James Michael Reason v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: James Michael Reason. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 17 August 2025, for the grant of a second Licence. Licence: A licence under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car (see paragraph 16 below); often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of letter to the Appellant dated 8 October 2025, refusing the Application. Qualifying Examination: The qualifying examination referred to in paragraph 13 below. Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted a Licence. The Appellant applied for a second Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

5. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraph 7 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant considered that the Registrar’s Decision was unfair. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated (in essence): a. More than three months had elapsed after he applied for the ‘Part 3’ test of the Qualifying Examination to the date of the test itself. b. He recognised that his Licence was not intended to run indefinitely, but he felt that he had not been given sufficient time to attempt the ‘Part 3’ test whilst in possession of his current Licence. c. He did not exactly understand what additional training was needed to be completed and by when in respect of his current Licence. Problems trying to make arrangements with his instructing school (the AA) to discuss training requirements with them had exacerbated matters. Some issues with the AA’s online training also contributed to the lack of his completion of the requisite training. d. Working under his Licence was his only source of income and he currently had 30 active learners relying on him, as well as 7 more learners currently booked to take their driving tests and he wanted to honour his commitments to them. The Registrar’s case

7. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were that: a. The Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his first Licence, because 14 of the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the period of the Appellant’s current Licence. 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 as an ADI. The system of issuing Licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI. c. A Licence is not granted to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Qualifying Examination, but to allow up to six months experience of (paid) instruction. 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. d. The Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI and the refusal of a second Licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the ‘Part 3’ test. The Appellant does not need to hold a Licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under a 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. Mode of hearing

8. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal and the Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions during the hearing.

9. The Registrar did not attend the hearing and was not represented (having previously indicated that they would be content to rely on their written submissions if there was an oral hearing). The evidence and submissions

10. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

11. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

12. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

13. A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of: a. a written examination (Part 1); b. a practical test of ability and fitness to drive (Part 2); and c. a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct (Part 3).

14. An application to take the ‘Part 3’ test must be made within two years of passing the ‘Part 1’ test, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

15. Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

16. The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

17. An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

18. A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 12 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

19. Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

20. Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence. The role and powers of the Tribunal

21. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

22. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

23. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

24. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

25. During the appeal, the Appellant expanded on the points made in his grounds of appeal.

26. The Appellant accepted that he had not complied with the Registrar’s requirements to complete form ADI 21AT and submit that within the first three months of his first Licence. However, he stated that this was an honest oversight. When questioned about this during the hearing, it was apparent that the Appellant was genuinely unclear about the training requirements and the need to complete the training objectives on form ADI 21AT. He spoke of being “thoroughly confused” by what was required.

27. The Appellant also stated that the input from his instructing school (the AA) had not helped with his understanding of the requirements. Indeed, he stated that when his form ADI 21AT was being countersigned by his instructor, it was still not brought to his attention that he should have completed and returned the form within three months of being granted his first Licence.

28. The Appellant stated that he had actually undertaken all of the necessary training, but that he had simply misunderstood the requirements for completing the form and sending it to the Registrar within the relevant time. The Appellant also stated that he had in fact done more than the requisite amount of training, including four hours additional voluntary training in excess of the mandatory five hours further supplementary training.

29. The Appellant accepted that Licences were not to be issued and used inappropriately. He stressed that he was not trying to avoid or delay taking the ‘Part 3’ test of the Qualifying Examination. On the contrary, he stated that he was “desperate” to take the ‘Part 3’ test and become a qualified ADI. The Appellant also stated that it was taking a long time to secure dates for the ‘Part 3’ test.

30. The Appellant was also keen to stress that he had learners who were reliant on him and he did not want to let them down (by ceasing to have a Licence). This included learners currently booked to take their driving tests, as well as one learner with autism who had received instruction from others but who considered that they were making the best progress with the Appellant, as they had found a good way of working together to manage that learner’s needs.

31. In respect of the Appellant’s point from his grounds of appeal that this was his only source of income, he accepted that Licences were not intended to be granted for the purpose of providing a means of income to a potential ADI. He also recognised that there was no need for him to hold a Licence in order to practice and qualify as an ADI. However, the Appellant stated that in practice that was very difficult without holding a Licence. In particular, this was related to the need to find students to practice with and that without a Licence he would not be able to use the AA franchise car (which was only available to him on condition that he holds a Licence). The Appellant’s position was, therefore, that not having a Licence would mean that he would have no car and no students and essentially this would therefore preclude him from practicing in preparation for the ‘Part 3’ test.

32. I found the Appellant’s evidence to be sincere and his views to be genuinely held. I consider that he is motivated to become an ADI and it appeared to me that he intends to operate to high standards.

33. I understand the Registrar’s concerns about lengthy durations of Licences and about Licences not being used as an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI. However, taking into account all of the specific circumstances of this case, I consider that it is appropriate for the Appellant to be granted a second Licence.

34. I also note that the Appellant stated during the hearing that his third attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test had now been booked ‘to hold’ and he was awaiting a date for it. This represents the Appellant’s last opportunity to pass the Qualifying Examination, otherwise (as I have noted), the whole Qualifying Examination will need to be retaken and the Appellant will no longer be eligible to hold a Licence.

35. For all of the reasons I have given, I conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. I therefore allow the appeal and I order that the Application be granted. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 17 March 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal