Gary Richard Langley v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1172 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for an oral hearing by video at 14.00. The Appellant did not appear to prosecute his appeal, despite having indicated towards the end of July 2026 that he would be attending. The Tribunal waited until 14.15 before deciding to proceed in the Appellant’s absence, the clerk having attempted to contact him twice by telephone and leaving him a voicemail on the second occasion. The Tribunal decided it could make a decision in the Appellnt’s absence and that it was in the interests of justice to do so, having regard to the Tribunal’s statutory obligations under the Overriding Objective. The Respondent was not represented.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 9 February 2026, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, trainee driving instructor licence made on 24 November 2025. The decision of the Respondent was made, taking account of representations made by the Appellant, in writing, on 19 December 2025, namely, that he had difficulties in obtaining a Part 3 test date, on the grounds that the Appellant had already been granted two trainee licences, covering a period of 12 months in total, from 2 December 2024 to 8 December 2025, to gain sufficient expertise in driving instruction to pass a Part 3 test, a time period that, it was submitted, was more than adequate. [The Appellant, indeed, had previously held a trainee licence for another 12-month period from 17 April 2023 to 16 April 2024]. The Respondent further submitted in the decision under appeal, 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, 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 over 20 months.[3]The Appellant submitted an appeal on 16 February 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 he had booked a further Part 3 test on hold; - that he had failed his first attempt to pass his Part 3 test in May 2025 due to it taking place in an unfamiliar test venue; - that he had to cancel his second attempt to pass his Part 3 test as a student, ‘of the required standard’ was not available; - that the two-year validity of his Part 1 test expired in ‘August 2025’; - that he wanted a third trainee licence to complete his training and pass his Part 3 test ‘in order to train new drivers to be safe and responsible drivers’, leading by way of example to ‘not so confident and knowledgeable drivers’.[4]The Respondent, in his Response dated 22 June 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, 2 May 2025 and 8 May 2026 and had cancelled a Part 3 test booked for 30 October 2025 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 granted two trainee licences (albeit, in practical terms, he had the benefit of a trainee licence for over 20 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.