Alfie Richard Holt v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA)

The Tribunal dismisses the appeal. The Registrar’s decision dated 04 July 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence under Section 129(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld. Background

1. The Appellant held a trainee licence from 16 December 2024 to 15 June 2025 under Section 129(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. On 07 May 2025, he applied for a second licence. The Registrar refused the application on 04 July 2025, citing failure to meet training objectives and concerns that the licence was being used primarily for income rather than training.

3. The Appellant appeals under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . Findings of Fact

1. The Appellant’s first licence was granted for six months to enable practical experience before examination.

2. The Appellant failed the instructional ability test once and has not booked a second attempt.

3. The ADI 21AT training record shows objectives were not completed within the first three months.

4. The Appellant continued to give paid instruction during the licence period and applied for a second licence before the first expired.

5. The Appellant cited delays in booking tests, partner’s ill health, and full-time work as reasons for non-compliance. Issues

6. (i) Was the Registrar entitled to refuse the second licence under Section 129(4) (ii) Was the refusal proportionate given the Appellant’s circumstances? Does the refusal prevent the Appellant from qualifying as an Approved Driving Instructor? Relevant Law

7. a) Road Traffic Act 1988 , Section 123(1) : Prohibits paid instruction unless registered or licensed. b) Section 129(1) : Registrar may issue trainee licences for up to six months to enable practical experience before examination. c) Section 129(4) : Registrar may refuse if conditions are not met or if the purpose of the licence is undermined. Case Law: ◦ R v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ex parte Smith [1995]: Trainee licences are transitional, not indefinite income sources. ◦ Jones v DVSA [2018] UKUT 112: Emphasises compliance with training objectives and Registrar’s discretion Arguments

8. Appellant i. Delays in training and test booking were beyond his control. ii. Personal circumstances (partner’s ill health) impacted progress. iii. Refusal is disproportionate and prevents him from qualifying as an ADI. Registrar

9. The reasons for refusing the application for a second licence were: “i. 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; ii. 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 second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; iii. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once . (Annex A) . Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and iv. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him 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 his own (provided that he 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.”

10. It should be noted that the Appellant has not yet booked his second attempt at the instructional ability test.

11. The Registrar’s discretion under Section 129(4) is broad but must align with statutory purpose. The Appellant had six months and one test attempt but failed to meet objectives and did not book a second attempt. Personal circumstances are sympathetic but do not override legislative intent to prevent misuse of trainee licences. Refusal does not bar further training or examination; unpaid practice remains possible. Reasons

12. The statutory scheme envisages a short, transitional licence, not repeated extensions.

13. Failure to complete objectives and lack of test booking indicate insufficient progress.

14. Alternatives exist for training without paid instruction, mitigating hardship. Decision

15. The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and proportionate under Section 129(4) . Brian Kennedy KC 28 November 2025.