Grzegorz Fudala v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 6 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, 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 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. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

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 and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving 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 the Appellant.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 29 May 2024. He passed Part 2 on 26 September 2024. He failed a first attempt at the Part 3 on 27 March 2025 and cancelled a further Part 3 test scheduled to take place on 9 December 2025. At the date the bundle was prepared, there was a further Part 3 test booked and scheduled to take place on 2 March 2026. The Appellant was unsuccessful in his second attempt.

The Appellant applied for a trainee licence which was granted and was valid from 21 October 2024 to 20 October 2025 following an application for a second licence.

The Appellant, applied for a third trainee licence on 1 October 2025 which was refused by the Registrar.

The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that no evidence of lost practice time or lack of pupils had been provided by the Appellant and that the Appellant had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor.

The grounds of appeal are, in summary:

The Registrar in his response states:

I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

I heard from the Appellant and his representative, Mr Curtis during the hearing. The Appellant confirmed that the circumstances surrounding his trainee licence are that the initial tuition he was provided with was wholly inadequate. This led to a lost amount of time under his trainee licence. However, since finding an alternative training school, the Appellant has taken his second attempt at the test and although he was still unsuccessful, his score was significantly improved from his first attempt.

Both the Appellant and Mr Curtis consider that removal of the trainee licence at this stage would significantly hamper the Appellant’s ability to pass his final attempt at the Part 3 test.

I accept that the Appellant has faced challenges as a result of his previous inadequate training. I note that the Appellant has made significant improvement in his recent scores having now secured a new training school.

The Appellant has failed two Part 3 test and cancelled another. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licence covering a period of 12 months. Ordinarily, this should have been adequate time to prepare and obtain the relevant minimum training hours required. Moreover, by virtue of his application for a third licence prior to the expiry of his second licence, the Appellant has retained his trainee licence until the date of this decision and has been permitted to provide paid instruction during this time.

However, I do consider that the RADI has failed to consider the personal circumstances of the Appellant in relation to his previous tuition. I am pleased to hear that the Appellant has made improvement in his second attempt at the Part 3 test from his first attempt. I note that the Appellant has his final attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 26 May 2026, just over 6 weeks from now.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in that the Registrar failed to place adequate weight on the Appellant’s personal circumstances regarding his inadequate tuition. In all the circumstances, I allow the appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is to remain in place until 27 May 2026 which is the day after his final attempt at the Part 3 test.