Jodie Foulkes v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is the appeal of the Appellant, Ms Jodie Foulkes, against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 13 November 2025, to refuse her request for a second trainee licence.

The matter was listed before me for hearing by CVP. Ms Foulkes represented herself; the Registrar relied on his written case and did not attend.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors

Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness (the Act, s125(3)(a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination.

By the Act, s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are valid for six months only. The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued (s129(3)).

The effect of the Act, s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

By the Act, s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit (s131(3)).

The background facts can be summarised as follows.

Ms Foulkes passed parts one and two of the examination on 21 February 2024 and 20 January 2025 respectively.

On Ms Foulkes’s application, the Registrar granted her a trainee licence, covering the period from 5 May 2025 to 4 November 2025.

During the currency of that licence Ms Foulkes applied to the Registrar for a second licence. That application was refused by the letter of 13 November 2025, to which I have already referred.

Given the timing of the application for the third licence, the life of the first licence was extended by the Act, s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above).

Ms Foulkes booked part three tests for 10 December 2025 and 16 March 2026, but unfortunately was unsuccessful on both occasions.

By the latter date, the two-year life of the part one pass (see above) had expired. The effect of this was that she was not in a position to apply for a third opportunity to take the part three test.

In her notice of appeal, Ms Foulkes made many persuasive points, most of which sought to explain how delays within the system had prevented her from completing her training and qualifying as an ADI within a reasonable period of time. She argued strongly that she should not be prejudiced by the failure of the system to function as it is intended to.

The Registrar resisted the appeal, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence. Generally, it was contended that the decision which Ms Foulkes seeks to challenge was solidly based and there was no good reason to disturb it. Moreover, on the Registrar’s case, the appeal has now become an academic in any event since the expiry of the two-year period means that Ms Foulkes cannot now undertake the part three test without first re-taking parts one and two.

As I explained to Ms Foulkes, I can see considerable force in the arguments which she made in support of her original appeal. It seems to me that, given the troubling delays in the system, the Registrar faces growing difficulty in resisting applications for second licences and I am satisfied that the application in this case was certainly made on valid grounds.

As I also explained to Ms Foulkes, however, I can see no answer to the Registrar’s supplementary argument, added (necessarily) during the currency of the appeal, that her position is now unsustainable because of the expiry of the two-year period of validity of the pass at part one. The Tribunal is not in a position to ignore the unambiguous effect of the legislation, which affords no discretion to extend that period. It follows that allowing the appeal could not enable her to achieve her objective of building on her part one and part two passes and attempting part three for the third time. Whatever decision the Tribunal takes will leave her compelled to start the qualification process again from scratch.

For the reasons stated, I can see no alternative to dismissing the appeal.

I note Ms Foulkes’s remarks about enlisting the help of her MP and others. I can well understand why she feels that the system needs to change. I wish her well in taking her concerns to those who have authority in these matters.

Finally, I would not wish to leave this case without paying tribute to the restrained and dignified way in which Ms Foulkes presented her appeal despite her quite understandable disappointment and frustration over the events which have provoked it.