Sallyann Baker v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2) (a) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 31 July 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Law

3. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and she is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

4. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

5. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This 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 referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct." A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not needed to be able to take part 3.

6. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so the he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

7. By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act :- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of." Role of the Tribunal

8. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act ...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal." Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- ( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit.

9. In considering the appeal the Tribunal gives appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:- "45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."

10. The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. 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 being the person tasked with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Evidence and matters considered

11. For this appeal as well as hearing from the Appellant I considered the content of a bundle of 23 pdf pages. In this decision any page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the bundle. Chronology

12. The Appellant agreed tha t:- (a) on 30 January 2024 the Appellant passed part 1 and on 8 July 2024 passed part 2. (b) on 2 September 2024 the Appellant was given her 1st Licence for 6 months. (c) a part 3 test booked for 1 October 2024 was cancelled by the Appellant. (d) a second Licence was issued to the Appellant in March 2025. (e) a part 3 test booked for 11 March 2025 was cancelled b y DVSA. (f) on 15 April 2025 the Appellant took and failed the part 3 for the 1st time (g) on 14 July 2025 the Appellant applied for a third Licence to commence on 1 September 2025. (h) on 17 July 2025 the Appellant was told that the Registrar was considering refusal of a third Licence (i) on 28 July 2025 the Appellant made representations. (j) on 31 July 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse the third Licence. The Appeal

13. Since this appeal against the Decision was commenced:- (a) on 1 October 2025 the Appellant took and failed the part 3 for a second time (b) on 1 December 2025 the Registrar provided a response to the appeal.

14. The Appellant also told me that a third (an d final) part 3 test is due to be taken on 22 January 2026 and that she has continued to provide paid instruction based on the existing licence pending the outcome of this appeal (as allowed by section 129(6) of the Act ). The Appellant's position

15. In the representations and her appeal the Appellant referred to (a) medical issues and the failure of the Registrar to consider the medical evidence adequately and (b) the difficulty to get test dates due to there being few examiners in her area. In her view the Decision was unfair. At the appeal she gave more details about her medical issues and said (and I accept) that she lost time due to two serious medical issues and treatments including a period in which she was not permitted to drive due to certain medication she was taking. The Registrar's position

16. The Registrar said that, having considered the representations, the Decision was made because:- (a) the purpose of a section 129 Licence is to learn not to be paid for teaching and "The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration." (b) the refusal does not bar the Appellant from taking part 3 and in any event she has been able to continue teaching pending the outcome of this appeal. (c) "since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability twice and cancelled one more such test booked for 01 October 2024. Regrettably, DVSA cancelled one such test booked for 11 March 2025. (Annex A) Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor." Review and Decision

17. I took account and gave weight to the Registrar's view and accept what he says about the purpose of a Licence. I also took note of the fact that:- (a) the Appellant had been been able to continue on the basis of the Licence by section 129(6) of the Act despite the Decision. (b) by the time of the appeal she had been in receipt of a Licence since September 2024 – a period of about 16 months. (c) had she been granted a third Licence it would still be in force.

18. While there can be an issue in getting a test date in this case she was given one on 1 October 2024 then a second one on 11 March 2025 (although this was cancelled by DVSA) and then on 15 April 2025. Also having a Licence is not a legal requirement for taking part 3.

19. The Appellant provided the Registrar with a GP's letter (20) dated 25 March 2025 in support of her medical situation. That letter gave very little information as it focused on the booking of an appointment although it does refer to an "urgent specialist opinion" . She also made reference to certain relevant issues in her email. However the Appellant at the appeal provided me with much more information including that for a period she was not allowed to drive. I also gained the impression that in her submissions to me she was underplaying the impact on her of the various issues she had faced. What she said put the GP's letter into context and it is for this reason that she has on balance persuaded me to allow the appeal.

20. The appeal is allowed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 9 January 2026