Peter Grimley v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal dismiss the appeal . The Registrar’s refusal to issue the Appellant with a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld . REASONS

1. The Registrar’s decision dated 4 September 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence under section 129 Road Traffic Act 1988 is upheld.

2. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Introduction:

3. This is an appeal against the Registrar’s decision to refuse a second trainee driving instructor’s licence. The refusal was notified by letter dated 4 September 2025 on the basis that Mr Grimley had failed to comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence—particularly the requirement evidenced by the ADI21AT training record within the first three months of the licence period—and having regard to the statutory purpose of the trainee licence scheme ( where ADI stands for “Approved Driving Instructor”).

4. The appeal was brought timeously using the GRC1 form. The Appellant sought the grant of an additional trainee licence to cover a booked Part 3 test then listed for 30 September 2025 (Chichester). Background:

3. The relevant chronology is drawn from the undisputed documents in the bundle:

1. The Appellant was granted a first trainee licence valid 17 February 2025 – 16 August 2025. (b) He applied for a second trainee licence on 21 July 2025. (c) On 11 August 2025, the DVSA notified the Appellant that the Registrar was considering refusal, inviting representations and drawing attention to the ADI 21AT requirement. (d) The Appellant made representations on 11 and 14 August 2025, explaining delays in obtaining a Part 3 test, attaching/supplying ADI 21AT material, and identifying the impact on his pupils. (e) By letter dated 4 September 2025, the Registrar refused the second licence for non-compliance with the first licence conditions and on the basis that the trainee licence scheme is not an alternative to full registration. The letter noted that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to take the Part 3 test and referenced section 129(6) (continuation of the first licence pending decision). (f) The Registrar’s Statement (4 December 2025) sets out the statutory framework, records that the Appellant failed to complete the training objectives (ADI 21AT) within the first three months of the licence, and confirms that, after passing Part 2 on 10 January 2025, the Appellant failed Part 3 on 30 September 2025, with a further attempt listed for 15 January 2026 (as per the Test History). (g) The Test History (Annex A) corroborates the above results. The relevant law:

4. Section 123(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or holding a current section 129 trainee licence.

5. Under section 129 , the Registrar may issue a trainee licence subject to conditions. Those conditions include the requirement to complete a minimum of 20 hours additional training with an ADI and to keep/submit the ADI 21AT training record, with the scheme intended to provide temporary, time-limited experience and not to become an alternative to registration as an ADI.

6. Section 129(6) provides that where a further licence is applied for before expiry, the existing licence continues in force until the decision is made and becomes effective. Issues for determination:

7. The following issues arise: i) Compliance: Did the Appellant comply with the first trainee licence conditions, in particular the 20 hours / ADI 21AT training objectives within the first three months of the licence period? ii) Discretion and purpose: If not, was the Registrar entitled to refuse a second licence, having regard to the statutory purpose of trainee licences and the fact that they are not an alternative to full registration? iii) Mitigation: Do the asserted DVSA Part 3 test delays and the potential impact on the Appellant’s pupils justify a different outcome? Evidence and submissions: The Appellant:

8. In his GRC1 and representations (11 and 14 August 2025), the Appellant explained that: ◦ He faced significant delays securing a Part 3 test; he applied in March 2025 and received a date of 30 September 2025, after the first licence expiry. ◦ He had multiple active pupils and feared disruption if a second licence were refused. ◦ He provided ADI 21AT documents signed in early August 2025 and described earlier VR/AA training, contending he had done the work but had been “let down” by time constraints and test availability.

9. At the oral hearing, the Appellant fairly acknowledged the key points advanced for the Registrar, namely that the ADI 21AT training objectives were not fully completed within the first three months of the licence period and that the trainee licence scheme is time-limited and not an alternative to registration. The Registrar:

10. The Registrar relied on the Statement (4 December 2025) and correspondence, submitting that: (a) The Appellant did not complete the ADI 21AT training objectives within the first three months and submitted forms only in August 2025. The record pages show entries extending beyond mid-May 2025 (i.e., outside the three-month window from 17 February 2025), and the forms bear August 2025 signatures/certifications. (b) The statutory purpose is to provide up to six months’ practical experience to reach the qualifying standard; it is not an open-ended permission to teach until one passes. (c) The Appellant failed Part 3 on 30 September 2025, and a trainee licence is not required to sit Part 3, nor to receive unpaid instruction or further training. (d) Because the Appellant applied before expiry, section 129(6) allowed him to continue instructing pending the decision/appeal, mitigating hardship. Deliberation and findings:

11. Compliance with the first licence conditions . The contemporaneous documentary record supports the Registrar’s case. The ADI 21AT pages in the bundle include entries such as 29 April, 1 May, 6–7 May, 15 May 2025 (within three months), but also 21 and 28 May, 4 and 18 June 2025, and later dates—all after the three-month point (circa 17 May 2025 ) —and the relevant pages are signed/certified in August 2025. On the evidence before me, the training objectives were not completed within the first three months, nor was the record completed and submitted within that time frame. The Appellant accepted this at the hearing. I therefore find non-compliance proved.

12. Purpose of the trainee scheme; second licence discretion. The Registrar’s letters and Statement accurately describe the purpose of the trainee licence arrangement: it is an exceptional, time-limited mechanism to gain experience prior to qualification; it must not become an alternative to ADI registration. That policy objective is both legitimate and consistently applied. In circumstances of non-compliance with the conditions of the first licence, it was plainly open to the Registrar to refuse a second. I so find.

13. Mitigation: test delays and pupil impact. I accept that Part 3 test availability has posed practical difficulties and that the Appellant had a number of pupils relying upon him. However: (a) A trainee licence is not required to take Part 3; the refusal did not bar the Appellant from sitting the exam. (b) Nor is a trainee licence the only avenue for further preparation: unpaid practice, training courses, and supervised work with an ADI are viable alternatives used by others who qualify without any trainee licence. (c) The continuation provision in section 129(6) reduced immediate prejudice by allowing continued instruction pending determination, and the Appellant’s Part 3 attempt on 30 September 2025 proceeded in any event (albeit unsuccessfully).

14. In short, the asserted delays and hardship do not outweigh the core fact of non-compliance with the first licence’s conditions or displace the statutory purpose of the scheme. The Registrar’s refusal was a rational and proportionate application of the scheme. Conclusion:

15. For the reasons above, the Appellant has not shown that the Registrar’s decision should be set aside. The decision under appeal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order:

16. Any suspension of the decision under section 129(6) ceases upon this decision taking effect. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this decision prevents the Appellant from sitting Part 3 or from undertaking further unpaid training or preparation. Right of appeal:

18. A party may appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law arising from this decision. Any application for permission to appeal must be sent to this Tribunal within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to the parties. Guidance on how to appeal is available from the Tribunal.