Samatha Capon v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 6 th January 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/licences the Act ’) for a six-month period, and then another, but was refused a further licence at the end of the relevant period.

3. The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had not passed the final part of the ADI qualifying examination within the relevant period and as insufficient evidence of loss of training time was supplied that the Appellant had had long enough to progress, and the application to issue a third trainee licence was therefore refused.

4. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal

5. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 13 th January 2025, indicates that she is not appealing the decision on the basis of a lack of training, but due to the amount of time she has had to wait to get Part 3 tests booked.

6. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the decision letter sets out their position. The Registrar points out that the Applicant had sufficient time to progress.

7. The Registrar indicates that the Appellant has been licenced to instruct as a trainee since 20 th November 2023. She has failed her Part 3 test twice. A final attempt is booked for the 2 nd September 2025. Mode of Determination

8. The Appeal was to be heard by CVP enabled video hearing, but the Appellant did not attend. The Appellant had acknowledged paperwork from the Tribunal and details of the hearing had been served upon her. The Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal Rules came to the view it was appropriate to determine the case on the papers. There was adequate information provided, the licence position was already lengthy and a further delay was simply inappropriate.

9. The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence containing 20 pages. The Law

10. 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 s. 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1902/pdfs/uksi_20051902_en.pdf

11. 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 ’.

12. 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’). 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.

13. If a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor and many people qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

14. 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.

15. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of approved Driving Instructors 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. See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 . http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html . Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf . Conclusion

16. The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

17. In fixing a period of 6 month to allow for trainee instructors to progress Parliament must have had in mind that we are all subject to differing life events that affect our ability to undertake certain tasks. Sometimes those events are so unusual or have such a bearing on an individual that it will be entirely appropriate to find that a longer than normal period of time should be allowed to complete a task. Here the Appellant has indicated that she has had appropriate training opportunity, it is a lack of test slots that she complains about. The licence is given solely to allow the opportunity to train to be an instructor. The Appellant has had that opportunity.

18. Looking at the overall position here there is no basis upon which a further licence could be granted. The Appellant has already been licensed for over 18 months. She has had in effect three trainee licences already.

19. The Appellant’s appeal must fail as a result. However, bearing in mind the proximity to her final test, this decision will not take effect until the 4 th September 2025 as an act of mercy. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon DATE: 26 th August 2025