Alban Gasa v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, at 10.00The Appellant attended (but by audio only) and gave oral evidence. No representative of the Respondent was in attendance. The Tribunal decided that, having regard to the overriding objective, and the interests of justice, this appeal could be decided in the absence of a representative of the Respondent.

This appeal was determined afresh by the Tribunal in a de novo hearing, while having regard, as required in law, to the position taken by the Respondent as the regulator tasked by Parliament to make decisions on, as in this case, whether or not to grant a third trainee driving instructor licence to the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 4 December 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 23 October 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant in a letter received on 5 November 2025, that he had difficulties in obtaining a date for a Part 3 test, something over which he had no control. The Respondent maintained in its said Decision that the Appellant had not provided evidence of lost training time or lack of pupils. In its said decision, the Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant had already had the benefit of two trainee licences, being a period of 12 months, from 18 November 2024 to 17 November 2025 and that his existing second trainee licence remained valid until this appeal was determined, thereby allowing the Appellant a total benefit of a trainee licence for over 17 months, no matter what the outcome of his appeal. This was a more than adequate period of time to enable the Appellant to prepare for his Part 3 test. The Respondent also, correctly, as a matter of law, submitted that the purpose of a trainee licence is solely to allow an aspiring Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) the opportunity of gaining sufficient experience of providing driving instruction to members of the public to pass his Part 3 test. The Respondent, again correctly, pointed out that holding a trainee licence was not required in order to take a Part 3 test, nor was refusal of a trainee licence a bar to undertaking that test. These latter submissions were accepted by the Appellant in his oral evidence.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 13 December 2025, the Appellant reiterated, but elaborated upon, his said representations to the Respondent. Again, the core ground of appeal submitted by the Appellant was the difficulty he had experienced in obtaining a date for a Part 3 test. However, he also submitted that he had completed extra training and was committed to completing the qualification process in order to be eligible, in essence, to have his name entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’) and to maintaining the professional standards expected of a ADI; that he had a good pupil driving test pass rate and had pupils whose practical tests were ‘coming up’. However, these submissions were decidedly not a basis in law to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

In his Response dated 2 March 2026, the Respondent reiterated the reasons for its decision as recorded in the notice of the said decision under appeal. The Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant had failed his first attempt to pass his Part 3 test on 23 July 2025, and had his second attempt booked for 23 March 2026 [that, unfortunately, the Appellant also failed and had his third, and final, attempt booked to take place on 13 May 2026]. The Respondent pointed out, too, that, to continue his preparation to sit his final attempt to pass his Part 3 test, the Appellant could, for example, attend a training course or study and practise under an ADI or provide unpaid driving tuition, all of which were alternatives that were used by some aspiring ADIs who had passed a Part 3 test never having held a trainee licence. The Respondent emphasised, again, that the purpose of a trainee licence was to allow an aspiring ADI to gain sufficient practical experience in driving tuition to prepare to undertake, and pass, his Part 3 test; that a trainee licence cannot, instead, be issued for as long as it might take an aspiring ADI to pass his Part 3 test [and, in this case, the Appellant had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 17 months – almost as long as he would have had a trainee licence had his application for a third trainee licence been granted]; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to achieving registration as an ADI; that a trainee licence was not required in order to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to him undertaking a Part 3 test.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant introduced further submissions in support of his application to be granted a third trainee licence, namely, that he had found it necessary to change his trainer in or about May 2025 as, he stated, his initial trainer had no availability to provide him with training for 6 months; that he did not have use of a personal vehicle as a trainee (the vehicle used by him belonging to his new franchise); that he had undertaken additional training and that if he were not granted a third trainee licence, he would have to surrender the vehicle used by him back to his franchise immediately, that would also place pupils due to take their own driving tests in difficulty. He submitted that if he were not granted a third trainee licence to cover the period from today, 24 April 2026 to 13 May 2026, he would need to find a vehicle and a pupil in order to take his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test, that would create stress ahead of his final attempt to pass his Part 3 test. The Appellant confirmed he was aware of the possible alternatives to obtain further training in order to best prepare to take his final attempt at his Part 3 test and accepted that holding a trainee licence was not required to do so. The Appellant, essentially, agreed that he had not experienced lost training time nor a lack of pupils, the only possible, potential grounds by which this appeal might have been allowed

This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences, more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test and that, in practical terms, the Appellant had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 1 months.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as 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

There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.