Kelly Flynn v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal dismiss the appeal . The Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instructor licence was fair, reasonable and proportionate . The Appellant has not provided any, or any adequate, evidence to demonstrate that her circumstances were exceptional or extraordinary so as to justify the grant of a further licence outside the ordinary statutory scheme. REASONS FOR DECISION Background:

1. The Appellant, Miss Kelly Flynn, has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. She previously held two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , valid between 7 October 2024 and 6 October 2025 .

2. On 28 September 2025 she applied for a t hird trainee licence . The Registrar wrote on 30 September 2025 to indicate that refusal was under consideration and invited representations. The Appellant provided written representations on 8 and 9 October 2025 , citing difficulties in securing a Part 3 test date, one test cancellation, and financial constraints affecting her training.

3. On 4 November 2025 , the Registrar refused her application, explaining that the evidence did not establish that her circumstances were exceptional or that she had insufficient opportunity to prepare for the ADI qualification.

4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal seeking either (i) an extension to her second trainee licence or (ii) the grant of a third licence, in order to continue practising with pupils. Chronology: a) 07/10/2024–06/10/2025 – Second trainee licence valid. b) Throughout 2024–2025 – Appellant attempts Part 3 instructional ability test. c) 28/07/2025 – DVSA cancellation of a scheduled test slot. d) 12/09/2024 – Appellant passed Part 2 test. e) 02/09/2025 – Part 3 test undertaken and failed. f) 28/09/2025 – Application for third trainee licence submitted. g) 30/09/2025 – Registrar invites representations. h) 08–09/10/2025 – Appellant’s representations submitted. i) 04/11/2025 – Registrar’s decision to refuse the application. j) 16/11/2025 – Notice of appeal submitted. k) 20/03/2026 – Next Part 3 test date booked (as noted in the bundle). Issues for Determination:

5. The Tribunal must determine: a) Whether the Appellant has demonstrated exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying departure from the legislative scheme limiting trainee licences to the purpose of gaining practical experience within a limited timeframe. b) Whether the Registrar’s decision to refuse the third licence was fair, reasonable and proportionate . c) Whether the Appellant has supplied any or adequate evidence to show she lacked a fair opportunity to prepare for or sit the required examinations. Relevant Legal Framework:

6. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless the instructor is on the Register or holds a valid trainee licence. Section 129 empowers the Registrar to grant trainee licences for the limited purpose of gaining supervised practical experience while preparing for the ADI examinations. The legislative scheme is clear: trainee licences are not intended to provide an indefinite route to commercial instruction, nor to be used as a substitute for registration. Analysis:

7. The Appellant has already held two consecutive trainee licences , amounting to twelve months of permitted teaching. This period accords with the policy intention that applicants should have a “reasonable period” of practical experience while preparing for qualification. The Registrar was entitled to consider that she had been afforded sufficient opportunity. The Appellant relies on: a) One DVSA test cancellation on 28 July 2025; b) Personal financial difficulties; Difficulty obtaining test slots; and c) A gap in training.

8. The Tribunal accepts that these factors may cause inconvenience; however, the Appellant has not supplied documentary evidence of lost training time, details of cancelled pupil bookings, evidence of inability to secure additional training, or proof that she attempted reasonable alternative steps (such as non-paid practice, working with an ADI, or undertaking further structured training). The absence of supporting evidence is significant and was a material deficiency in the appeal.

9. The Registrar is only required to consider a third licence where the circumstances are exceptional . The factors advanced—training interruptions, financial difficulties, test scheduling pressures—are unfortunately common in trainee ADI pathways. They do not, without more, amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a third licence. The Registrar articulated four reasons for refusing the licence, including: a) The statutory purpose of licences; b) The sufficient experience already gained; The Appellant’s failure to meet required standards within the available period; d) The availability of lawful alternatives for further practice and preparation.

10. These reasons are rational, lawful and consistent with both published policy and past practice. The refusal does not prevent the Appellant from taking her next Part 3 test on 20 March 2026 , nor does it prevent her from obtaining additional non-paid training. The decision therefore represents a proportionate balance between public protection and the Appellant’s interests. Conclusion:

10. Having carefully reviewed the bundle, the Tribunal is satisfied that: a) The Registrar took into account all relevant matters; b) No irrelevant matters were considered; c) The decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes; d) The Appellant has not shown that her situation was exceptional; e) She has not supplied adequate evidence to support her grounds of appeal. Decision:

12. For the reasons above, the Tribunal finds that: a) The Registrar’s decision was fair, reasonable, and proportionate . b) The Appellant has not established any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. e) The appeal is therefore dismissed . Right to Apply for Permission to Appeal:

13. Any party dissatisfied with this decision may apply in writing for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. An application must be received within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to the parties. Judge Brian Kennedy KC. 13 March 2026.