Ben Austin Carrett v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2) (a) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 4 September 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. In his appeal form the Appellant indicated he wished the matter to be decided without a hearing. On 12 November 2025 Directions were issued which included "1. The case appears suitable to be decided without a hearing and all parties have given their consent." Having considered the overriding objective in rule 2 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and rule 32 2009 Rules I am satisfied that the issues can be properly determined without a hearing.

3. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Law

4. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid driving instructions by section 123 (1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

5. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part. A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not needed to be able to take part 3.

6. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This is granted:- "...for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct."

7. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so the he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

8. By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act :- " Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of." Role of the Tribunal

9. Section 131(2) of the Act provides:- "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act ...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal"

10. Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- ( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit.

11. In considering the appeal the Tribunal gives appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:- "45...the proper conclusion....can only be stated in very general terms. It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities. The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal."

12. The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Evidence and matters considered

13. For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 22 pdf pages. Chronology

14. I find as a fact that:- (a) the Appellant passed part 1 on 6 February 2024 and part 2 on 8 May 2024. (b) the Appellant was granted a Licence from 19 August 2024 to 18 February 2025. (c) on 14 December 2024 the Appellant took but failed part 3 for the first time (d) at some point most likely in February 2 025 the Appellant was granted a second Licence. (e) on 2 May 2025 the Appellant took but failed part 3 for a second time. (f) on 14 July 2025 the Appellant applied for a third Licence for the period after 18 August 2025. (g) on 22 July 2025 the Registrar told the Appellant that he was considering refusing this application. (h) on 30 July 2025 the Appellant made representations. (i) on 4 September 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse the request for a third Licence. The Appeal

15. This Appeal was commenced on 15 September 2025 and I also note that:- (a) the third part 3 test booked for 17 October 2025 is marked as being "non-completed"and the Registrar says this was due to the Appellant's ill health on the day. (b) on 21 November 2025 the Registrar provided a response to the appeal. (c) a new third part 3 test has been booked for 23 January 2026. The Appellants position

16. In his representations in July 2025 and his grounds of appeal in September 2025 the Appellant referred to:- (a) a difficulty in getting test dates. (b) his then up-coming test date on 17 October 2025. (c) his committent to his own training and that of his pupils.

17. The outcome sought by the appeal is (11) "...to extend the trainee licence to the 17 October meaning that I could continue to help my pupils achieve their goal of learning and those which have tests booked, becoming safe and qualified drivers" . The Registrar's position

18. In the response the Registrar said:- (a) having a Licence should not be an alternative to the system of registration. (b) the Appellant has failed part 3 twice but the year with a Licence should have been enough time to pass. (c) the 2nd licence has in any event stayed in force as a result of this appeal. (d) refusal does not prevent the Appellant taking part 3 – now booked for 23 January 2026. (e) the Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an ADI or give tuition provided that he does not receive payment of any kind for this. (f) the Appellant provided "no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months ." Review

19. I noted that:- (a) despite the third application being refused the Appellant has been able, since 18 August 2025, to continue as a paid driving instructor with the benefit of his second Licence pending the outcome of this Appeal by section 129(6) of the Act . (b) the Appellant has, as at the date of this appeal, now had the benefit of a Licence since 19 August 2024 a period of about 16 and a half months. (c) the Appellant's stated focus on his pupils' needs is understandable but the statutory purpose of a Licence is as set out in section 129(1) of the Act (d) the outcome sought is for an extension to get the Appellant to 17 October 2025. That test was cancelled and the date has passed. It is likely that the Appellant had in mind seeking a Licence until his test and so he may have wished to amended 17 October for 23 January 2025 and I have proceeded on the basis. However he did not say this and in any event a Licence is for the statutory purpose set out in the Act and is not something one has for "as long as it takes" to pass part 3. (e) there can be difficulty in getting test dates but in this case there have been three already during the Licence period – although the third had to be cancelled due to a health issue. A fourth date is set for later in January 2026.

20. I also took account and gave weight to the Registrar's view. The Registrar did consider the representations made and there was no material information provided about which the Registrar was not aware when making the Decision which I conclude was a proportionate one. I agree that the Appellant has had adequate time and opportunity to pass part 3. Decision

21. For the reasons above the Appellant has not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 9 J anuary 2026