Robert Haworth v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Robert Haworth. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 10 July 2025, for the grant of a second Licence. Licence: A licence under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car (see paragraph 17 below); often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 4 September 2025, refusing the Application. Qualifying Examination: The qualifying examination referred to in paragraph 14 below. Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted one Licence. That Licence was valid from 3 February 2025 to 2 August 2025. The Appellant applied for a second Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

5. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraph 7 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated: a. I have recently applied for a 2nd trainee license to cany on teaching for reward. Due to the backlog in tests and availability of examiners I have only been able to sit 1 P3 test to date. I have another booked which will be my 2nd attempt b. I believe a 2nd pink license would be fair and would enable me extra practice time with my students and so stand a better chance of passing my next P3. I also believe that 1 license - especially considering the difficulty in getting a test date -is too little. and expecting PDIs to pass within 6 months after 1 chance is grossly unfair. c. PDI’s are given 3 attempts but getting 3 tests within this time period is quite frankly impossible. And teaching without reward puts enormous financial strain on PDIs due to the running costs of cars. The decision given to me was that I had not completed my training. d. The rules of a Pink license state that PDI’s should undergo a further 20 hours of training with an experienced ADI or Ordit trainer. I have [shown] on my ADI 2AT forms that I have indeed done the required amount of hours with my sponsor, so I don't understand why a 2nd license has not been granted for this reason. The Registrar’s case

7. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were: 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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; c. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and d. the refusal of a second 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 Approved Driving Instructor 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.

8. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his first Licence, as the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the Licence and that the Appellant had provided no explanation or mitigation. Mode of hearing

9. The Appellant asked for the appeal be decided without a hearing. The Respondent did not request an oral hearing, effectively indicating their consent to the appeal being determined without a hearing. The Tribunal has the benefit of the bundle referred to in paragraph 11 below. Having reviewed the same, I did not consider that further information was required from either party in order to make an informed decision.

10. I was therefore satisfied that the appeal was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and that it was fair and just to conduct the appeal in this way. The evidence and submission

11. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

12. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

13. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

14. A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of: a. a written examination (Part 1); b. a practical test of ability and fitness to drive (Part 2); and c. a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct (Part 3).

15. An application to take the ‘Part 3’ test must be made within two years of passing the ‘Part 1’ test, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

16. Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

17. The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

18. An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

19. A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 13 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

20. Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

21. Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence. The role and powers of the Tribunal

22. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

23. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

24. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

25. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

26. In my view, the Appellant has not demonstrated that the grant of the Application is appropriate.

27. As I have noted, holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Accordingly, there is still scope for the Appellant to develop and practice for the purposes of taking ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination.

28. As the Registrar submitted, the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to attend a training course, study and practice with an ADI and give tuition on their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this). These options are used by some prospective ADIs and, as I have noted, many people qualify as an ADI without ever having held a Licence.

29. The only additional benefit to holding a Licence is that driving lessons can be given on return for payment. I acknowledge the Appellant’s statement that “teaching without reward” puts prospective ADIs under financial strain but, as set out in paragraph 17, the purpose of a Licence to enable a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. In that regard, I agree with the Registrar’s submission that the system of issuing Licences is not intended to be an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI.

30. Moreover, in this case I am mindful that the Appellant has effectively had the benefit of a Licence for 12 months (since 3 February 2025). I agree with the Registrar’s view that the Appellant has therefore had a reasonable period in which to prepare for ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination whilst also being entitled to receive payment for giving driving lessons.

31. I also acknowledge the Registrar’s submission that the Appellant failed to submit his completed ADI 21AT training record form within the requisite period. The Appellant appears to have had no justifiable excuse for this; he simply stated to the Registrar that he had been abroad on holiday for two weeks. However, this was not a material factor in my decision.

32. I just make one final observation. The Registrar also submitted that (as at the date of the Registrar’s response to the appeal) the Appellant has his final attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test booked but was awaiting an available date. There was no information before me as to whether that test proceeded and this may have been relevant to a potential dismissal of the appeal, because if the Appellant failed it then (as I have noted) the whole Qualifying Examination would have to be retaken and consequently he would not be entitled to a Licence in any event (as he would no longer be treated as having passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination). However, as I have concluded that the appeal be dismissed anyway, that is not a relevant issue.

33. For the reasons I have given, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong. I therefore dismiss the appeal and I order that the Application is refused. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 5 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal