Chai Wai So v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1171 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, with the agreement of the parties.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 15 April 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 3 March 2026. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, on 18 Mach 2026, namely, that he had difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test date but that he was committed to training to obtain qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), on the grounds that the Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences, covering a period of 12 months in total, from 24 March 2025 to 23 March 2026, to gain sufficient expertise in driving instruction to pass a Part 3 test, a time period that, it was submitted, was more than adequate; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it might take a candidate to become an ADI; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified ADI; that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence did not prevent him undertaking another, and final, permitted attempt to pass a Part 3 test; that a trainee licence was not required to undertake a Part 3 test and that the Appellant’s existing second trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal (as his application for a third trainee licence had been made before the expiry of his second trainee licence), providing him, in practical terms, with a total trainee licence period of almost 17 months.[3]The Appellant submitted an appeal on 28 May 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in addition to his written representations in response to the Respondent’s intention to refuse his application for a third trainee licence: - that the decision was wrong and unfair in the circumstances; - that he had taken all reasonable steps to successfully pass his Part 3 test during the total period of holding a valid trainee licence; - that the delays he had experienced in obtaining a Part 3 test date were outside his control; - that he wanted a chance to ‘finish’ [presumably meaning to ‘pass’] his Part 3 test ‘without rushing’.[4]The Respondent, in his Response dated 22 July 2026, reiterated the sole purpose of a trainee licence and the other grounds recited in the decision under appeal and submitted, in addition, that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test on two occasions, namely, 1 December 2025 and 22 May 2026 and that the Appellant could obtain further training, if he wished, in preparation for his final permitted attempt to pass his Part 3 test by undertaking a training course, or studying or practising with an ADI or provide unpaid tuition, pointing out that precedent existed whereby applicants succeeded in becoming registered as fully-qualified ADIs without ever having held any trainee licence.[5]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.[6]The essential basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had been provided, under two trainee licences (albeit, in practical terms, he had the benefit of a trainee licence for almost 17 months) that was more than adequate time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test.[7]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.[8]In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.[9]There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.[10]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.