Julija Lavrentjeva v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00716 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2025/1449 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 12 May 2026 Decision given on: Before JUDGE TAFT Between JULIJA LAVRENTJEVA Appellant and REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Did not attend For the Respondent: Did not attend Decision: The appeal is Dismissed Mode of hearing:I am satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing using Cloud Video Platform (CVP). Whilst neither party attended, I am satisfied that they were given proper notice of the hearing. The Respondent has indicated that it does not intend to appear at hearings of this nature for the foreseeable future. I considered Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended) and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. REASONS Introduction

1. Ms Lavrentjeva is a trainee driving instructor who was granted trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”), for two six-month periods. She was refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 5 December 2025. Ms Lavrentjeva now appeals that decision. Legal Framework

2. 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’). Only three attempts are allowed for each Part: the whole examination must be retaken if an applicant fails Part 2 or Part 3 three times. Regulation 3(4)(c) of The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 confirms that an applicant cannot pass the Part 3 test if they have not applied to take the test within two years of passing the Part 1 test.

3. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a licence under section 129(1) of the Act: “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.”

4. This is commonly known as 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.

5. By section 129(3) of the Act “The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued.”

6. By section 129(8)(c) of the Act “before deciding whether or not to refuse the application, the Registrar must take into consideration any such representations made within that period.”

7. By section 129(6) of the Act “Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of.”

8. Section 131 of the Act gives a right of appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit. In doing so, the Tribunal must consider whether the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it but must give 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 Ms Lavrentjeva. The Decision

9. On 4 November 2025, the Registrar informed Ms Lavrentjeva that he was considering refusing her application for a third trainee licence. Ms Lavrentjeva made representations on 11 November 2025 that: 9.1. She adhered to DVSA conditions during her previous licence; 9.2. She is a single mother of three children: childcare commitments prevented her from taking on additional lessons; and 9.3. She has continued to develop her skills and knowledge.

10. On 5 December 2025, the Registrar notified Ms Lavrentjeva that he refused her application for a third trainee licence. The notice of refusal states the reasons for the refusal as: 10.1. Ms Lavrentjeva had not provided any evidence of lost training time; 10.2. Ms Lavrentjeva had already been granted two trainee licences of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time; and 10.3. It was not Parliament’s intention that the candidates should be issued licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination and the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor. The Appeal

11. Ms Lavrentjeva’s notice of appeal dated 22 December 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: 11.1 She meets the DVSA requirements to hold a licence; 11.2 She provided all necessary documentation and evidence to demonstrate her suitability for a licence; 11.3 Her professional record and personal conduct demonstrate that she is a responsible and competent candidate; and 11.4 The refusal did not take full account of the evidence and explanations she provided.

12. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 1 April 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: 12.1. Ms Lavrentjeva has not provided any evidence of lost training time or lack of pupils. 12.2. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration. 12.3. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Ms Lavrentjeva was given two trainee licences totalling twelve months. Moreover, by virtue of Ms Lavrentjeva having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. 12.4. Since passing her driving ability test Ms Lavrentjeva has failed the instructional ability test once. Despite ample time and opportunity Ms Lavrentjeva has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 12.5. The refusal of a third licence does not bar Ms Lavrentjeva from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. Ms Lavrentjeva could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on her own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. 12.6. Ms Lavrentjeva has a second attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 21 April 2026.

13. On 5 May 2026, the Registrar applied to strike out the appeal on the basis that Ms Lavrentjeva had not applied for a further attempt at the test by the second anniversary of passing her Part 1 test and so cannot now benefit from a trainee licence, as she cannot be preparing for a test. The evidence

14. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 16 pages, including Ms Lavrentjeva’s full trainee licence history from the Registrar, as well as the GRC5 application to strike out. Findings of Fact

15. Ms Lavrentjeva passed her Part 1 test on 1 May 2024 and Part 2 test on 16 August 2024. Ms Lavrentjeva’s first trainee licence was granted on 28 October 2024 for a period of six months. Ms Lavrentjeva’s second trainee licence was due to expire on 27 October 2025.She failed her Part 3 test on 30 June 2025. She had a second attempt at the test scheduled for 21 April 2026. I do not know what happened at that test, or indeed if it went ahead. She has not applied for a further attempt at the test within two years of passing her Part 1 test. Conclusions

16. I considered Ms Lavrentjeva’s points of appeal.

17. Ms Lavrentjeva passed her Part 1 test on 1 May 2024 and so the two-year period within which she must have applied to take the Part 3 test has expired. She must now start the process of qualification again. Whether or not the Registrar’s original decision was wrong, she is not now entitled to a trainee licence because she cannot sit Part 3 until such time as she passes Parts 1 and

2.

18. I therefore dismiss this appeal. SignedDate: 12 May 2026 Judge Taft