Nicola Hirst v 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 19 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”), the Respondent, and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’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 her to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of her ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 19 October 2024 to 20 October 2025 (D1).

On 15 October 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 27 October 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of her application for a third licence. By way of an email received on 27 October 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations. She stated that she had experienced difficulties in obtaining Part 3 tests dates.

After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. She had provided no evidence of lost training time, or lack of pupils and had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months.

The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 26 November 2025 (D5).

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

The Appellant has her final attempt at the instructional ability test booked for 27 April 2026. If the test goes ahead then the Regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test.

In her appeal in form GRC1 dated 5 December 2025 and an email dated 27 October 2025, the Appellant relies on the following grounds:

The Appellant told the Tribunal that she had instructed 18 students in total. 14 had passed their tests and at the date of the hearing she had 2 students and 1 had a test booked. She had encouraged her students to look for other instructors.

The Appellant stated that after she failed the Part 3 test on the first occasion she did not realise she had to book another Part 3 test as soon as possible. When she failed for the second time she was not sure if she wished to continue as was not sure that becoming an ADI was for her. As a consequence she did not try to book the second Part 3 test until the end of January 2026 after she failed the Part 3 test for a second time on 8 December 2025.

She asked that the fee for the third licence application be refunded. She thought it unfair to offer the possibility of a third licence if the money was not going to refunded.

The Tribunal considered all the papers. The Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. She is able to continue to gain experience and take the Part 3 test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s representations and finds she has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test notwithstanding the cancellation of the test on 27 March 2025.

The Tribunal found that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to order the refund of the application fee.