James Jenkins v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1075 (GRC)
Introduction:
[1]This appeal concerns the refusal of a second trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Appellant accepts that he failed to comply with the training requirements attached to his first trainee licence and that the Registrar was entitled on the information then available to regard that non-compliance as a serious matter. The appeal succeeds not because those requirements were met, nor because the Tribunal disagrees with the general policy underpinning the trainee licence regime, but because the Tribunal is satisfied, on the evidence ultimately available at the hearing, that the non-compliance arose from an unusual combination of circumstances outside the Appellant's control and that those circumstances were adequately corroborated. This decision turns upon the particular facts of this case and should not be read as suggesting that a second trainee licence ought ordinarily to be granted where an applicant has failed to complete the prescribed training requirements.Background:
[2]The Appellant, James Jenkins, seeks to become an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI"). He has successfully completed Parts 1 and 2 of the ADI qualification process but has not yet passed Part 3, the instructional ability test.[3]On 19 May 2025 the Appellant was granted a trainee licence pursuant to section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The licence permitted him to provide paid driving instruction while working towards qualification as an ADI. The licence was valid until 18 November 2025.[4]During the currency of that licence the Appellant was required to undertake prescribed training. The Respondent's position was that the Appellant failed to complete the required minimum training within the first three months of the licence and had therefore not complied with the conditions attached to that licence.[5]Before expiry of the first trainee licence, the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence. The Respondent invited representations concerning a proposed refusal and subsequently refused the application on 4 December 2025. The principal reasons given were the Appellant's failure to comply with the training requirements and the absence of evidence supporting the mitigating circumstances relied upon in his representations.[6]The Appellant appealed that decision to the Tribunal.Chronology:
[7]The Appellant passed Part 1 of the ADI qualification process on 2 August 2024 and Part 2 on 21 February 2025.[8]A trainee licence was granted on 19 May 2025 and remained valid until 18 November 2025.[9]During the initial three months of the licence period the Appellant was required to complete a minimum level of instructor training. It is common ground that he did not satisfy that requirement. The Respondent calculated that only approximately five hours of the required training had been completed during the relevant period.[10]On 21 October 2025 the Appellant applied for a second trainee licence.[11]On 3 November 2025 the Respondent informed the Appellant that refusal of the application was being considered and invited representations. The Respondent specifically requested independent evidence of any circumstances relied upon.[12]On 17 November 2025 the Appellant provided representations. He accepted that he had not completed the required training hours. He explained that the trainer initially provided to him had cancelled training at short notice, creating difficulty in obtaining a replacement trainer. He further explained that his father had subsequently died and that he had been required to organise funeral arrangements and deal with his father's affairs, affecting both his training and his planned Part 3 test.[13]On 4 December 2025 the Respondent refused the application. The Respondent concluded that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence and had not provided evidence to support the explanations advanced.[14]The appeal came before the Tribunal at an oral hearing on 16 July 2026. Although the Appellant had failed to comply fully with case management directions requiring service of evidence before the hearing, he gave oral evidence and submissions concerning the prolonged illness and subsequent death of his father during the period from May to September 2025. He identified three documents which he said supported his account: a medical report from Dr M. Jones, correspondence from Heather Carr of Heathfield Lodge, Swansea, and documentation relating to his first booking of the instructional ability test.[15]The Tribunal reserved its decision pending receipt of those documents. The documents were received by the Tribunal later on 16 July 2026.Issues Joined Between the Parties:
[16]The parties were agreed that the Appellant had not complied with the training requirements attached to the first trainee licence. The principal dispute concerned whether that failure arose from circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify the grant of a further trainee licence notwithstanding the non-compliance.[17]The Appellant contended that his non-compliance arose from matters outside his control, namely difficulties with an instructor trainer and the illness and death of his father, together with the associated family responsibilities and practical consequences.[18]The Respondent's position was that no corroborative evidence had been provided at the time the decision was made and that little or no weight could therefore be attached to the explanations advanced. The Respondent further maintained that the statutory scheme was intended to provide a limited opportunity to obtain experience and should not become an alternative route to registration.[19]The central issue for the Tribunal was therefore whether, having regard to all of the evidence available at the hearing, including the additional documents subsequently supplied, the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify allowing the appeal.Legal Framework:
