Adam Alli v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. The appeal is dismissed. REASONS Background

2. The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Registrar) on 16 May 2025 to refuse his application for a second trainee licence.

3. The appellant was granted a trainee licence pursuant to section 129 of the Road Traffic act 1988 (the Act), which was valid from 28 October 2024 to 27 April 2025. On 17 April 2025 the appellant applied for a second trainee licence.

4. The respondent wrote to the appellant on 22 April 2025 advising that they were considering refusing his application and invited him to respond.

5. The appellant made representations on 4 May 2025. He stated that he did not consider that the training he received from his first driving school was adequate and he changed driving schools. He stated that during the transition he faced ‘significant personal and logistical challenges’ and was under considerable stress which made it difficult for him to concentrate on his preparation. The appellant also stated that he had struggled to secure a test date at his local test centre.

6. The respondent refused the appellant’s application on 16 May 2025. The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 29 May 2025. The respondent’s decision

7. The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 16 May 2025: (i) The appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence. (ii) A period of six months is adequate to obtain sufficient experience to pass the Part 3 test. (iii) It was not Parliament’s intention that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the Part 3 test. (iv) The trainee licence system must not become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor (ADI). The appellant’s case

8. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were set out in the same terms as his representations dated 4 May 2025. The respondent’s case

9. The respondent does not expressly state which condition(s) of the trainee licence the appellant has failed to satisfy.

10. The respondent maintains the position that six months is an adequate period in which an individual can obtain sufficient experience to pass the Part 3 test and notes that as the appellant’s application for a second licence was made before the expiry of the fist licence, that licence has remained in force, enabling the appellant to continue to provide paid instructing pending the determination of his appeal.

11. The respondent points out that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to sit the part 3 test and that refusal of the application does not bar him from attempting the test. The respondent asserts that there are alternative means by which the appellant could prepare for the test other than providing professional tuition such as attending a training course, study and practice with an ADI, or giving tuition without payment.

12. The respondent stated that the appellant had failed his first two attempts at the part 3 test and had not booked his third and final attempt. The appeal hearing

13. The appeal was listed for a hearing at 16:00 on 4 November 2025 in accordance with directions made at a case management hearing on 26 September 2025. It is unclear why it was listed for a hearing, as the appellant indicated in his notice of appeal that he wished the appeal to be decided without a hearing. The appellant did not join the hearing and the clerk to the tribunal contacted him to see whether he intended to attend. He stated that he would not attend. The respondent also confirmed that they would not be attending the hearing.

14. I was satisfied that both parties were notified of the hearing and that they chose not to attend. I considered whether I could determine the appeal justly in the absence of the parties and found that I could. I had the benefit of the appeal bundle, which was prepared by the respondent, and which the appellant confirmed he had seen at the case management hearing.

15. In determining the appeal, I considered the oral evidence and submissions together with the documents contained in the hearing bundle. The law

16. The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).

17. Pursuant to regulation 3, the qualifying examination consists of three parts: a written examination (part 1); a driving ability and fitness test (part 2); and an instructional ability and fitness test (part 3).

18. A candidate is permitted three attempts at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing part 1, failing which the candidate must retake the whole examination. Once a candidate has passed part 2 they may be granted a trainee licence.

19. The purpose of the trainee licence is to enable 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, which is part of the qualifying examination to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

20. The appellant has a right of appeal against the respondent’s decision pursuant to section 131 of the Act. On appeal the tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

21. It is for the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s decision was wrong. Findings and reasons

22. The appellant indicated in his grounds of appeal that he had had to change driving schools due to inadequate training. It is not clear when this change occurred, but it must have been before 4 May 2025, which is when he first highlighted the issue. The appellant’s trainee licence has continued while this appeal has been pending, and the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that he has been unable to utilise his trainee licence during that period.

23. The appellant referred to suffering ‘personal and logistical challenges’ but failed to provide any information as to what those challenges are or were or more importantly, how they impacted on his ability to prepare for the part 3 test. Similarly, although I accept that the process may well be stressful, he provides no details, and there is nothing to suggest that he has been diagnosed with any medical condition which has impacted on his ability to prepare for the part 3 test.

24. A trainee licence is not required to sit the part 3 test and there are steps that the appellant can take to continue to prepare for the test without a trainee licence. He can continue to provide instruction provided he does not take payment; he can attend a training course; and can study and practice with an ADI.

25. For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that a further licence is necessary to enable him to prepare for the part 3 test.

26. I find that the respondent’s decision to refuse to grant a second trainee licence was correct and I dismiss the appeal. Signed J K Swaney Date 4 November 2025 Judge J K Swaney Judge of the First-tier Tribunal