Viktorija Zileviciute v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1193 (GRC)
[1]This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 11 August 2026 at 11.30. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative of the Respondent appeared.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 26 February 2026, to refuse her application for a second trainee driving instructor licence made on 5 January 2026, taking account of representations made by her on 21 January 2026, namely, that she had experienced difficulties with her trainer, Red Driving School, being available and having suffered a family bereavement that affected her ability to complete her required training on time, on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of her existing trainee licence, that was of six months duration (28 July 2025 to 27 January 2026), in that her Form ADI21 training record, her training objectives, were not completed within the first 3 months of her existing trainee licence period; that she had already been granted one trainee licence for six months, for the purpose, being the sole purpose of a trainee licence, to gain sufficient experience to pass her Part 3 test that, he submitted, was a more than adequate period of time to reach the Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’) qualifying standard; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued to an aspiring ADI for so long as it might take the trainee to pass her Part 3 test - a position that is correct in law; that the system of trainee licences could not become an alternative to registration system as a fully-qualified ADI; that holding a trainee licence is not required to take a Part 3 test and refusal of the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence was not a bar to her taking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of attempts) and that the Appellant’s existing first trainee licence remained valid until determination of this appeal (as her application for a second trainee licence had been made before the expiry of her first trainee licence), providing her with a total trainee licence period of 13 months. This was undoubtedly a more than reasonable period to allow the Appellant to reach the instructional ability qualifying standard and to obtain any necessary practical experience in driving instruction to pass her instructional ability test (that is, her Part 3 test).[3]The Appellant submitted an appeal on 11 March 2026 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds: - that she had booked a further, second attempt, to take a Part 3 test [that was to take place on 19 August 2026]; - that she was enrolled with Red Driving School during the period of her first trainee licence and was progressing towards qualification as an ADI; - that she had expected to receive 20 hours of in-car instructor training to prepare for her Part 3 test, 5 hours of which, she submitted, had not been provided by Red Driving School; - the lack of training and support she had received from Red Driving School resulted in her not being given a fair opportunity to prepare for her Part 3 test within the trainee licence period; - that she was committed to becoming an ADI and had made every effort to continue progressing; - that the decision under appeal placed her in an unfair position and had a serious impact on her career and livelihood [the latter not being a permitted purpose, in law, to issue a trainee licence]; - that she wanted a second trainee licence to prepare for her Part 3 test and to continue working towards becoming an ADI [neither of which was, in law, the purpose of granting a trainee licence]; - that she also wanted a second trainee licence to complete her required training (that should have been provided by her trainer, Red Driving School, during the period of her first trainee licence), thereby giving her a fair opportunity to become an ADI and continue her career.[4]The Respondent, in his Response document dated 24 June 2026, reiterated the reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence set out in the said decision document, adding that, contrary to the Appellant’s submission, she had only completed 11 hours of the required training that had to be to be completed within the first 3 months of her trainee licence. The Respondent advised that the Appellant had failed a Part 3 test once (on 21 May 2026) and had cancelled a Part 3 test booked to take place on 2 March 2026. The Respondent also pointed out that if the Appellant felt she required further training, to prepare to take a Part 3 test, there were up to three alternatives available to her, namely, to attend a training course; study and/or practise under an ADI, or provide unpaid tuition, pointing out that these were all alternatives used by some trainees who achieved ADI status without ever having held a trainee licence at all. Finally, the Respondent confirmed that the Appellant had a second attempt to pass her Part 3 test booked for 19 August 2026 – some 8 days hence.[5]In her oral evidence, the Appellant accepted that she did not need a trainee licence in order to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of her application for a second trainee licence was not a bar to her taking a Part 3 test. It seemed that the Appellant’s trainer, Red Driving School, may have misled or misadvised, and provided a less-than-optimal service to the Appellant. In her oral evidence, the Appellant gave further reasons for wating a second trainee licence, namely, in order to gain pupils from Red Driving School which, she stated, would not give her pupils; that she needed a second trainee licence until she passed her Part 3 test in order to be able to practice [that was, decidedly, not the purpose of issuing a trainee licence]; that she did not understand that her existing trainee licence remained valid until the outcome of this appeal became effective; that she wanted a second trainee licence in case she should fail her second attempt to pass her Part 3 test [again a purpose for which a trainee licence is not granted]; that Red Driving School would not provide her with pupils unless she had a trainee licence [something that can only be a matter of dispute between the Appellant and Red Driving School and is not determinative of this appeal in favour of the Appellant]; that she did not know of the alternatives to get further training [something, again, that cannot be determinative of this appeal in favour of the Appellant]; that she needed a second trainee licence to continue her preparation to take another attempt to pass her Part 3 test [a submission that has no substance in law]; that being a driving instructor was her only source of income, having given up her previous employment. [To the extent that this may have indicated that the Appellant viewed holding a trainee licence as a source of income, this was not a permissible reason, in law, to be granted a trainee licence]. The Appellant stated that she did complete the required 20 hours of training (albeit not within the first 3-month period of her trainee licence. She concluded by stating that Red Driving School had not provided her with her expected 5 hours of preparation for her Part 3 test and that her focus now was to study as much as possible to become an ADI.[6]This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second 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. Theburden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with theAppellant.[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 that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.[9]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.