Steven Mather v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1196 (GRC)
[1]This appeal had been listed for oral hearing, at the Appellant’s request, by video, on 11 August 2026 at 15.30. However, the Appellant did not appear to prosecute his appeal, despite the clerk attempting to contact him four times by telephone and leaving messages asking him to call back. The Tribunal waited until 15.40 before proceeding in the Appellant’s absence. The Tribunal decided it could determine this appeal in the absence of the Appellant and that it was in the interests of justice to do so having regard to the Tribunal’s statutory Overriding Objective.[2]The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 17 April 2026 to refuse the Appellant’s application dated 6 March 2026 for a further and third trainee driving instructor licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations received on 26 March 2026, on the grounds that there was no evidence provided by the Appellant to support his representations concerning medical appointments attended by him in support of his wife. While the Appellant seemed to offer to provide such evidence, he did not do so and it was not a matter for the Respondent, nor the Tribunal on appeal, to obtain such evidence. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant’s wife suffered from a serious illness. The reasons for the Respondent’s decision also included the fact that the Appellant had already been granted and had the benefit of two trainee licences from 29 April 2025 to 27 April 2026 in total, for the sole purpose of affording him the opportunity of gaining sufficient experience to pass a Part 3 test, a period considered to be more than adequate for that purpose; that it was not the intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took a trainee to pass his Part 3 test – a correct statement in law - and that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’). The Respondent also maintained, correctly, that in making his decision, refusal of the Appellant’s application did not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test (subject to there being a maximum permitted number of three attempts); 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 providing him, therefore, in effect, with a total trainee licence period of almost 16 months.[3]In his Notice of Appeal dated 24 April 2026, the Appellant reiterated his representations to the Respondent, namely, that during the period of his first trainee licence, his wife had been diagnosed with a serious illness, resulting in him having little time to develop his skills to work towards passing his Part 3 test with the same issue – supporting his wife during her treatment – arose during the period of his second trainee licence. He also submitted that these circumstances left his mind in no fit state to instruct pupils – a position that continued. The Tribunal attached considerable weight to this assertion since it raised the possibility that the Appellant did, in fact, wish to have a trainee licence issued to him for so long as it might take him to pass a Part 3 test. He explained that the said circumstances required him to cancel a Part 3 test booking on 20 October 2025 [another booking for 1 July 2026 also being cancelled by him]. The Appellant stated that he wanted a third trainee licence to have a chance to pass the Part 3 test and to have some time to be trained himself and for him to instruct some pupils.[4]The Respondent, in his Response dated 24 July 2026, reiterated his reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence set out in the decision under appeal. In addition, he submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training by undertaking a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or proving unpaid tuition and that he had booked a Part 3 test on hold.[5]This appeal concerns a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a further, third, 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 basis of the Respondent’s decision were the reasons set out in his decision notice, reiterated in his Response document.[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. I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has satisfied the burden of proof that rests on him to allow a third trainee licence to be granted to him.[9]There was little or no dispute as to the material facts of this case.[10]Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.