Lucian-Ionut Lupascu v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted two trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), each for a six-month period that ran back-to-back from 9 December 2024 to 8 December 2025.

They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 8 December 2025.

The Appellant now appeals that decision.

The Respondent made an application for an extension of time to serve the Bundle, this has been considered and granted as it is in the interests of justice to do so given the limited extension needed and the necessity of this information in order to allow the matter to proceed.

The Appellant initially requested a hearing in this matter but on the 27 April 2026 they applied using a GRC5 form to reverse that decision and consent to the matter being decided on the papers. The parties have agreed to a paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended).

What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless they hold a trainee licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. A trainee licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted:

In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the ‘Qualifying Examination’ comprised of three parts: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

The whole qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, and only three attempts are allowed for each Part, failure to comply with either of these requirements results in the whole examination needing to be retaken.

If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence if they meet all the relevant conditions (including as set out in s.129(2)(b) the requirement in s.125(3)(e) that the individual is a fit and proper person) .

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 and the statutory framework does not require persons to hold trainee licences when undertaking the Part 3 exam.

By section 129(3) of the Act

By section 129(8)(c) of the Act

By section 129(6) 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 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’s notice of appeal dated 8 December 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal:

The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is to “extend the trainee licence”.

The Appellant made no representations to the Registrar.

The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 8 December 2025, states the reasons for the refusal as:

The Registrar’s statement of case dated 3 February 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that:

We considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 numbered pages.

Despite it being a common misunderstanding, it is not the case that individuals are entitled to continual renewal of trainee licences until they pass their Part 3 test. The six month period of such licences is set on the basis this is an adequate period to prepare for the Part 3 Test, and it is not necessary to hold a Trainee Licence in order to either prepare for or to take the Part 3 test.

The Appellant in this case has had the benefit of not one but two Trainee Licences already and these ran for two consecutive 6 month periods between 9 December 2024 to 8 December 2025. Additionally, because of the rules regarding appeals set out above the Appellant has additionally benefited from a further period of almost 5 months where the last Trainee Licence was extended till this appeal has been determined.

The Appellant in this case has had the benefit of almost 17 months in total in which to provide paid instruction, in contrast to many such trainees who only receive or require a period of 6 months, and some trainees who fully qualify as an ADI without any period as a trainee ADI providing paid instruction.

We are aware that it can be difficult to book a Part 3 test (and in fact other related tests), but that in itself is not a reason to grant further licences given that under the statutory is not necessary to have such a trainee licence in order to take or to pass the Part 3 test.

The Appellant sought to argue that they had been unable to obtain sufficient students to practice properly and build the relevant experience. This was partly on the basis that the initial driving school failed to supply sufficient students and partly due to the Appellant’s relocation during the period of the Trainee licence. However, the Appellant has failed to provide any supporting evidence as regards the lack of students and the suggested reasons for this. We note that the Appellant does accept that they did have some students, and that as set out above the Appellant has held a Trainee licence for an abnormally long period of 17 Months. We are not convinced therefore that the Appellant was unable to obtain sufficient experience during the period of the Trainee licence.

The Appellant also argued that they failed to receive sufficient and proper support from their driving school during the period of the Trainee licence. However, again the Appellant has failed to provide any supporting evidence in this regard beyond the bare assertion made in the Notice of Appeal. We also note that when the Respondent put the Appellant on notice that they were considering the refusal of the licence application and invited representations, the Appellant did not raise this point nor did they make any representations at all. We are not therefore convinced that the performance of the driving school had a material impact on the Appellant’s ability “to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars”.

In conclusion, the Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, we agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.