[20]Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits a person from giving paid driving instruction unless he or she is either registered as an Approved Driving Instructor or holds a current trainee licence.[21]Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides for the grant of trainee licences to persons seeking qualification as Approved Driving Instructors and confers a discretion upon the Registrar in determining whether such licences should be granted.[22]The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 require the completion of prescribed training, including a minimum period of training during the first three months of a trainee licence. Failure to satisfy those requirements may properly be taken into account by the Registrar when considering a subsequent application.[23]The Tribunal's task is to determine whether, in light of all the evidence before it, the refusal decision should stand or whether the appeal ought to be allowed. Relevant considerations include compliance with the statutory requirements, the reasons for any non-compliance, the evidence supporting those reasons, the purpose of the trainee licence regime, and fairness and proportionality in the individual circumstances of the case.[24]The Tribunal also recognises that the statutory scheme places considerable importance upon compliance with the conditions attached to trainee licences. The purpose of the regime is to permit a limited period of practical experience whilst an applicant progresses towards qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. The Tribunal accepts the Registrar's submission that a trainee licence is not intended to provide an indefinite extension of time for qualification and that second licence applications should therefore be approached with particular caution.Discussion:
[25]The Tribunal begins by accepting that the Respondent's original decision was understandable on the material available at the time. The Appellant had not complied with the requisite training requirements and, when invited to do so, failed to provide independent evidence supporting his account of bereavement and disruption. The Respondent was therefore entitled to attach significant weight to the absence of corroboration.[26]The Tribunal has also considered the matters relied upon by the Registrar concerning the Appellant's wider progress towards qualification, including cancelled instructional ability tests and the limited progress demonstrated by the documentary record. Those matters are relevant and weigh against the Appellant. The Tribunal does not minimise them. However, they do not of themselves establish a lack of commitment to qualification. Having heard the Appellant's evidence and considered the chronology as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the same family circumstances which disrupted completion of the training requirement also contributed materially to the interruption of his progression towards the Part 3 examination. The Tribunal therefore attaches those matters moderate rather than decisive weight.[27]The Tribunal emphasises that its task is not confined to reviewing whether the Registrar acted reasonably on the material available in December 2025. Rather, it must determine the appeal on the evidence before the Tribunal at the time of determination. The Registrar did not have the benefit of the oral evidence heard by the Tribunal, nor of the additional documentation subsequently supplied. It follows that the Tribunal may properly reach a different conclusion without implying any criticism of the Registrar's original decision-making process.[28]The position before the Tribunal was, however, materially different. The Appellant gave detailed oral evidence concerning his father's illness and death and the significant impact that those events had upon him during the critical period in which the training requirements were to be completed. The Tribunal found the Appellant to be a credible witness. His account was consistent with the explanations advanced in his earlier representations and was delivered in a measured and convincing manner.[29]Importantly, the oral evidence was no longer unsupported. The Tribunal subsequently received the three documents identified during the hearing. Those documents corroborated the substance of the Appellant's account of the illness and death of his father and the effect which those events had upon him during the relevant period.[30]The Tribunal also accepts that difficulties with the original trainer contributed to the Appellant's inability to complete the prescribed training within the required timescale. While trainer difficulties alone might not ordinarily amount to exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal considers them relevant when viewed cumulatively alongside the serious family bereavement which occurred during the licence period.[31]The Tribunal further notes that there is no suggestion of dishonesty, misconduct, incompetence creating a road safety concern, or any other issue undermining the Appellant's suitability to continue progressing towards qualification. The evidence instead demonstrates an individual who remains committed to completing the qualification process and who has invested considerable effort in pursuing a career as an Approved Driving Instructor.[32]The Tribunal has carefully considered the Respondent's legitimate concern that the trainee licence regime should not become an indefinite substitute for qualification. That concern is well founded. However, this appeal does not turn upon a routine failure to complete training or a lack of commitment to qualification. It turns upon the unusual combination of events affecting the Appellant during the relevant period and the corroborative evidence now available to the Tribunal.[33]Taking the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that this was not a case of simple procrastination, lack of application, or disregard of the licence conditions. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant experienced a sequence of events which, taken cumulatively, was genuinely exceptional. Those events included disruption arising from the loss of his original trainer, the serious illness of his father during the relevant period, his father's subsequent death, and the practical and emotional consequences that followed. Any one of those matters in isolation might not have been sufficient. Considered together, however, the Tribunal is satisfied that they created an exceptional situation which materially interfered with the Appellant's ability to comply with the requirements of the trainee licence regime.Conclusion:
[34]The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant failed to comply with the prescribed training requirements and recognises that such non-compliance will ordinarily constitute a compelling reason for refusing a further trainee licence. The Tribunal further accepts that the Registrar's original refusal was entirely understandable on the evidence then available, particularly in light of the absence of corroborative material.[35]Tribunal had the benefit of oral evidence which it found credible together with documentary evidence which substantially corroborated the explanation advanced by the Appellant. Having considered all of the evidence cumulatively and having given careful weight to the statutory purpose of the trainee licence regime, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant has demonstrated circumstances that are properly to be regarded as exceptional.Decision:
[36]Accordingly, 7b 07 26and as a result of the exceptional circumstances prevailing, the appeal is allowed.[37]The Tribunal directs that the Appellant's application for a further trainee licence be granted in accordance with this decision. Judge Brian Kennedy KC. 17 July 2026.