Patricia Heaton v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The decision of the Tribunal is that the appeal is dismissed. Reasons

1. This is the appeal of the Appellant, Miss Patricia Heaton, against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’), conveyed in a letter of 2 July 2025, to refuse her request for a third trainee licence.

2. The matter was listed before me for hearing by CVP but when the parties were contacted shortly before the scheduled start, both advised that they would not attend and would rely on their written cases. DVSA produced a bundle of essential documents. The statutory framework

3. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’), s123(1) prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction except where the instructor’s name is included in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Register’) or he/she holds a trainee licence. Hereafter the usual abbreviation ‘ADI’ will be used.

4. Candidates for membership of the Register must fulfil a number of conditions. These include the requirement to pass an examination divided into three parts (‘the examination’): theory; driving ability and fitness; and instructional ability and fitness ( the Act , s125(3) (a)). They must apply for a part three test within two years of passing part one; if they do not, they must re-take the entire examination. Candidates who fail part three on three occasions must also re-take the entire examination. And in this event the current trainee licence comes to an end on the day following the third test. See the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the Regulations’), reg 3(4)(c) and (d). The Regulations, reg 14(b)

5. By the Act , s129(1) it is provided that trainee licences are granted for the purpose of enabling prospective ADIs who have passed parts one and two of the examination to gain practical experience in driving instruction with a view to taking part three. Trainee licences are valid for six months only. The Registrar is expressly empowered to refuse to grant a trainee licence to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued ( s129(3) ). It is clear from the language of s129 as a whole that trainee licences are not intended to serve as an alternative to registration.

6. The DVSA website (not, of course, a legal source) includes this advice: You should return your trainee licence to DVSA if you are not using it, for example because of a long period of illness. You will not get a refund, but DVSA will know that you have not had full use of the licence. This will be a factor in deciding whether to give you another licence in future . On the subject of applications for further trainee licences it states: You’re more likely to get another licence if you told DVSA you had stopped using the first, for example because of a period of illness. It’s unlikely that you’ll get another licence if you: • just want more time to pass the approved driving instructor (ADI) part 3 test • did not follow the rules for using your previous trainee licence These include a requirement to undertake a specified number of training hours over the first three months of the licence.

7. The effect of the Act , s129(6) is that, where a holder of a temporary licence applies during its currency for a fresh licence, the life of the original licence is extended until the commencement of the new licence or, if the application is refused and the holder appeals, until disposal of the appeal.

8. By the Act , s131(2) an appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision to refuse an application for the grant of a licence. On the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order for the grant or refusal of the application as it sees fit ( s131(3) ). In a different but analogous statutory context in In the matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC) Warren J, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, held that there was nothing to constrain the first-instance Tribunal’s approach on appeal. Its function is simply to make its own decision on the evidence before it (which may differ from that before the statutory body whose decision is under challenge). Despite this latitude, however, high authority of general application recognises two important points. First, the burden is on an appellant to persuade the Tribunal that the relevant decision should be overturned or otherwise interfered with. Second, the Tribunal should give careful consideration to the reasons for the decision under challenge, given that Parliament has invested the relevant body with exclusive authority (subject to appeal) to make decisions on such matters. See eg R v Westminster Magistrates Court ex p Hope & Glory Public House Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 31 , paras 39-48 (Toulson LJ). The key facts

9. The background facts can be summarised as follows. 9.1 Miss Heaton passed parts one and two of the examination on 25 September 2023 and 2 February 2024 respectively. 9.2 On Miss Heaton’s application, the Registrar granted her two consecutive trainee licences covering the period from 3 June 2024 to 7 June 2025. 9.3 On 2 June 2025 Miss Heaton applied to the Registrar for a third licence. That application was refused by the letter of 2 July 2025, to which I have already referred. 9.4 Given the timing of the application for the third licence, the life of the second licence was extended by the Act , s129(6) to the date of disposal of this appeal (see above). 9.5 Miss Heaton booked part three tests for six dates between 5 September 2024 and 10 September 2025. Three appointments were cancelled and one was inconclusive as the test was not completed. Unfortunately, she failed the two (completed) tests on 28 November 2024 and 10 September 2025. 9.6 Miss Heaton is scheduled to take the part three test for the third time on 18 December this year. The appeal

10. In her notice of appeal dated 15 July 2025, Miss Heaton stated that she hoped that the appeal would result in her being granted a third trainee licence, but did not put forward any ground for challenging the Registrar’s decision of 2 July 2025. In her favour, however, I infer from the limited material in the slim bundle of documents that she is committed to her chosen career as a driving instructor and has invested much time, effort and expense in seeking to make a success of it.

11. The Respondent resisted the appeal in his Response of 18 November 2025, stressing the importance of not allowing trainee licences to serve as an alternative to the registration system and the fact that eligibility to take the part three test is not conditional upon possession of a trainee licence. Generally, it was contended that the decision which Miss Heaton seeks to challenge was solidly based and there was no good reason to disturb it. Discussion and conclusions

12. I am not persuaded that there is a good reason to allow this appeal. I agree with the remarks on the nature and purpose of the training licence system contained in the Respondent’s Response and on its website (see above). Those points argue convincingly against this appeal. As already explained, the effect of the appeal is that the second licence was automatically extended until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. In other words, Miss Heaton has secured the protection of ‘the badge’ for a consecutive period of over 18 months to date. That is much longer than the trainee licence scheme envisages and there is certainly no warrant for any further extension. These things said, I wish her well on the forthcoming test. Outcome

13. For the reasons stated, I dismiss the appeal. (Signed) Anthony Snelson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Date: 11 December 2025