Andrew Hall v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00478 (GRC)
Appeal Number: FT/D/2025/1431
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Heard on: 23 March 2026
Decision given on: 31 March 2026
Before Judge Brian Kennedy KC
Between:
Andrew Hall
Appellant
and
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors
Respondent
DECISION NOTICE
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:
This is an appeal by Mr Andrew Hall (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) dated 4 December 2025, refusing his application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”).
This appeal is on the papers, and the Tribunal has carefully considered the appeal bundle, the Registrar’s statement of case, and all supplementary material. I have also considered the Appellant’s written representations, including the references to bereavement and family medical circumstances supported by medical records.
For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal find that the decision reached by the Registrar was one reasonably open to them on the evidence available. The circumstances described, whilst sincerely advanced and clearly difficult for the Appellant, do not amount to such exceptional or extraordinary grounds warranting a departure from the statutory scheme.
Background:
The Appellant had already held two consecutive trainee licences, spanning 25 November 2024 to 24 November 2025, giving him the statutory 12-month period of supervised instructional practice permitted before qualification.
On 7 November 2025, shortly before expiry of the second licence, he applied for a third trainee licence. This had the effect of keeping his existing licence in force pending the decision and this appeal.
A “minded to refuse” notice was issued on 10 November 2025, to which the Appellant responded on 17 November 2025. On 4 December 2025, the Registrar refused the application.
The Appellant subsequently lodged this appeal.
Chronology:
25 Nov 2024 – First trainee licence begins.
24 Nov 2025 – Second licence expires (total 12 months permitted).
7 Nov 2025 – Application for third licence submitted.
10 Nov 2025 – Minded-to-refuse notice issued.
17 Nov 2025 – Representations filed.
4 Dec 2025 – Application refused.
Dec 2025 –Appeal lodged.
Feb 2026 – Registrar’s statement filed under Rule 23.
24 Apr 2026 – Appellant’s next instructional ability test scheduled.
Additional evidence indicates:
(i) 12 Mar 2025 – DVSA-cancelled test.
(ii) 04 Jun 2025 – Failed Part 3 instructional test.
(iii) 26 Aug 2025 – Test cancelled by the Appellant.
(iv) 2023–2025 medical material relating to the Appellant’s wife’s condition.
Issues:
The Tribunal’s appellate function is to determine whether the Registrar’s refusal of a third trainee licence was lawful, proportionate, and reasonably open to the decision-maker.
The sub-issues include:
(a) whether the Appellant has shown exceptional circumstances justifying a third licence;
(b) whether the Appellant made sufficient progress during the 12-month period already granted;
(c) whether the Appellant provided evidence of materially lost training time or impairment of progress;
(d) whether the decision accords with the statutory purpose of trainee licences.
The Relevant Law:
Section 123 of the 1988 Act prohibits paid driving instruction except by those on the Register or holding a trainee licence.
Section 129 empowers the Registrar to issue temporary trainee licences to facilitate supervised practice. The legislative framework envisages limited duration, temporary status, and progression toward qualification, not repeated re-licensing.
The Tribunal may substitute its own decision if the Registrar’s decision is wrong but must give appropriate weight to the statutory purpose and to the regulator’s assessment of training progress and public protection.
Submissions:
The Appellant
The Appellant contends that DVSA cancellations, family bereavement, and his wife’s medical condition disrupted his training, reducing his ability to demonstrate competence within the permitted 12 months.
He submits that he has worked diligently with several trainers and undertaken mock sessions, and he argues that he has not had a fair opportunity to qualify.
He says refusal is disproportionate given the personal circumstances.
The Registrar
The Registrar notes that the Appellant has:
(a) already benefitted from two trainee licences (the usual maximum);
(b) failed one test;
(c) cancelled another himself;
(d) experienced only one DVSA-cancelled test;
(e) provided limited corroborative evidence of materially lost training time.
The Registrar emphasises that a trainee licence is not required to sit the Part 3 test, that the Appellant already has a test booked for 24 April 2026, and that the scheme is not intended to provide extended pathways for repeated attempts.
Discussion and Findings
The Tribunal acknowledge and accept that the Appellant has faced challenging personal circumstances, including bereavement and his wife’s serious health condition. These matters are genuinely felt and do deserve significant express sympathy.
However, the Tribunal must apply the statutory test. Personal or family hardship, even serious hardship, does not of itself amount to an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance capable of justifying an additional six-month licence in the absence of cogent evidence of significant personal materially lost training time.
The evidence demonstrates:
(a) one DVSA-cancelled test;
(b) one test cancelled by the Appellant;
(c) one failed test;
(d) no persuasive evidence of substantial lost opportunity preventing proper use of the 12-month period.
The Registrar took into account all representations and correctly noted that the statutory purpose is to prevent perpetual trainee licensing.
Significantly the Appellant is not prevented from sitting the imminent test on 24 April 2026, which does not require a trainee licence.
Having regard to the statutory framework, the evidence, and the purpose of the scheme, The Tribunal find that the Registrar’s decision was one reasonably open to them. It was neither unfair nor disproportionate.
The Appellant has not discharged the burden of showing that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in law
Conclusion:
The appeal is dismissed.
This constitutes the Tribunal’s decision.
Brian Kennedy KC 24 March 2026.