Christopher Alford v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 28th October 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

The matter was listed on the papers, upon consent of the parties.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, 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 final Part 3 test, must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1. If it is not passed, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

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. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

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.

When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions.

The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The Appellant had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 22nd January 2024 and Part 2 on 25th April 2024.

The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 3rd February 2025 to 2nd August 2025.

On 31st July 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the first trainee license. His license is extended to the date of this decision by virtue of that application.

On 31st July 2025 the Appellant was informed, by the Respondent, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent on 9th August 2025. He set out his commitment to training and submitted that he had demonstrated positive progress.

The Appellant failed the Part 3 test for the first time on 15th September 2025.

The application was refused on 28th October 2025.

The reasons for the Respondent’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of the first license, in that mandatory training had been completed by a school not on the license, and that he had had adequate time to become proficient.

The Appellant failed his second attempt at the Part 3 test on 19th January 2026.

The Appellant’s final attempt at the Part 3 test is booked for 20th April 2026.

The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 28th October 2025.

The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that training had been provided by two instructors, who he named on the GRC1 form, both of whom worked for Southwest Advanced Driver Training.

The Respondent, in his response, stated:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents prepared by the Respondent.

I may overturn the decision of the Respondent if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.

The Appellant did not provide any evidence to supplement his GRC1 form. He provided no evidence with regard to the identity of those who he said had provided his training. The grounds of appeal are not sufficient for me to grant a continuation of his trainee license.

I note that the Appellant originally sought an extension of six months from 31st July 2025. Thanks to the timing of this matter coming before me, he has achieved this and more by operation of the provisions of s129(6)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1998.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Respondent’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with theRespondent’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.