Rajwinder Sandhu v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mode of Hearing

1. The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rules 2 and 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 21 pages. The Law

2. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

3. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.

4. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of 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 they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act .

5. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

6. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“RADI”) and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the RADI’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the RADI’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. Background

7. The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.

8. Two licences under s.129 of the Act were granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling her to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of her ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 25 November 2024 to 24 November 2025 (D1).

9. On 27 October 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 30 October 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of her application for a third licence. By way of an email received on 04 November 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations.

10. After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. The Appellant has provided no evidence to support her representations or to show lost training time and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months.

11. The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 26 November 2025 (D5).

12. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the application for a third licence are as follows: a) 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. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. b) 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. This provides 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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. c) Since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has not yet taken the instructional ability and cancelled one test booked for 4 August 2025. (Annex A). Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI. d) The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI or give tuition on her own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.

13. The Appellant has not yet booked her first attempt at the instructional ability test. Appeal to the Tribunal

14. In her email dated 4 November 2025 the Appellant relies on the grounds that she had her car stolen in July 2025, she had to find another available trainer, she had a family emergency in India and took days off to visit family, it took time to get back on track, it was hard to find a date for a test and she was still looking for a date to book the Part 3 test. She asserted that she is polite, gives a positive impression and gives her students plenty of encouragement and made good changes in their lives. Conclusion

15. The Tribunal considered all the papers. The Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. She is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s representations and finds she has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test. She cancelled a Part 3 test booked on 4 August 2025. As the Appellant applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second licence that licence has remained informed pending the determination of this appeal permitting her to give paid instruction.

16. The Tribunal found that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed Date: 20 February 2026 J Findlay Judge of the First-tier Tribunal