Charlotte Mulrooney v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. 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 23 August 2024 to 11 August 2025. They were refused a third trainee licence by a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 13 August 2025. The Appellant 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).

3. 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. Legal Framework

4. 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.

5. 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: ‘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.’

6. 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’).

7. 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.

8. 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) .

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. 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."

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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 Appeal

15. The Appellant’s notice of appeal dated 19 August 2025 relies on the following grounds as reasons for the appeal: a. The Appellant believes the decision that the Appellant has had adequate learning time is wrong. b. The Appellant has faced a number of delays in obtaining test dates. c. Since starting training as a PDI it has been the Appellant’s sole job and so if a third licence is not granted it will have serious financial repercussions. d. The Appellant has not missed any training sessions or cancelled any tests. e. If not granted a licence this will have an impact on the Appellant’s students half of which have tests booked.

16. The Appellant’s notice of appeal also stated that the desired outcome of the appeal is to obtain “a final licence that would allow me to continue working for an income whilst working towards passing my final test”.

17. The Appellant’s representations to the Registrar of the 25 July 2025 repeats substantially the same points as made in the notice of appeal.

18. The Registrar’s notice of refusal dated 13 August 2025, takes the representations made by the Appellant into consideration and states the reasons for the refusal as: a. The Appellant provided no evidence of lost practice time. b. The Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences each of six months duration which is considered to be a more than adequate period of time. c. 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.

19. The Registrar’s statement of case dated 4 November 2024 resists the appeal. The Registrar states that: a. The Appellant failed to provide any evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for a combined period of 12 months (para 5). b. 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 (para 6(i)). c. 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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant 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 the Appellant to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; (para 6(ii)). d. Since passing the driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled one more such test. Regrettably, DVSA cancelled one such test booked for 14 April 2025. A seond attempt at the instructional ability test is booked for 19 January 2026. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. (para 6(iii)). e. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. They do not need to hold a trainee licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for them to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all (para 6(iv)). The evidence

20. We considered a bundle of evidence containing 22 numbered pages. Conclusions

21. We have considered the Appellant’s points of appeal.

22. We note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months from 23 August 2024 to 11 August 2025. Additionally, because the Appellant applied for a third licence before expiry of the second such licence, that licence has remained in force allowing the Appellant to continue to give paid instruction for an additional period of over 3 months. The Appellant in this case has had the benefit of over 15 months 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 providing paid instruction. Additionally, the Appellant has provided no evidence or detail as to why they lost training time in that period or were unable to find students or were otherwise prevented from benefiting from the trainee licence.

23. 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 it is not necessary to have such a licence in order to take and pass the Part 3 test.

24. Nevertheless, 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.

25. The Tribunal notes the Appellant’s points about this work being their sole source of income, however the trainee licence provisions do not exist primarily to provide a source of income but instead exist to assist individuals in obtaining the full qualification necessary for a career as an ADI. It is also notable that these trainee licences are always time limited and there should be no expectation that additional licences after the first will always be granted. Individuals undergoing the process of training to be an ADI must therefore ensure that they have the necessary income to support themselves from other sources in light of these facts. Similarly as regards the point made by the Appellant about the impact on their students, it is correct that the Appellant cannot continue to give paid instruction without a Trainee licence but as indicated by the DVSA in their statement of case the Appellant could continue to give tuition to those students if she does not receive payment of any kind for that tuition. Given that trainee licences are always time limited it is inevitable that there will always be a cut off where existing students of trainee ADIs cannot continue to receive paid tuition up to the test date from that same person (unless of course the individual fully qualifies as an ADI in the meantime).

26. We also note that the Appellant passed their Part 1 test on the 4 December 2023 and so the two-year period within which they must pass both the Part 2 and Part 3 tests expires on the 5 December 2025.

27. 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. SignedTribunal Judge Thomas BarrettDate: 25/11/2025