Stuart Freeman v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to: a. a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 ; and b. a ‘regulation’ are references to the applicable section of t he Regulations (as defined below) .

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: Stuart Freeman. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 24 September 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 November 2025, refusing the Application. Regulations: The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. 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 a Licence. 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 paragraphs 8 and 9 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated that he considered that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong because the Appellant had met all the relevant training criteria. The Appellant set out examples of problems which he stated had occurred with communications with the DVSA, including in connection with trying to extend his Licence.

7. The Appellant also stated that he had invested a lot of his income into his change of career to become an ADI and that not having a second Licence would have an impact on the students he teaches and on his ability to “become the best I can be”. The Registrar’s case

8. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were that the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first Licence, because: a. pursuant to regulation 15(3), a minimum of 20 hours of training must be completed within the first 3 months of the validity of the Licence, but the Appellant only completed 8 hours of training within the 3 month time frame; and b. the Appellant had only covered 10 of the 20 mandatory training objectives listed in part 1 of schedule 2 of the Regulations, contrary to regulation 15(6).

9. The Registrar also stated that: a. The Appellant had not provided any explanation as to why he had failed to comply with the above requirements. b. 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 as an ADI. The system of issuing Licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI. c. A Licence is granted not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Qualifying Examination, but to allow up to six months experience of (paid) instruction. d. The Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI. Mode of hearing

10. 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 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 in the Regulations.

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 takes 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 them 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. The main reason given by the Appellant in support of his appeal was that he had met all the relevant training criteria. The Appellant submitted that form ADI 21AT was incorrectly completed by his instructor. Included in the bundle was a statement from the instructor confirming that the Appellant had completed the requisite amount of training, as well as an updated and signed copy of that form.

28. I consider that the Registrar was entitled to refuse the Application on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated the requirements in the Regulations referred to. I would also observe that it is for the Appellant to ensure that that form ADI 21AT is correctly completed. However, even taking into account the error made by the Appellant and his instructor in respect of that form and the subsequent evidence which was provided in that regard, I am not persuaded that the grant of a second Licence is necessary.

29. Whilst the Appellant stated that he had invested a lot of his income into his change of career, he has not set out any reasons as to why a second Licence is necessary. Likewise, the Appellant has not explained how it would have an impact on his students, as he asserted, if he was not granted a second Licence.

30. 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. 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.

31. I accept that the Appellant’s second attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test, which had been booked for January 2026, was cancelled by the DVSA and rescheduled for April 2026. Nevertheless, the Appellant has not demonstrated that there has been any impact on his training time or a lack of pupils.

32. Also, as the Registrar submitted, because the Appellant made the Application before the expiry date of the first Licence and subsequently appealed the Registrar’s Decision, that Licence has remained in force pending determination of the appeal. Accordingly, the Appellant has already had the benefit of his first Licence from 24 March 2025 until the present date, a period of almost 12 months. In my view therefore (and in the absence of any extenuating circumstances), the Appellant has already had sufficient time to use his Licence as part of his preparation for the ‘Part 3’ test.

33. For all of 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: 10 March 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal