Davide De Nadai v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mr De Nadai is a trainee driving instructor who was granted trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for two six-month periods from 2 September 2024 to 1 September 2025. He was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 24 October 2025. Mr De Nadai now appeals that decision.

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1. Only three attempts are allowed for each Part. The whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times or does not pass both within the two years.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, he may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act:

This is commonly known as 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.

By section 129(3) of the Act

By section 129(8)(c) of the Act

By section 129(6) of the Act:-

Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give 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 Mr De Nadai.

On

On

Mr De Nadai’s notice of appeal dated 5 November 2025 sets out the reason for the appeal as being that he had been waiting for a test date since booking on 2 June 2025.

The Registrar’s statement of case dated 3 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

I considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 pages, including Mr De Nadai’s full trainee licence history from the Registrar.

Mr De Nadai confirmed the test history contained at page 24 of the bundle.

He informed me that he had attempted to book his third test on 2 June 2025, at which time he still had 3 months left on his second trainee licence. In late June/early July, he informed DVSA that he would be away for 2 weeks in August. He was not informed that a test was booked for 8 August but saw reference to a cancelled test when he logged on to see his record. By end August, when he still didn’t have a date offered, he applied for a third licence, and then appealed the decision to refuse.

By January 2026, because he had still not received a test date, he contacted DVSA by telephone. He was informed that there was a problem with the system and that he would be placed on a priority list. He was then invited for a test booked for 1 April 2026. He says that he never expected to have to wait 9 months for a date.

Mr De Nadai has a car provided by the AA franchise and has been teaching pupils, who he says are counting on him. He would like to present for his test using this car and one of his pupils in order to give him the best opportunity to pass. He is aware that if he fails the third attempt, he must start again.

Mr De Nadai passed his Part 1 test on 9 November 2023 and Part 2 test on 24 January 2024. Mr De Nadai’s first trainee licence was granted on 2 September 2024 for a period of six months. Mr De Nadai’s second trainee licence was due to expire on 1 September 2025.He failed his Part 3 Test on 27 January 2025. He then cancelled a test scheduled for 4 March 2025 before failing a second attempt on 28 May 2025.

Very shortly after that second attempt, Mr De Nadai attempted to book a further test. He was placed on hold and not given a date. He informed DVSA that he would not be available to attend a test for two weeks in August. During that period, DVSA scheduled and then cancelled a test on 8 August.

8 November 2025 marked two years from Mr De Nadai passing his Part 1 test.

In January 2026, after contacting the DVSA by telephone, Mr De Nadai was eventually given a test date for 1 April 2026, which is almost ten months after he booked.

I considered Mr De Nadai’s grounds of appeal.

The six-month period of trainee licences is set on the basis that this is considered to be an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test. Mr De Nadai has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of twelve months from 2 September 2024 to 1 September 2025. Additionally, by applying for a third trainee licence Mr De Nadai has had the benefit of s.129(6)(b) of the Act extending the first trainee licence until this appeal is disposed of.

However, Mr De Nadai has been kept waiting 10 months for his third attempt at the Part 3 test. This is not a case of an ADI cancelling tests but the DVSA failing to offer a date. The Registrar’s decision completely fails to engage with that fact.

Mr De Nadai passed his Part 1 test on 9 November 2023 and so the two-year period within which he must have passed both the Part 2 and Part 3 tests expired on 8 November 2025. Mr De Nadai has therefore had the benefit of being able to train by giving instruction for payment for an additional period exceeding the fixed statutory maximum period within which he must pass the Part 3 test.

Whilst I consider that the Registrar’s decision was wrong because it failed to engage with Mr De Nadai’s representations that he was unable to book a test within a reasonable period of time, I cannot extend his licence beyond the fixed statutory period.

I therefore dismiss this appeal.