Kin Hang Wong v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 873 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00873 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/D/2025/0236Date 23 July 2025
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Hearing Heard on: 20 July 2025
Transport
Heard In Chambers
Decision given on: 21 July 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLAN
Between
Kin Hang WongAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentNone for AppellantNone for RespondentDecision: The appeal is STRUCK OUTREASONS

Background

[1]On 5 February 2025 the Respondent decided that the Appellant’s application for a third Trainee Licence was refused.[2]An appeal against the decision dated 5 February 2025 was subsequently received in the office of the GRC.[3]The appeal is listed for remote oral hearing using CVP on 24 July 2025.

The application to strike out the appeal

[4]By way of a completed Form GRC5 dated 26 June 2025, the representative of the Respondent made an application to strike out the appeal.[5]In the application, the following grounds were advanced by the Respondent’s representative in support of the application. ‘The Registrar requests that the Tribunal consider striking out this appeal under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal's Rules, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. This appeal regards the Registrar's decision to refuse the appellants trainee licence application. Regulation 14(b)of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 stipulates that a trainee licence remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee's third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test. Our records show the appellant failed their third attempt at the test on 24 June 2025. Therefore, any continuing rights are revoked, and it is now illegal for the appellant to give any further instruction for reward or payment.’

A summary of the relevant substantive legal provisions

[6]It is unlawful and a criminal offence to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor vehicle, unless the conditions set out in s. 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are satisfied. The two conditions of most relevance to the appeals we hear are:(i) that the name of the person concerned has been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, (ADIs) or(ii) that the person concerned holds a Trainee Licence, issued under s. 129 of the 1988 Act.[7]To have your name on the Register it is necessary(i) to pass the Qualifying Examination and(ii) to meet the conditions set out in s. 125(3) of the 1988 Act.[8]The Qualifying Examination is in three parts. Part I is a written exam. Part II is a test of driving ability and fitness and Part III consists of a test of instructional ability and fitness. Candidates are allowed three attempts at each part and must attempt each part in numerical order. Failure of any part at the third attempt means that the candidate must start the whole process all over again. All three parts must be passed within 2 years of the date on which the candidate passed Part I. However an attempt at Part III can be made after the 2 year period has expired provided that the booking for that attempt was made within the 2 year period.[9]The emphasis here is my own.

The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the 2005 Regulations’)

[10]Regulation 13 (1) and (2)(d) of the 2005 Regulations provides that:
‘Additional conditions to be satisfied for the grant of a licence 13.—(1) To the conditions as to which the Registrar is required to be satisfied for the grant of a licence under section 129 of the Act, there are added the following conditions which shall have effect subject to paragraph (3) below and to regulation 3(6). (2) The additional conditions are— … (d) that he has not failed the instructional ability and fitness test more than twice since he passed the written examination;’
[11]Once, again, the emphasis here is my own. The jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal[12]Rule 8(3) and (4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the 2009 rules’), provides: ‘(3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—(a) the appellant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the appellant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or part of them;(b) the appellant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal to such an extent that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; or(c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding. … (4) The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.

Consideration

[13]I have noted, for the purposes of Rule 8(4) of the 2009 Rules, that the Form GRC5, representing the application to strike out the appeal was shared with the Appellant by the Respondent’s representative. There has been no response from the Appellant.[14]In the bundle of papers which is before me, there is a copy of the Appellant’s ‘Test History’. This shows that the Appellant failed Part III of the Qualifying Examination on 15 July 2024 and 20 November 2024. In the GRC5 application to strike out the appeal, the Respondent’s representative has indicated that the Appellant failed the Part III examination for a third and final time on 24 June 2025. Accordingly, the extant appeal is bound to fail for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8 and 10 above.[15]My determination, therefore, is that the appeal is STRUCK OUT under Rule 8(3) of the 2009 Rules. Signed Date: 21 July 2025 Judge Kenneth Mullan