Introduction 1. Mr Jones is an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) whose name appears on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) maintained by the Respondent Registrar. On 26 March 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Jones that he had decided to remove his name from the Register on the basis that he had failed to pass the test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction (colloquially known as a standards check or check test) on three occasions. Mr Jones now appeals that decision. 2. 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). Legal Framework 3. The Registrar maintains the Register pursuant to Section 125 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”). Section 125(5) provides that the entry of a person’s name in the Register is subject to their submitting themselves for a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction at any time required to do so by the Registrar. 4. By Section 128(2)(d) of the Act, the Registrar may remove the name of a person from the register if he is satisfied that he failed to pass such a test. Only one failed test is required before the Registrar has power to remove the name from the Register, though in practice the Registrar usually allows three attempts before removal. 5. 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 the Appellant. 6. Section 133(1) of the Act provides that a magistrates’ court may determine whether a test was properly conducted. Section 133(3) provides that no appeal may be made to this Tribunal in respect of which an application can be made to a magistrates’ court under Section 133(1). Simply put, this Tribunal does not have the power to consider whether or not the conduct of a test was fair. The Decision 7. On 16 January 2025 the Registrar informed Mr Jones that he was considering removing his name from the Register, subject to any representations made within 28 days. The Registrar did not receive any representations from Mr Jones. 8. On 26 March 2025, the Registrar notified Mr Jones that he had decided to remove his name from the Register on the basis that Mr Jones had failed the standards check on three occasions: on 14 November 2018, 5 April 2019 and 5 December 2019. The Appeal 9. Mr Jones’s notice of appeal dated 26 April 2025 says that two of the failed tests were close to the passing of his late father when he was not in the right frame of mind. He says that he was not aware that he could cancel the tests. He says that he is an “old school” instructor and that his pupils are satisfied with the level of his instruction. He says that he is willing to retake the test. 10. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 30 July 2025 resists the appeal on the following grounds: (a) Section 125(5) authorises the Registrar to remove a person’s name from the Register after one failed test, though it is the Registrar’s practice to allow three attempts at the test; (b) Mr Jones failed three consecutive tests and failed to attend a further test scheduled for 25 November 2024; (c) Tests were conducted by different examiners; (d) On at least the first two occasions, the examiner carried out a debrief and advised on personal development; (e) On 2 September 2024, Mr Jones was emailed a letter informing him of a further test booked for 25 November 2024, urging him to take account of the advice given in previous tests; (f) Mr Jones did not attend that test and made no contact to explain his reasons for not attending; (g) Mr Jones did not make any representations in response to the letter and email of 16 January 2025 informing him that the Registrar was considering removing his name from the Register; and (h) In the interests of road safety and consumer protection, his name was removed because he was unable to satisfy the Registrar that his ability to give driving instruction was of a satisfactory standard. The evidence 11. I considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 pages including the Registrar’s record of standards checks. Tribunal’s Findings of Fact 12. Mr Jones has been an ADI since November 1998. 13. The Registrar requires ADIs to complete tests to show that they have maintained their competence. This is colloquially known as a check test or standards check. 14. Mr Jones cancelled a standards check scheduled for 27 July 2018. He was therefore aware that tests can be cancelled by the candidate before any of his failed tests. 15. He then failed tests on 14 November 2018 and 5 April 2019. 16. Mr Jones then cancelled a test scheduled for 5 December 2019. 17. He then failed a test on 17 January 2020. 18. Mr Jones was invited to a test on 25 November 2024. The invite letter is clear that this invite follows three consecutive failed tests and that the Registrar has taken into account Mr Jones’ circumstances and decided that he should have a further test. It tells him what to do if he cannot attend and warns him that the Registrar can consider removal from the Register if he fails to attend without telling them in advance. The letter concludes by telling Mr Jones, in bold, that failure would be reported to the Registrar, urging him to take account of feedback from previous tests. 19. He did not attend. He did not contact the DVSA either before or after that test to give any reason for his non-attendance. 20. The Registrar wrote to Mr Jones on 16 January 2025 and informed him that the Registrar was considering removing his name from the Register, inviting Mr Jones to make representations as to why he should not. The Registrar did not receive any such representations from Mr Jones and so wrote again on 26 March 2025 to notify him that his name would be removed. Conclusions 21. I considered Mr Jones’ grounds of appeal. 22. I must decide whether the Registrar’s decision to remove Mr Jones from the Register was wrong. His name was removed because he failed three tests. I cannot consider whether or not those tests were fair or unfair – that is something about which Mr Jones would have to make an application to the magistrates’ court. 23. It is regrettable that both the email of 16 January 2025 and the decision letter of 26 March 2025 give the wrong dates for the failed tests, and that they do not mention the test in November 2024 that Mr Jones failed to attend. Nevertheless, that does not make the decision wrong: the decision to remove Mr Jones from the Register was on the basis that he had failed three tests. He failed three tests. The fact that the dates quoted were not all correct does not make that decision wrong. 24. I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong: Mr Jones failed three tests and did not attend when given a further opportunity in 2024. He did not provide any explanation either in advance or after the test as to why he did not attend, neither did he refer to it in his appeal. 25. Mr Jones’ appeal refers to two tests that he says were completed close to the passing of his late father. He does not say which dates these were. He says that he did not know that he could cancel tests but his record shows that two tests were cancelled by him, including one that was cancelled before all of the failed tests. He has not given any explanation as to why he failed the other test. He does not explain why he did not attend the fourth attempt that was offered to him in 2024, almost 5 years after the third failed test. 26. It is for Mr Jones to satisfy me that the Registrar’s decision is wrong. He has not done so. I therefore dismiss this appeal. SignedDate: 25 February 2026 Judge Taft