Craig Hughes v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1039 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for determination remotely, by CVP, today, to commence at 12.00. However, the Appellant had technical difficulties joining by CVP but did manage to attend remotely, by CVP, at 12.17. He was accompanied by Mr. Andrew Astle of Andrew’s Driving School.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 28 November 2025, to refuse his application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 15 October 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, by email, on 31 October 2025, namely, that he had had to cancel a Part 3 test to have taken place on 14 May 2025 due to the funeral of a close family relative taking place the previous day that left him unfit, emotionally, to take the test, and there being a lack of availability of Part 3 test dates. The Respondent, however, found that the Appellant had a more than adequate time period to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test (a period that was extended by an additional period of almost 7 months to the date of promulgation of this Decision as he had submitted an appeal); that it was not the intention of Parliament to issue a trainee licence for however long it took an applicant to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system could not be used as an alternative to achieving registration as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test; that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence was not a bar to him undertaking a Part 3 test and that if the Appellant exhausted the maximum permitted attempts to pass his Part 3 test, his application for a further trainee licence could not be entertained and any appeal must automatically fail.[3]In his appeal document dated 12 December 2025, the Appellant reiterated his representations made to the Respondent; that he had failed his first attempt to pass his Part 3 test on 4 December 2025 (referring to additional stress due to the examiner being delayed); that his second attempt was booked on hold [but took place on 2 June 2026, when the Appellant, unfortunately, failed again]. Significantly, the Appellant stated in his appeal document that he wanted a 3rd trainee licence ‘to continue working up to the date, [then], of his second attempt to pass his Part 3 test and, equally significantly, accepted that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test.[4]In his Response dated 13 April 2026, the Respondent noted, in addition, that the purpose of a trainee licence was solely to give an applicant an opportunity of giving driving instruction to members of the public while endeavouring to achieve registration as an ADI and that, in the alternative, an applicant, without needing to hold a trainee licence, could obtain further training, if required, or necessary, by undertaking training course, or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving instruction, alternatives that had been used by other aspiring ADIs who successfully achieved ADI registration without ever having held a trainee licence.[5]In response to questions for clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed that his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test would take place on 10 September 2026 and that he wanted a 3rd trainee licence until that date. Significantly, he accepted that he could provide unpaid tuition without a trainee licence, but ‘wanted time to pass his Part 3 test with a trainee licence in place’ and to ‘charge pupils’ – a purpose that is decidedly not the purpose for which a trainee licence is issued.[6]Mr Astle stated that the Appellant had worked hard but could not afford to provide unpaid driving tuition but accepted that holding a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test.[7]This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out ins.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons for their decision. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.[8]The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences (12 months in total) that was more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test. He also had the benefit of an additional period, when his existing trainee licence remained valid, of almost 7 months.[9]An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.[10]In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.[11]There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.[12]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed. Tribunal Judge Date: 8 July 2026