Zachary Reuben Davis v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”), dated 1 st August 2025, refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence.

2. I have been provided with a 25-page bundle for the purpose of this appeal, containing a number of documents, including the Notice of Appeal and the Appellant’s written representations which were made upon receipt of notification that the Registrar was considering refusing his application for a third licence.

3. The Appellant was granted once trainee licence by the Respondent, covering the period of 21 st October 2024 to 20 th April 2025. On 10 th April 2025, the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

4. On 2 nd May2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant by email that consideration was being given to refusing the application, and they were asked to make written representations in response within 14 days of the date of that email.

5. The Appellant responded with written representations on 15 th May 2025, stating as follows: (i) That he had chased ADI 21AT form with his instructor for the 9 hours that he has completed of his training so far. (ii) That the remainder of his training was not completed because of personal circumstances which arose during this period. He was the primary care for his grandfather, who was battling with an illness before he died, providing end of life care for him at that time. Following his passing, he then had to make the necessary funeral arrangements and provide support to his grandmother, who is herself now dealing with a similar medical diagnosis. (iii) That the last 6 months have been incredibly stressful and difficult because of these issues and the breakdown of his relationship, all of which has affected his mental health, and he has engaged with his General Medical Practitioner and counselling sessions in an effort to help him through this difficult time. (iv) That should he not be granted a second trainee licence, he will suffer financially and will struggle to pay his mortgage, which he now pays for by himself following the breakdown of his relationship.

6. On 1 st August 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice under section 129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that he was refusing his application for a second trainee licence. The following reasons were given for the Registrar’s refusal of the Appellant’s application for a second licence: (a) That the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his trainee licence, which he did not provide an ADI 21AT form. (b) That the Appellant did not provide any mitigation or evidence of lost training time. (c) That the Appellant had already been granted one trainee licence of six months’ duration for the purpose of gaining sufficient experience to pass the final part of the Approved Driving Instructors qualifying examination. This is considered to be a more than adequate period of time in which to do this. (d) That it was not Parliament’s intention that candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination. (e) That the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

7. The Appellant was informed in that notice that he may appeal against the decision to this Tribunal within 14 days from the date of that notification, and that if he did appeal it, his present licence would continue in force until the appeal is decided.

8. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 14 th August 2025, was silent as to the reasons for his appeal, but the outcome being sought is for his application for a second trainee licence to be granted. However, the written representations he provided to the Registrar are detailed and provide his rationale for bringing this appeal, and I consider that the appeal is advanced on the same basis.

9. In the Response to the appeal, dated 5 th November 2026, the Registrar reiterated the reasons for given in his Notice of 1 st August 2025 for refusing the application for a third trainee licence, and made the following additional submissions: (a) 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, providing 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. (b) The Appellant has already had one trainee licences, covering a period of six months, and by virtue of having applied for a third licence before the expiry of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and has permitted the Appellant to continue to give paid instruction until the determination of this appeal. (c) That the system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. (d) Since passing his driving ability test, the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test (Part 3) twice. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (e) That the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the Part 3 test. He does not need to hold a trainee licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. By way of example, some trainees acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all, and it is open to an individual to attend a training course, or study or practise with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). Legal Framework

10. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ 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 that person is the holder of a current licence issued under section 129(1) of the Act .

11. The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are detailed within Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ The Act ”), and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (“the Regulations”). The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified and placed on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. The granting of a trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is: “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.”

12. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’, comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

13. The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing the Part 1 examination, and whilst there is no restriction on the number of attempts a candidate may take the Part 1 qualifying examination, Parts 2 and 3 permit only three attempts at each. Should an applicant fail to comply with these requirements, the entire examination would need to be retaken (i.e. Parts, 1, 2 and 3). However, they would not be permitted to retake any part of the examination until 2 years after the date when they passed their Part 1 examination – see Regulation 3(3) of the Regulations .

