Matthew Willett 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 25 November 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third 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. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 5 April 2024 and passed Part 2 on 30 August 2024. The Appellant applied for two trainee licences which were granted and were valid from 11 November 2024 to 10 November 2025.

11. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 29 October 2025. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, this means that, at the date of the hearing, the Appellant has been the beneficiary of a trainee licence for 1 year and 3 months.

12. The Appellant took and failed his first attempt at the Part 3 exam on 18 February 2025 and failed the second attempt on 1 May 2025. The DSA cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 9 January 2026. The Appellant’s final attempt is booked for 26 March 2026. Appeal to the Tribunal

13. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are that there were exceptional circumstances which meant that he was unable to practice on a full-time basis, namely that he had a full-time day job as an accounts manager of an international company which took up a substantial amount of time. He also said that he had to prepare for an attend a global finance conference in Switzerland.

14. In the Appellant’s written representations to the Registrar he also sets out his efforts to seek additional training and states that he had reorganised his schedule so he was able to devote more time to preparation for his third attempt. He also says that he had a short interruption in this training when he was unable to continue with the Bill Plant Driving school.

15. The Registrar, in his response to the appeal, states: 15.1. 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. 15.2. 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. By virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, 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. 15.3. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled one test. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 15.4. The refusal of a third 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 she 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. Evidence

16. I read and took account of a bundle of documents. Discussion and conclusions

17. I accept that some delay was caused when the DVSA cancelled a Part 3 test in January 2026. I also accept that there was a short period of delay when the Appellant changed his trainer, although it is unclear how long that period was. I do not accept that the Appellant’s work commitments, as a result of combining full-time work and training as a driving instructor, are a good reason to extend the period of his licence.

18. The overall period in which the Appellant was able to give driving instruction up to November 2025 should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act . He has also had a further period of approximately three months as a result of submitting this appeal. Taken together, this is adequate time to gain practical experience for his Part 3 test, which is booked for March 2026.

19. Having weighed all matters in the balance, 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 the appeal is dismissed. Signed Sophie Buckley Date: 26 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal