Maurizio Gobbato v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), made on 23rd October 2025, to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

The matter was decided on the papers, with the consent of both 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 whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole 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 21st May 2024. The Appellant passed Part 2 on 22nd February 2025.

The Appellant was in receipt of a trainee licence which was valid from 28th April to 27th October 2025.

On 23rd October 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the first trainee license.

On 30th October the Appellant was informed, by the Registrar, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.

The Appellant had made representations, saying his instructor had been hospitalised so he had not been able to compete the required training, but the application was refused on 4th December 2025.

The Appellant failed the Part 3 test on 13th November 2025.

The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence had been provided to support the contention that the Appellant’s instructor had been unwell and that he had failed to comply with the conditions of his first license.

As at 26th February 2026, the Appellant had a second Part 3 test on hold (meaning that a booking had been requested but no date had been set).

The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 8th December 2025.

The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that the Appellant had struggled to undertake 20 hours training by 28th July 2025, as he was required to do, because his instructor had been too unwell to teach him. The illness had included an admission to hospital.

The Registrar, in his response, states:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

The Appellant provided evidence that, by 15th October 2025, he had completed 20 hours’ training. He also provided an action plan from his instructor and evidence in support of his submission that the instructor had experienced a significant and prolonged health issue in the summer of 2025 and was therefore unable to complete 20 hours’ training by 28th July 2025, as required under the Regulations.

Notably, the Appellant did not provide an explanation as to why his 20 hours training had not been completed with his first trainer, under whom he had studied from 29th April to 7th July 2025.

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

I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulties he encountered in accessing training after 7th July 2025. However there is no explanation as to why so few hours’ training were undertaken prior to that date, meaning that the requirements of Reg 13(3)(a) were not met. That is, in short, a requirement to complete 20 hours’ training (as prescribed) in the three month period which expired on 28th July 2025.

The Regulations appear to be silent on the application of the training conditions imposed under Regulation 13(3)(a). The Registrar has made no submissions as to why I should interpret that Regulation to mean that failure to meet the condition means that I may not allow the appeal.

The Appellant had a test on hold as at 26th February 2026.

I note that the Appellant sought an extension of six months on 25th October 2026. Given the difficulties he experienced in accessing training while his instructor was unwell, I am minded to allow the extension for six months so that his license will continue until 27th April 2026.