Cornel-Cosmin Ioana v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 24 April 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence. Legal Framework

2. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

3. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

4. A 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.’

5. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

6. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

7. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Factual Background to the Appeal

10. I have limited information in this matter as I was provided with only the Respondent’s bundle index and not the bundle itself.

11. The Appellant has passed both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Qualifying Examination. He has made two failed attempts at the Part 3 test and has one opportunity to take the Part 3 test remaining.

12. The Appellant has had the benefit of one trainee licence covering a period of 6 months.

13. The Appellant applied for a second trainee licence, but the application was refused by the Registrar.

14. As the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence before the previous licence expired, this means that, at the date of the hearing, the Appellant has been the continuing beneficiary of a trainee licence.

15. The reasons for the Registrar’s decision, in summary, were that the Appellant had already had a sufficient amount of time to gain experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination and that it was not the intention of Parliament that candidates should be issued with trainee licences for as long as it takes them to pass the examination, and that the trainee licence system must not be used as an alternative to registration as a fully qualified Approved Driving Instructor. The Registrar says that the Appellant has provided no evidence of a lack of pupils or money to undertake the required training. Appeal to the Tribunal

16. The grounds of appeal are, in summary: a. The Appellant did not have any pupils for training for 4 months; b. He has struggled to afford to pay to join any franchise; c. There has been a serious lack of unavailability of Part 3 tests in his area;

17. The Registrar in his response states: a. There has been no evidence to support the appellant’s arguments regarding lack of money or pupils for training. b. The appellant has had the benefit of one licence lasting six months, which has provided sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience. Evidence

18. I read and took account of several documents provided to the Tribunal and heard from the appellant at the hearing.

19. In submissions, the appellant confirmed that he has experienced difficult in obtaining test dates in his local area for his final Part 3 test. The appellant had a Part 3 test already booked for 15 September 2025 as he was eager to either: (a) pass the test and continue in his career without the requirement for a trainee licence, or alternatively, (b) fail his final attempt and no longer require the trainee licence, before today’s hearing. Unfortunately, the DVSA have cancelled and rearranged his final Part 3 test to now take place on 19 November 2025.

20. The appellant has been using his trainee licence until today’s hearing and feels more prepared and confident as he approaches his Part 3 test than he has on previous attempts. Discussion and Conclusions

21. I have carefully considered the evidence before me.

22. I accept that the Appellant has struggled to obtain a Part 3 test in his local area and that he also did not have any pupils for a period of time which has reduced his opportunity for practice.

23. I note that the Appellant wished to avoid today’s hearing and that he did not cancel his Part 3 test booked for 15 September 2025 but it was in fact the DVSA who has rearranged the test.

24. Whilst I note that the Appellant has had the benefit of a trainee licence for a further period up to today, I accept that the circumstances of the Appellant have meant that he has not had reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act .

25. Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has persuaded me that the appeal should be allowed.

26. The decision of the Registrar, made on 24 April 2025, is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

27. The Appellant is granted a second trainee licence with effect from the date of this Decision until 19 November 2025 only after which time he will have either passed his Part 3 test, or failed and be required to start the process again form the beginning.