Simon Chamberlain v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

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 20 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.

Two licences under s.129 of the Act were 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 were valid from 14 October 2024 to 13 October 2025 (D1).

On 29 September 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 16 October 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a third licence. The Appellant made no representations.

The Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 13 November 2025 (D4).

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

The Appellant has his third attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 6 May 2026.

In his appeal dated 23 November 2025 the Appellant relies on the following ground:

The Tribunal found the Appellant to be a credible witness and attached weight to his evidence.

On the basis of the Appellant’s evidence the Tribunal found that he applied for the Part 3 test in September 2024, shortly after passing the Part 2 test on 22 August 2024. The first date he was offered for the Part 3 test was on 24 March 2025. When he failed the Part 3 test on 24 March 2025 he applied immediately again and the first date he was given was 8 August 2025. When he failed the test on 8 August 2025 he immediately applied again and was offered 10 March 2026. He was unable to take up this date and the first available date he was offered next was the 6 May 2026. The tribunal found there was considerable delay in obtaining dates to take the Part 3 test and this was beyond the Appellant’s control. He took all reasonable steps to obtain a Part 3 test date and had a reasonable excuse for cancelling the test offered on 10 March 2026.

The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s representations and considered it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a further trainee licence to enable the Appellant to take the Part 3 test on the last occasion. It is reasonable to give him this opportunity.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.