Browen Parker v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, without a hearing, at the request of the Appellant, with the agreement of the Respondent.

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 18 September 2025 refusing her application for a third trainee driving instruction licence made on 18 August 2025, having taken account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, in emails dated 21 and 22 August 2025, namely, that she required a third trainee licence to continue her training to work towards passing her Part 3 test. However, this is decidedly not the purpose of a trainee licence and, in any event, holding a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test. A trainee licence is issued solely to give an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) an opportunity to gin sufficient practical experience in driving tuition to help towards passing their Part 3 test.

3. The Respondent, in its said decision, the decision under appeal, also relied on the fact that the Appellant already had the benefit of two trainee licences, totalling12 months for the said stated purpose of a trainee licence and where her second trainee licence remained in force until the determination of this appeal (meaning that the Appellant had the benefit of a further trainee licence period from 22 September 2025 to 7 January 2026).

4. In her Notice of Appeal dated 22 September 2025, the Appellant stated that she had been told by her trainer that she could get three trainee licences so that she could make the maximum permitted number of attempts – three - to pass her Part 3 test. This, too, is decidedly not the case. The appellant confirmed that she had failed her first attempt at passing her Part 3 test (on 19 January 2025) and had cancelled a scheduled second attempt. However, she failed her second attempt on 11 September 2025. Her third, and final attempt is scheduled to take place on 4 February 2026.

5. In its Response dated 26 November 2025, the Respondent reiterated the reasons given by it in the said decision under appeal, including the fact that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued to an applicant for as long as it takes them to pass their Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that a trainee licence is not required to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of an application for a trainee licence is not a bar to taking a Part 3 test and that the Appellant, as an alternative, could attend a training course or study and practice with an ADI or give unpaid driving tuition - all alternatives that are used by some aspiring ADIs who have never held a trainee licence.

6. This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, while giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

7. The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass her Part 3 test and that the Appellant had not provide evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils.

8. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

11. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

12. There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.