Daniel Morris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mode of Hearing

1. Both parties consented to a determination without a hearing and I am satisfied that I can properly determine this appeal without a hearing pursuant to rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended (“the Rules”). I have considered the bundle comprising 21 pages. The Law

2. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), 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’). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

3. 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. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.

4. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act .

5. 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.

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

7. The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.

8. Two licences under s.129 of the Act were granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 22 July 2024 to 21 July 2025 (D1).

9. On 21 August 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 21 August 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a third licence. By way of an email received on 3 September 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations. He stated that he had experienced difficulties in obtaining a test date for part 3.

10. After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. The Respondent stated that the Appellant had provided no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months.

11. The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 18 September 2025 (D5).

12. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the application for a third licence are as follows: a) The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. b) The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months. c) Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled one more test booked for 18 November 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI. d) The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.

13. The Appellant had his final attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 29 January 2026. If the test did go ahead the appeal must be dismissed as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test. Appeal to the Tribunal

14. In his appeal dated 21 September 2025 the Appellant relies on the following grounds: a) There is a massive delay in getting tests. b) During his two previous two trainee licences he made genuine efforts to gain the necessary experience and training to prepare for the Part 3 test. Despite his best attempts he was unsuccessful. c) The backlogs within the system meant he was unable to progress. He had a test on hold and was unable to progress. His first test was not until after the first licence had expired. This meant he was disadvantaged by limited time to practise and prepare while licenced. d) Following instructions from The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) he ceased providing lessons. He firmly believes that continuing to teach under a third licence would place him in the best possible position to ensure success at his final attempt. e) Without the ability to teach it would be considerably more difficult to maintain the standard of readiness required for the Part 3 test. f) He is in a far stronger position than he was before his previous attempts and he is confidence that he will pass on the third attempt. g) The difficulties have arisen from the DVSA delays in providing a test date and this was out of his control. Conclusion

15. I have considered all the papers. The Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. I have into account the Appellant’s representations and find he has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test notwithstanding difficulties in booking the Part 3 test.

16. I find that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed Date: 27 February 2026 J Findlay Judge of the First-tier Tribunal