning letter was received.

20. Purpose and Policy of Trainee Licences. The Registrar correctly emphasises that trainee licences are: a) temporary, b) experience-building, and c) not a substitute for ADI registration. AG has already benefited from a full 6-month period. The Tribunal has consistently recognised that multiple licences must not become a route to “rolling” quasi-professional practice.

21. Part 3 Test History. AG passed Part 2 and has one failed Part 3. A second attempt is booked. Importantly: a) A trainee licence is not required to sit or prepare for Part 3. b) Candidates frequently pass without ever holding a trainee licence. Thus, the impact of refusal is limited and does not prevent her progression.

22. Reliability of Evidence and Burden of Proof. In ADI appeals, the burden lies effectively on the appellant to show the decision is wrong. The Registrar’s decision was taken on the basis available at the time, which did not include any training evidence. Late-submitted ADI 21AT forms cannot retrospectively render the Registrar’s reasoning unlawful or unreasonable.

23. Proportionality and Justification. The Tribunal find that refusal in these circumstances is proportionate: a) DVSA policy strongly limits second licences; b) non-compliance with mandatory training conditions is a recognised ground for refusal; c) the Registrar considered relevant factors, applied policy, and gave reasons. There is no indication of improper purpose, mistake of fact, or irrationality.

24. Sympathetic Considerations. AG’s personal circumstances — delay in securing a Part 3 date, reliance on her driving school, effort shown in training — may attract sympathy. However, these factors do not provide a statutory or policy basis to override the Registrar’s discretion. The Tribunal remain focused on compliance and statutory purpose.

25. On the face of the documents, the Tribunal find the Registrar’s refusal is within the lawful range of reasonable outcomes, given non-submission of mandatory evidence and the policy rationale limiting second licences. Conclusion:

26. In the circumstances and for all the reasons above the Tribunal find the Registrar’s impugned Decision is reasonable, fair, proportionate and lawful. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismiss this appeal. Brian Kennedy KC 23 March 2026.