Sally Sims v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor (“PDI”) who has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

She was granted a first trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, valid from 5 May 2025 to 4 November 2025, for the purpose of gaining limited supervised experience while progressing towards qualification.

Prior to the expiry of that licence, the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. Following consideration of the application and the Appellant’s representations, the Registrar refused the application by decision dated 13 November 2025.

The Appellant appeals against that refusal. The appeal was heard orally. The Tribunal considered the Registrar’s detailed Rule 23 statement and supporting material, together with the Appellant’s written and oral submissions.

The central questions for the Tribunal are:

The Tribunal reminds itself that the trainee licensing regime is a time-limited and conditional statutory scheme. Its purpose is to permit limited, supervised experience while a candidate progresses towards qualification. It is not intended to operate indefinitely, nor as an alternative to registration, and compliance with licence conditions is a fundamental feature of the scheme.

The Tribunal accepts in full the Registrar’s factual analysis and submissions as set out in the Rule 23 statement, which the Tribunal incorporates into these reasons. In particular, the Tribunal accepts that the original ADI 21AT documentation demonstrated that no qualifying training had been completed within the first three months of the licence period, contrary to Regulation 15(3)(a) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

When challenged, amended documentation was submitted. The Registrar expressed concern that the information had been retrospectively altered. At the hearing, the Appellant accepted that the amended information was wrong. She explained that she had relied on her trainer, who had assured her that it was permissible to change the information on the relevant form.

The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant gave that explanation honestly. However, the Tribunal is clear that reliance on informal advice cannot justify or excuse the retrospective alteration of information provided to the Registrar. The integrity and reliability of regulatory documentation is essential to the proper operation of the trainee licensing scheme. Conduct of this nature cannot be excused or condoned.

The Appellant also informed the Tribunal that she had undertaken a further instructional ability test on 26 March 2026 and had failed. The Tribunal finds that this is a material matter which would properly be a cause for concern for the Registrar in considering whether the statutory objectives of the trainee licensing regime were being met.

The Tribunal further acknowledges the Appellant’s frustration at the difficulty she experienced in securing examination dates, which she attributed in part to limited enforcement resources “on the ground”. The Tribunal accepts that this frustration was reasonably and legitimately expressed.

However, difficulties in booking tests, while regrettable, are not exceptional or extraordinary. They are not uncommon and do not undermine the lawfulness, rationality, or proportionality of the Registrar’s decision in this case.

The Tribunal has carefully considered whether the refusal of a second trainee licence was unreasonable, unfair, or disproportionate. I conclude that it was not. The Registrar was entitled to place significant weight on non-compliance with mandatory training requirements, concerns as to the reliability of documentation, and the Appellant’s lack of sufficient progress towards qualification despite the opportunities afforded.

For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and consistent with the statutory purpose of the trainee licensing regime.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the decision was unfair, or disproportionate.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.