Christopher Heathcote v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing.

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 4 November 2026 refusing his application for a second trainee driving instruction licence made on 9 September 2025, having taken account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, in emails dated 19 September, 26 September and 2 October 2025, respectively, namely, that he had difficulties obtaining a date to undertake Part 3 test required a third trainee licence to continue her training to work towards passing her Part 3 test and had been unsure of the requisite training timescale. However, holding a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test. A trainee licence is issued solely to give an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) an opportunity to gain sufficient practical experience in driving tuition to help towards passing their Part 3 test.

3. The Respondent, in its said decision, the decision under appeal, relied on the fact that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of his first trainee licence, namely, that his required additional training requirements had not been completed in time, that is, within the first three months of him being granted his first trainee licence, and that the Appellant should have been aware of these requirements. The Respondent also relied on the fact that the Appellant already had the benefit of a trainee licence, for a period of 6 months (17 March 2025 to 16 September 2025) for the said stated purpose of a trainee licence, that, the Respondent submitted, was more than an adequate period of time and where her first trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal (meaning that the Appellant had the benefit of an additional trainee licence period from 16 September 2025 to 16 March 2026). The Respondent further submitted, correctly, that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence should be issued for so long as it took an applicant to pass their Part 3 test and that refusal of a second trainee licence does not prevent an applicant undertaking a Part 3 test.

4. In his Notice of Appeal dated 11 November 2025, the Appellant stated that his Part 3 test was booked ‘on hold’; that he had been given a date of 13 August 2025, that had been cancelled at very short notice and moved to 3 November 2025 but he had experienced difficulties getting a ‘suitable’ candidate for that date. He stated that to say he had ‘failed to comply’ with the conditions of his first trainee licence, was ‘an exaggeration’, but accepted that the deadline for compliance was missed, but only by a couple of days, and that he was being ‘punished for his honesty’, no account having been taken of the context and genuine efforts made by him to comply with attaining the mandatory number of training hours. The Appellant submitted that it was unfair ‘to be allowed 3 attempts to pass a Part 3 test’ but not to have a suitable pupil available without having a second trainee licence; that throughout the period of his first trainee licence, he had undertaken structured training, gained practical experience and had invested considerable personal and financial resources into becoming an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), shown by his record, he submitted, and was actively preparing to complete his Part 3 test as soon as possible. He submitted, correctly, that the purpose of a trainee licence was to facilitate gaining sufficient experience to meet the ADI qualification standards and but went on to submit that a failure to have regard to individual circumstances risked undermining that purpose; that a second trainee licence would not amount to an abuse in this case, but was a proportionate and reasonable means of allowing a genuine candidate, such as himself, to complete the qualification process; that refusal of a second trainee licence prevented him pursuing his chosen profession and to be able to teach for reward, despite making, he submitted, considerable progress, demonstrating a clear commitment to achieving ADI registration.

5. In its Response dated 26 November 2025, the Respondent advised that, previously, two trainee licences had been issued to the Appellant for the 12 month period from 31 December 2023 to 30 December 2024 and that the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence on this occasion was made on 9 September 2025. The Respondent elaborated on its reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence, noting that zero required training hours were completed with the first three months of his first 3 months of that trainee licence, including the fact that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued to an applicant for as long as it takes them to pass their Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of an application for a trainee licence is not a bar to taking a Part 3 test and that the Appellant, as an alternative, could attend a training course or study and practice with an ADI or give unpaid driving tuition - all alternatives that are used by some aspiring ADIs who have never held a trainee licence; that the 6 months duration of the Appellant’s first trainee licence was a very reasonable period in which to reach ADI qualification standard and obtain any necessary practical experience in driving tuition; that the Appellant’s existing licence remains in force until this appeal was determined (that, in effect, provide the Appellant with a further 6 month period of availing of a trainee licence). The Respondent also advised that, in fact the Appellant had, in fact, failed two attempts to pass his Part 3 test (3 November and 12 December 2025); that he had cancelled a Part 3 test arranged for 11 December 2025 (in addition to the Respondent having cancelled a Part 3 test arranged for 13 August 2025).

6. This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, second, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, while giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

7. The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under his first trainee licence (that, in effect, had been extended by a further 6 months to the determination of this appeal), more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test and that the Appellant had agreed that he had not complied with the mandatory training requirement records of his first trainee licence.

8. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

9. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

10. There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.