Jolie Garton-Matthews v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 23 May 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a second trainee licence.

2. The Appellant is trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”), for one six-month period from 13 January to 12 July 2025. She was refused a second licence. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

3. 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). The Appeal

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 30 July 2025 says that she did not get clear and accurate guidance from the trainer she initially selected regarding the trainee licence requirements. She trusted the information provided to her in good faith. She has since arranged to complete a further five hours of formal training, and says she is committed to ensuring full compliance moving forward. She asks for a second licence so she can continue to teach her learners to drive, and also says she is not teaching to make a profit.

5. The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 16 October 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s application for a second licence was refused because she failed to comply with the conditions of her first licence, as the training objectives on her ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the licence period. The Registrar also says that the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test, and it is not essential to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Registrar says that the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once, has cancelled two more tests, and has another test booked on 19 November.

6. The Appellant did not provide a Reply. The law

7. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

8. 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 ”.

9. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This is made up of: the written examination (Part 1); the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.

10. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

11. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). 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 evidence

12. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 26 pages.

13. This includes evidence of the Appellant’s full licence history from the Registrar. This shows she failed Part 3 on 6 October 2025, she cancelled tests on 9 October and 5 November 2025, and she has another attempt booked on 19 November 2025. I have also seen records of the Appellant’s training dated 5 and 31 July 2025.

14. The Registrar’s letter refusing the application says this is because “ you have failed to comply with the additional training requirement of your first licence ”. Conclusions

15. I understand that the Appellant may not have been advised correctly about the training requirements for a trainee licence. She is not disputing that she failed to meet the requirements, but says she has now done so. It is unfortunate if difficulties with her initial trainer caused this problem. However, as the Appellant says in her appeal, it was ultimately her responsibility to be aware of the rules.

16. The Registrar makes the point that the trainee licence is not granted to enable applicants to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations. I agree that it is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Appellant has now had the benefit of an ongoing trainee licence for a further four months while this appeal was being decided. During this time, she has failed Part 3 once, and has booked and cancelled two further tests herself. She has a second opportunity to pass the Part 3 test on 19 November.

17. The Registrar will often grant a second trainee licence to trainees who are still attempting to pass the Part 3 test. This is very unlikely to happen, however, when a trainee has not complied with the training requirements. Although I understand it may be frustrating for the Appellant to be prevented from providing instruction for payment, I do not find that any of the reasons put forward in the appeal are sufficient to justify overturning the Registrar’s decision.

18. The Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and dismiss this appeal.