Gilbert Roy v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructions

The appeal was listed as a Cloud Video Platform hearing. The Respondent did not join the hearing. The Respondent had indicated that an oral hearing was not required. The Appellant attended and gave evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was just and fair to proceed without a representative of the Respondent having considered rules 2 and 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 26 pages.

To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), 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 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. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction paid for, by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act.

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 of Approved Driving Instructors (“RADI”) and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the RADI’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the RADI’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.

A licence under s.129 of the Act was granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and was valid from 28 October 2024 to 27 April 2025 (D1).

On 12 October 2025 the Appellant applied for a second licence (D2). By way of an email dated 21 October 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a second licence. By way of an email received on 21 October 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations. He stated that he had a family emergency and he had to travel abroad. In addition, he experienced difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test date.

After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. He had failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his AD1 21AT training record form (D5) were not completed within the first three months of the licence period.

The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 12 November 2025 (D6).

The reasons for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the application for a second licence are as follows:

The Appellant had his second attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 4 June 2026.

In his appeal in form GRC1 dated 12 November 2025 and his email dated 21 October 2025 the Appellant relies on the following grounds:

The Tribunal considered all the papers. The Appellant has already had the benefit of a trainee licence covering a period of 6 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s representations and finds he has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test notwithstanding the cancellation of two tests by the DVSA in August and October 2025.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal attached weight to the following points:

The Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent, and for that reason unreliable, in relation to his assertion that the “unforeseen personal emergency that required immediate travel abroad, which directly impacted my ability to submit a second licence application before my first one expired.”

In his email dated 21 October 2025 (page 19) the Appellant stated that the emergency arose after 8 April 2025 and his unsuccessful Part 3 exam attempt.

In oral evidence the Appellant gave the Tribunal contradictory evidence saying that he was abroad due to the ill-health of a family member from 25 January 2025 to 30 February 2025. He stated, also, that he was abroad from 20 February 2025 to 30 March 2025. He stated he was abroad for one period of two months. Neither of the periods of time stated by him amount to two months. The dates given in oral evidence are in direct contradiction to the statement in his email dated 21 October 2025 and his appeal in form GRC1 signed on 12 November 2025. The Appellant was asked about this inconsistency but was unable to provide a reasonable explanation. He gave evidence in a straightforward manner and was clearly not confused. He stated that the points put forward in his appeal were written by himself without assistance and in his own words.

The Appellant told the Tribunal that he had cancelled all the Part 3 test appointments after 8 April 2025 because they were too far from home, would be in areas with which he and his pupils were unfamiliar and he had only booked them in the hope of being able to change the venue or swap with another person. He stated that it was easier to arrange a transfer if he already had a booking. He told the Tribunal that he was a member of a Group Chat to help him facilitate this and that if he had a booking it would be easier to swap with someone who needed to cancel.

The Appellant did not submit that he had to cancel any of the Part 3 test appointments due to the “unforeseen emergency.” If the personal emergency had occurred and he had been abroad after 8 April, as he asserted, he would have had to cancel the Part 3 Tests for this reason and not for the reasons stated in evidence.

The Appellant has produced no documentary evidence of the personal emergency and his travel arrangements abroad. He has had ample opportunity to do so. It is not credible that he could not find and file documentary evidence to support the dates he as abroad and his general assertions about the unforeseen emergency.

The Tribunal found that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.