Karen Webber v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 10 April 2026. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 14 October 2025 to refuse her application for a third trainee driving instructor licence made on 19 September 2025, pursuant to s.129(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not provided evidence of lost training time; that she had already been grated 2 trainee licences (12 months in total) (3 September 2024 to 29 September 2025) to gain sufficient expertise to pass her Part 3 test, considered to be more than an adequate period of time – the sole purpose of a trainee licence (plus more than 6 further months permitted until determination of this appeal); that it was not intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took an applicant to pass her Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence does not prevent her undertaking a Part 3 test.

The Appellant had twice applied for postponement of her appeal, an application that had been refused on both occasions, namely, 4 March 2026 and 30 March 2026 having regard, essentially, to the provisions of the statutory Overriding Objective.

At the outset of this appeal, the Appellant made an application to adjourn the appeal, essentially on the same basis as her two postponement applications. However, she added that she had two pupils taking their driving test next week; that she was still contractually bound to pay her franchise provider to use their vehicle; that she had paid for extra training and had learned from her two failed attempts to pass her Part 3 test; that she had cancelled one Part 3 test date as she felt she was not ready and cancelled another Part 3 test date due to her need to care for, and support her husband through his illness and treatment, that this specifically led to her experiencing lost training time, including causing a lack of concentration, she feared, if providing driving tuition.

The Appellant’s application for an adjournment of this appeal was refused essentially on the same basis as her two applications for postponement had been refused. The substantive decision under appeal then proceeded.

The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal (undated) against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, (incorporating her representations to the Respondent in advance of the Respondent making the decision under appeal):

In her oral evidence, the Appellant submitted that she had lost training time due to a poor level of training being provided by her original trainer; the nature of her husband’s illness and treatment regime and her need to care for and support him and her consequent lack of ability to concentrate on driving tuition during that period from July 2024.

The Respondent, in his written Response, dated 17 February 2025, reiterated the reasons contained in the decision under appeal, not least that the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences from 3 September 2024 to 29 September 2025 (plus an additional period of more than 6 months pending the outcome of this appeal); that the Appellant had made application for a third trainee licence on 19 September2025 and had produced no evidence of lost training time as a result of her husband’s illness. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training, if necessary, to prepare for her third and final attempt at a Part 3 test (she having failed her Part 3 test attempts on two previous occasions, namely, on 15 May 202 and 27 January 2026) and cancelled a Part 3 test appointment on two occasions, namely, 24 February 2025 and 20 October 2025), by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test without ever having held a trainee licence; the purpose of a trainee licence was only to give aspiring ADIs an opportunity of giving driving instruction to members of the public while endeavouring to achieve ADI registration; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as an ADI; that it was not the intention of Parliament that an aspiring ADI should be granted a trainee licence for however long it took them to pass their Part 3 test; that 12 months (together with the Appellant’s existing trainee licence remining valid until determination of this appeal), was a very reasonable period to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction.

This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions

Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.

The decision of the Respondent, made on 14 October 2026 is set aside. The Appellant is granted a third licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.

The Appellant is advised that allowing his appeal is a highly unusual course, dictated by her somewhat unique personal circumstances, namely, her need to care for, and support her husband through his serious illness, that led to the Appellant suffering lost training time, together with poor training from her former franchise, in respect of which, in relation to both matters, insufficient account was taken by the Respondent and the fact that the Appellant presented as being forthright, honest and credible.

Further, the Appellant is advised that should her third, and final, permitted attempt to pas his Part 3 test, scheduled for 19 May 2026 fail, no further appeal can succeed as a trainee licence may only be issued in order that he can gain the practical experience required to take a Part 3 test.