Christopher Rodric Gallimore 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 22 nd July 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

2. The matter was decided, by agreement, on the papers. 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 had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

13. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 29 th November 2023 and Part 2 on 18 th November 2024.

14. The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 9 th December 2024 to 8 th June 2025.

15. On 6 th June 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the first trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application.

16. On 13 th June 2025 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 18 th June 2025. He said that he was put on hold when he applied for a test date and the date given was 18 th July 2025, a month after the expiry of the first trainee license.

18. The application was refused on 22 nd July 2025.

19. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that: a. the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his first license and had provided no evidence or reasoning for that; b. the Appellant had had a sufficient period of time to gain experience to pass the part 3 test.

20. At the time of filing his appeal, the Appellant had not yet attempted the Part 3 test.

21. On 18 th July the Appellant had an attempt at the part 3 test booked but he failed to attend. No reason for the failure has been provided to the Tribunal other than that there were “unforeseen circumstances”.

22. The Appellant had a further first attempt at the part 3 test booked on 18 th November 2025. I have seen no evidence as to the outcome of that. Appeal to the Tribunal

23. The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 1 st August 2025.

24. The grounds of appeal were, in summary: a. the date he was able to book a first attempt at the Part 3 test was outside the period covered by his first license; b. he was unable to take that test due to unforeseen circumstances; c. he would like the opportunity to keep teaching so that he can prepare, so as not to let pupils down and because the teaching is his sole income.

25. The Respondent, in his response, states: a. the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his first license by providing training record form ADI 21AT when asked for form ADI21S; b. the Appellant had provided form ADI 21S showing only one calendar week of supervision dates; c. the system of issuing licences is not an alternative to the system of registration; d. the Appellant has had sufficient time to prepare, from the granting of the license to the determination of the appeal; e. 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; and f. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. Evidence

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

27. 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.

28. I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulties he encountered in booking a test date. Those are well-documented generally.

29. The conditions under which a trainee instructor license is issued are set out at Reg 15 of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. One of the grounds relied up on by the Respondent was that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of his first license. However, he has not particularised which condition(s) the Appellant is said to have breached or how. It is for the Respondent to make that case and he has not done so.

30. The Appellant has provided no evidence or submissions in response to the allegation that he had breached the terms of his license, although it would be difficult to see how he could when that allegation is so unclear.

31. In any event, the Appellant sought a six month extension which would have extended his license to 7 th December 2025.

32. By virtue of this application he has been able to take the test booked on 18 th November. He has therefore achieved what he sought in making this application.

33. The burden being on the Appellant to show that the Registrar’s decision was wrong, he has not done so.

34. The appeal is therefore dismissed.