Alastair Readman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 1231 (GRC)
Mode of Hearing
[1]The appeal was listed as a Cloud Video Platform hearing. Neither the Appellant nor a representative of the Respondent joined the hearing. The Respondent had indicated that an oral hearing was not required. The Tribunal Clerk telephone the Appellant on three occasions prior to the case being called and left a voicemail. The Appellant did not answer the calls and did not respond.[2]The Tribunal was satisfied that it was just and fair to proceed in the absence of the Appellant and without a representative of the Respondent having considered rules 2 and 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. Notice of the hearing has been sent to the Appellant and the Respondent together with instructions for joining the hearing. The Tribunal considered a bundle containing 21 pages.The Law
[3]The Law To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”), applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.[4]If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”). However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an ADI and people qualify as an ADI without having held a trainee licence.[5]The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. S.123(1) of the Act prohibits the giving of instruction paid for, by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or they are the holder of a current licence issued under s.129(1) of the Act.[6]The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.[7]When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, the Respondent, and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.Background
[8]Background The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.[9]Two licences under s.129 of the Act were granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 11 November 2024 to 10 November 2025. Previously, two licences were granted from 1 February 2023 to 12 February 2024.[10]On 6 November 2025 the Appellant applied for a third licence (D2). By way of an email dated 8 December 2025 (D3) the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a third licence. By way of an email received on 17 December 2025 (D4) the Appellant made representations. He stated that his training was disrupted due to ill-health and he had to postpone his part 3 test. He stated, also, that he is passionate about becoming a driving instructor and has booked extra training.[11]After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application. He had provided no evidence to support the claims made in his representations or to evidence lost training time and he had already had the benefit of two trainee licences for 12 months.[12]The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with s. 129(4) of the Act by an email dated 3 February 2026 (D5).[13]The reasons for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the application for a third licence are as follows: a) the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of licences is to afford applicants the opportunity of giving instruction to members of the public whilst endeavouring to achieve registration. The system of issuing licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration; b) the licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and, in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences which cover a period of 12 months. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant applying for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; c) since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. One test dated 27 January 2025 was non-completed due to the vehicle having no tax or valid MOT and 5 more tests were cancelled. These were booked for 10 February 2025, 12 February 2025, 2 June 2025, 7 October 2025 and 16 June 2026. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI; and d) the refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. He does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for him to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI or give tuition on his own (provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all.[14]The Appellant has his final attempt at the instructional ability test booked and is awaiting an available date. If the test goes ahead then the Regulations determine that any appeal is bound to fail as a trainee licence can only be issued in order that an individual can gain the practical experience required to take the test.Appeal to the Tribunal
[15]Appeal to the Tribunal In his appeal in form GRC1 dated and an email dated 17 December 2025, the Appellant relies on the following grounds: a) Unfortunately, my driver training was interrupted as I had to take quite a long time out due to ill health. I also had to postpone my Part 3 test. I have completed all my DVSA required training sessions and on top of this I have also booked extra lessons with an ORDIT registered instructor. b) I have tried to book and pay for my ADI Part 3 tests around a month and a half ago but I have not heard back so I have left it on hold. c) I became passionate about learning to become a driving instructor some years ago when a close friend lost his life to dangerous driving, and I realised then how important it was to teach safe driving skills d) Overall, I feel I am a valuable addition to the driving instructor body and I hope you will look favourably on my request for an extension to my PDI licence.Conclusion
[16]The Tribunal considered all the papers. The Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months which is adequate time to prepare for the Part 3 test. He is able to continue to gain experience and take the Part 3 test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken. The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s representations and finds he has had ample opportunity to practice for the Part 3 test notwithstanding. The Appellant has filed no documentary evidence in support of his assertion that he had a long time out due to ill health. He has provided no details and no dates of when he was unwell.[17]The Tribunal found that in all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent’s decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed: Date: 19 August 2026 J Findlay Judge of the First-tier Tribunal