Meena Kumari v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal by Ms Meena Kumari (“the Appellant”) against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) refusing her application for a third trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”).

The appeal was heard orally. The Appellant appeared and gave evidence. I am grateful to her for the manner in which she presented her case.

Part V of the 1988 Act establishes the statutory scheme for the registration of Approved Driving Instructors (“ADIs”). A trainee licence under section 129 permits limited paid instruction while a person works towards passing the Part 3 instructional ability test.

Trainee licensing is intended to provide a restricted and time-limited opportunity to gain experience; it is not designed to operate as an alternative to registration or to provide indefinite paid instruction.

Although the legislation does not impose an absolute statutory limit on the number of trainee licences, established practice permits a third licence only where exceptional or compelling circumstances justify departure from the normal approach.

The material chronology is as follows:

The Appellant submits that she is committed to qualifying as an ADI and has worked hard towards that goal.

She relies on a health scare earlier in 2025, involving investigations for a serious condition, which she says caused distress and disruption to her training.

She further relies on difficulties booking suitable Part 3 test dates and explains that she cancelled earlier tests because she did not feel sufficiently prepared.

At the hearing she emphasised that she has now actively attempted the Part 3 test twice since the Registrar’s decision and intends to attempt it again shortly.

The Tribunal accept that the Appellant’s circumstances are challenging and that she has made genuine efforts to qualify. It is also accepted that undergoing a health scare is distressing and may disrupt training.

However, the question for the Tribunal is not whether this is a hard case, but whether the Registrar’s refusal of a third trainee licence was unreasonable, unfair, or disproportionate, or otherwise wrong in law.

The Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences over a substantial period. During that time, she did not take the Part 3 test and cancelled several booked appointments.

While the Tribunal note that she has now attempted the Part 3 test twice since the decision under appeal, those attempts have not been successful. That does not demonstrate that the Registrar’s decision was wrong at the time it was made.

The impending expiry of the Appellant’s Part 1 theory pass is a matter of concern for her, but it does not justify the grant of a third trainee licence. The statutory scheme does not guarantee the opportunity for paid instruction until qualification is achieved.

Importantly, refusal of a further trainee licence does not prevent the Appellant from continuing to train, from sitting further Part 3 tests, or from qualifying as an ADI. It merely prevents further licensed paid instruction beyond the usual allowance.

In those circumstances, and notwithstanding sympathy for the Appellant’s position, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar: a) applied the correct statutory test; b) taken into account all relevant considerations; and c) reached a decision that was open to the Registrar and which cannot properly be characterised as unreasonable, unfair, or disproportionate.

23.The appeal must therefore be dismissed.