Sean Brooks v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed The Tribunal dismiss the appeal . The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld . REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction:

1. This is an appeal brought under section 129(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“ the Act ”) against the Registrar’s refusal, dated 13 November 2025, to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence. I have considered the appeal on the papers, together with the evidence and submissions contained in the bundle, including the Registrar’s statement and annexed test history contained in DVSA - Brooks - Bundle.

2. The Tribunal is sympathetic to the personal loss suffered by the Appellant. However, sympathy alone cannot displace the statutory framework or the high threshold for establishing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Background:

3. The Appellant has never been an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). He previously held two consecutive trainee licences between 21 October 2024 and 20 October 2025.

4. On 11 September 2025, he applied for a third trainee licence.

5. On 16 October 2025, the Registrar issued a decision “minded to refuse” notice inviting representations. The Appellant replied on 24 October 2025, stating that the illness and subsequent passing of his mother caused significant distress and disruption, leading to cancelled and missed test opportunities.

6. After considering those representations, the Registrar refused the application on 13 November 2025. Chronology: a) 21 October 2024 – First trainee licence starts. b) 20 October 2025 – Second trainee licence expires (remaining in force pending the renewal application). c) 11 September 2025 – Application for third trainee licence made. d) 16 October 2025 – Invitation to provide representations issued.24 October 2025 – Representations submitted. e) 13 November 2025 – Refusal decision issued. f) Test history shows: Part 1 (17 June 2024): (i) Passed (ii) Part 2 (24 July 2024): Passed (iii) Part 3 tests: 11 Feb 2025 (cancelled), 10 Apr 2025 (not completed), 23 Jul 2025 (failed), 18 Nov 2025 (failed) g) A final Part 3 test is scheduled for 23 March 2026. Issues for Determination:

7. The Tribunal must determine: a) Whether the Registrar’s refusal was lawful and proportionate under the Act and applicable policy; b) Whether the Appellant’s bereavement and associated disruption constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify a further trainee licence; c) Whether the statutory purpose has already been met through the two previous licences; d) Whether the Appellant has shown adequate progress towards qualification; e) Whether the forthcoming Part 3 test affects the proportionality of the decision. The Law: a) Section 123(1) of the Act prohibits giving paid driving instruction without registration or a trainee licence. b) Section 129 establishes the trainee-licence framework. The purpose is narrowly defined: to allow a limited, temporary period of supervised instructional experience to support preparation for the Part 3 test. c) The scheme does not provide for repeated extensions nor a means of prolonging paid instruction indefinitely. d) DVSA policy provides that a trainee licence typically allows six months of practical experience; two consecutive licences afford twelve months’ opportunity, ordinarily sufficient for a candidate to undertake training and complete the qualification pathway. Submissions:

8. The Appellant submits that: a) His mother’s illness and death caused emotional distress; b) This disrupted his training, led to cancelled test opportunities and reduced his ability to prepare; c) A further licence is needed to allow him to complete training and sit the Part 3 test.

9. He contends that the Registrar did not give sufficient weight to the personal circumstances affecting his progress.

10. The Registrar submits that: a) The Appellant has already benefitted from two full trainee licences (12 months total); b) The statutory scheme is not intended to create an open-ended route to give paid instruction; c) The Appellant’s test history demonstrates limited progress, including failures, a cancellation and a non-attendance; d) There is no corroborative evidence supporting the claimed disruption beyond the Appellant’s own statements; e) A trainee licence is not required for training between now and the scheduled Part 3 test on 23 March 2026; f) Granting a further licence after repeated unsuccessful attempts risks undermining the statutory purpose. Discussion:

11. The Tribunal accepts that bereavement can, in principle, amount to a significant and serious life event. However, the test for “exceptional” or “extraordinary” circumstances within this statutory scheme is a high one. It requires clear, evidenced disruption sufficiently compelling to justify departure from the structured, time-limited licensing pathway.

12. In this case, the Appellant has not provided independent evidence showing that the bereavement materially prevented him from taking full advantage of the two licences already granted. The test history indicates a pattern of limited progress which cannot be explained solely by bereavement.

13. The statutory purpose has already been met: the Appellant has received twelve months of trainee-licence opportunities, which the Registrar (and Tribunal) consider ample for preparation.

14. The Tribunal also notes that a trainee licence is not a prerequisite for undertaking non-paid training or preparing for the Part 3 test. The Appellant retains the ability to practise with a supervising ADI or training provider until the scheduled test.

15. Finally, the existence of an upcoming test date does not constitute an exceptional basis for granting a further licence. The Tribunal must consider the situation at the time of the refusal decision, which was rational, evidence-based and consistent with the statutory purpose. Conclusion:

16. While the Tribunal expresses sincere sympathy for the Appellant’s bereavement, the circumstances presented do not meet the high threshold of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances required to justify a third trainee licence.

17. The Registrar acted lawfully and proportionately in refusing the application. Decision:

18. The appeal is dismissed. Brian Kennedy KC. 19 March 2026.