Stephen Robert Davey v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 833 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00833 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/D/2024/1055
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Date 09 July 2025
Transport
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE SAWARD
Between
STEPHEN ROBERT DAVEYAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is struck out.REASONS
[1]The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor. 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.[2]On 28 November 2024 the Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision dated 25 November 2024 not to grant them a third trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Appellant quoted delays in obtaining a Part 3 test date as the reason for the appeal.[3]After filing a statement of case opposing the appeal, the Respondent subsequently applied to the Tribunal on 10 June 2025 to strike out the appeal. The Appellant was copied into that application. When the Tribunal first came to consider the case, it was noted that the grounds for the strike-out application were contradictory. Whilst reference was made to the trainee licence having expired after 2 years, the Respondent quoted the regulatory provision that applies where a licence holder has failed their third attempt at the instructional ability and fitness test. Given the lack of clarity, the Tribunal gave case management directions on 16 June 2025, requiring the Respondent to clarify the grounds of the strike-out application and allowing the Appellant a further period to respond.[4]The Respondent replied to the Tribunal (and copied to the Appellant) by email on 23 June 2025. It was confirmed that the basis of the application to strike out the appeal is that:
“The Appellant’s 2-year qualification period has expired, and they did not apply for their next attempt at the Part 3 test before the expiration of their 2-year qualifying period. Therefore, the Appellant is no longer entitled to another attempt at the Part 3 test and must begin the qualifying process again, removing the need for a further trainee licence.”
[5]To support this stance, the Respondent relies upon Regulation 3(4)(c) of Part 2 of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. This stipulates: 3. (4) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, a person shall be regarded as having passed the examination only if the following conditions are fulfilled in his case— …. (c) within 2 years after passing the written examination and having passed all of the elements of the driving ability and fitness test he made an application to take the instructional ability and fitness test; and ….[6]The practical effect of Regulation 3(4)(c) is that there is a 2-year period from passing Part 1 in which to pass Part 2 and to apply to take Part 3 failing which the whole examination must be retaken. The Appellant passed the Part 1 test on 26 May 2023 and the Part 2 test on 21 September 2023. He failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 4 October 2024. Having cancelled two tests on 5 February 2025 and 14 April 2025, the qualifying period expired on 23 May 2025 without the Applicant applying to take another Part 3 test.[7]Therefore, the Appellant’s trainee licence has now expired, and the Appellant is no longer eligible to attempt their Part 3 test. As the Appellant’s trainee licence has been revoked, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in this matter. It is not legally possible for the Tribunal to uphold the appeal.[8]The Tribunal gave the Appellant a further 14 days from the date of issue of its case management directions on 19 June 2025 to reply to the application to strike out the appeal. No reply was received.[9]Since the appeal cannot succeed, the only proper course is to strike it out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.