Robert Rhodes Walton v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00671 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Transport Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/1283 Decision given on: 08 May 2026 Before Judge anthony snelson Between ROBERT RHODES WALTON Appellant and registrar of approved driving instructors Respondent Decision The decision of the Tribunal is that the appeal is allowed and the Registrar is ordered to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence to run for a period of six months commencing on the date immediately following the date of promulgation of this Decision. Reasons

1. This is the appeal of the Appellant, Mr Robert Rhodes Walton, against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 13 November 2025, to refuse his request for a third trainee licence.

2. The matter was listed before me for consideration on the papers. I was satisfied that it was just and proper to decide the appeal without a hearing. The statutory framework

3. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors Hereafter the usual abbreviation ‘ADI’ will be used. (‘the Register’) or he/she holds a trainee licence.

4. Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness (the Act, s125(3)(a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination. See the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the Regulations’), reg 3(4)(c) and (d).

5. By the Act, s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are ordinarily valid for six months save that any current trainee licence automatically expires at once in the event of the holder failing his or her third attempt at the part three test. The Regulations, reg 14 The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued (s129(3)). It is clear from the language of s129 as a whole that trainee licences are not intended to serve as an alternative to registration.

6. The DVSA website (not, of course, a legal source) includes this advice: You should return your trainee licence to DVSA if you are not using it, for example because of a long period of illness. You will not get a refund, but DVSA will know that you have not had full use of the licence. This will be a factor in deciding whether to give you another licence in future. On the subject of applications for further trainee licences it states: You’re more likely to get another licence if you told DVSA you had stopped using the first, for example because of a period of illness. It’s unlikely that you’ll get another licence if you: • just want more time to pass the approved driving instructor (ADI) part 3 test • did not follow the rules for using your previous trainee licence These include a requirement to undertake a specified number of training hours over the first three months of the licence.

7. The effect of the Act, s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

8. By the Act, s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit (s131(3)). In a different but analogous statutory context in In the matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC) Warren J, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, held that there was nothing to constrain the first-instance Tribunal’s approach on appeal. Its function is simply to make its own decision on the evidence before it (which may differ from that before the statutory body whose decision is under challenge). Despite this latitude, however, high authority of general application recognises two important points. First, the burden is on an appellant to persuade the Tribunal that the relevant decision should be overturned or otherwise interfered with. Second, the Tribunal should give careful consideration to the reasons for the decision being impugned, given that Parliament has invested the relevant body with exclusive authority (subject to appeal) to make decisions on such matters. See eg R v Westminster Magistrates Court ex p Hope & Glory Public House Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 31, paras 39-48 (Toulson LJ). The key facts

9. The background facts can be summarised as follows. 9.1 Mr Walton passed parts one and two of the examination on 3 May and 28 August 2024 respectively. 9.2 On Mr Walton’s application, the Registrar granted him two consecutive trainee licences, covering the period from 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025. 9.3 On 20 October 2025 Mr Walton applied to the Registrar for a third licence. That application was refused by the letter of 13 November 2025, to which I have already referred. 9.4 Given the timing of the application for the third licence, the life of the second licence was extended by the Act, s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above). 9.5 Mr Walton took a part three test on 3 March 2025, but was unsuccessful. Another test was booked for 23 July 2025, but that date was cancelled by DVSA. A third appointment was made, for 4 September 2025, and the test went ahead on that date but unfortunately Mr Walton was unsuccessful. A fourth booking was made for 4 February 2026, but the documents before me show that DVSA cancelled it on that very day, less than three hours before it was scheduled to take place. There is no evidence before me of any further test date having been offered. The appeal

10. In his notice of appeal dated 21 November 2025, Mr Walton made a number of points, mostly relating to systemic delays resulting from unavailability of examiners and scarcity of test slots. Generally, he urged the Tribunal to grant him a further six-month licence to enable him to complete the part three test, then already booked for 4 February 2026.

11. The Respondent resisted the appeal, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence. Generally, it was contended that the decision which Mr Walton seeks to challenge was solidly based and there was no good reason to disturb it.

12. Following the cancellation of the 4 February 2026 test, Mr Walton sent further representations Discussion and conclusions

13. I am persuaded that there is a good reason to allow this appeal. If the 4 February 2026 appointment had been effective, there would have been no need for the Tribunal to interfere. Had Mr Walton passed, the appeal would have become academic and no doubt he would have withdrawn it. Had he failed, he would have had no use for a further licence as he would have had to return to part

1. But the last-minute cancellation of the 4 February 2026 test demands a different outcome. I accept and agree with the remarks on the nature and purpose of the trainee licence system contained in the Respondent’s response and on its website (see above). But I see no question here of Mr Walton misusing the system. Rather, he stands as an all-too-familiar example of a would-be instructor who, as a consequence of cancellations by DVSA and intolerable delays in offering fresh dates (for neither of which he bears any responsibility), has been denied a fair chance to take proper advantage of the trainee licence scheme to qualify in and pursue his chosen career. Simple fairness dictates that the appeal be allowed. Outcome

14. For the reasons stated, I allow the appeal. The effect of doing so is that the new (third) licence will run from the date immediately following the date of promulgation of this Decision. (Signed)Anthony Snelson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Date: 5 May 2026