14. Upon passing Part 2, an applicant may be granted a trainee licence. The granting of a trainee licence permits applicants to provide driving instruction for payment before they are fully qualified and on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ( s.123(1) of the Act ). It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

15. Section 129(3) of the Act permits the Registrar to “refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued” . However, he must give written notice stating that he is considering the refusal of the application and give particulars of the grounds upon which he is considering this ( s.129(7) of the Act ). Once notice of this consideration has been given, section 129(8) (c) provides that: “before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period.”

16. The period referred to within that section is a period of 14 days from the date when notice was given by the Registrar ( s.129(8) (a) of the Act ), and the Registrar is not permitted to decide to refuse the application for the licence until after this period has come to an end ( s.129(8) (b)).

17. Section 129(6) provides as follows: “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.”

18. The Appellant’s right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out within s.131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such an order as it thinks fit.

19. 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.

20. It is for the Appellant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent’s decision was wrong. Discussion and Conclusions

21. In his written representation of 15 th May 2025, the Appellant set out a detailed series of events which he submits contributed to him having failed to complete his required training. He accepts that he did manage to take his first attempt at the Part 3 test, but he unfortunately he was unsuccessful in that attempt. I have some sympathy for the Appellant’s position during what appears to have been a rather difficult and upsetting period of time where he lost his grandfather, suffered the breakdown in his relationship, and has consequently been dealing with the effects of those events upon him, both mentally and financially. Unfortunately, he has not provided any documentary evidence of these events, and the Tribunal must consider the evidence which has or has not been provided to it in any particular case. In this instance, there is no medical evidence or other documentary evidence which shows that what the Appellant has stated as being the reasons for his failure to comply with the conditions of his trainee licence or to complete his training is true. Examples of such evidence might have been provided from a medical practitioner, by way of a letter, both in terms of the cumulative impact of these events on his own mental health, and the factual status regarding the passing of his grandfather. Equally, a death certificate could have been provided to that extent in relation to his grandfather. Unfortunately, the Tribunal is where it is and is not therefore in a position to consider any such additional evidence.

22. Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to the continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six-month period of such licences is set on the basis that this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 assessment, as it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to either prepare for or take the Part 3 test. It is submitted by the Respondent that six months is a very reasonable period within which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination, and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. In this instance, the Appellant’s trainee licence has run far beyond the six-month period granted by a single licence. As his application for a second licence was made before the expiry of his first licence, his first licence has continued to run since that time. The appellant has therefore had the benefit of nearly a further eight months in which to gain practical experience of providing instruction for payment, though I do not take this into account in reaching my decision.

23. It is apparent from the bundle (at page 25) that the Appellant had taken two Part 3 tests by the time that he submitted his appeal to the Tribunal. Although the Notice of Appeal states that he had a third test booked for 14 th August 2025, which is coincidentally the same date as appears with the signed Statement of Truth, the Appellant has written that “Test is placed on hold so I’m awaiting a test date and had no confirmation as of yet of my next date.” . On that basis it would appear that the Appellant was unaware of the date of his final test, however. Nevertheless, if that was the date of his test and he took that final attempt at his Part 3 test, or even if he has subsequently taken his final Part 3 test on a later date, he would now have taken all three of his permitted attempts. He would therefore have either been placed on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, or alternatively, he would be required to start the entire examination process from the beginning. However, he would not be able to restart that process until 1 st February 2026, which is when the two-year period which runs from the date of passing his Part 1 test elapses. Should the Appellant still be yet to take his final attempt, then he would have until that same date to do so, and he is not precluded from doing so without a trainee licence. Thereafter, as with the aforementioned scenario, he would then have to restart the examination process from the beginning, unless he is registered.

24. I have regard to the fact that the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making decisions on licence applications, and that it was not Parliament’s intention that candidates should be given licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination. In all the circumstances of this case, I do not consider that the Appellant’s reasons are such that it can be shown that the Registrar’s decision was wrong.

25. The appeal is dismissed. Signed: Date: Judge Armstrong-Holmes 16 th January 2026