Simon David Humphries v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction:

1. This is an appeal by Mr Simon David Humphries (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”), notified on 12 September 2025, refusing the Appellant’s application for a second trainee licence under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . Background:

2. The Appellant held a first trainee licence from 24 February 2025 to 23 August 2025. On 5 August 2025, he applied for a second trainee licence. On 15 August 2025, the Registrar wrote indicating that refusal was being considered and inviting representations; the Appellant responded on 22 August 2025, explaining difficulties with training attendance due to full-time employment and being abroad for one week. The Registrar refused the application on 12 September 2025.

3. The Registrar’s Statement (dated 26 November 2025) records that the Appellant has passed the driving ability test and failed the instructional ability test twice, with a final attempt not yet booked. The Registrar further records that the Appellant did not complete the ADI 21AT training objectives within the first three months of the initial trainee licence. Annex A – Test History is appended to the bundle. Legal Framework:

4. Statutory Provisions; Section 123(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid driving instruction unless the instructor’s name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or the instructor holds a current trainee licence under section 129(1). Section 129 Road Traffic Act 1988 provides for the issue of trainee licences to enable candidates to gain practical experience while preparing for the examinations leading to registration. The Registrar may refuse an application, with notice, and such decisions may be appealed to this Tribunal. The Registrar’s Statement sets out the intended purpose of trainee licences as a time-limited mechanism (up to six months) to gain experience and not an alternative to registration.

5. Procedural Framework; The Registrar’s Statement is provided in accordance with Rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, which governs the provision of case statements and evidence to the Tribunal. Issues:

6. The Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination: (1)Whether the Registrar lawfully and rationally exercised the discretion under s.129 to refuse a second trainee licence. (2) Whether the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the first trainee licence, in particular the ADI 21AT training objectives within the first three months. (3) Whether the decision to refuse a second trainee licence was fair and proportionate in all the circumstances, considering the Appellant’s progress and alternatives available to continue preparing for the instructional ability test (Part 3).

7. The Appellant contends that his failure to complete the required training objectives during the first licence period was due to difficulties attending sessions because of full-time employment and a period spent abroad on holiday. These reasons were set out in his representations dated 22 August 2025. However, no documentary evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims, such as proof of employment constraints or travel records. Furthermore. The Registrar noted that the holiday accounted for only one week and the Appellant does not explain the lack of progress within the initial three-month period. Accordingly, the Registrar submits the reasons advanced by the Appellant carry limited weight in justifying non-compliance with the licence conditions.

8. The Registrar contends the following in response to the Grounds of Appeal; i. 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; ii. 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. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a second licence before the expiry date of the first, 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; iii. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice. (Annex A) . Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and iv. the refusal of a second 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 Approved Driving Instructor 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.

9. Further the Registrar notes that the Appellant has not yet booked his final attempt at the instructional ability test . REASONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL DECISION Compliance with Licence Conditions:

10. The Registrar’s reasons include that the Appellant did not complete the ADI 21AT training objectives within the first three months of the initial trainee licence. The Appellant’s representations (22 August 2025) explain full-time employment and a one-week holiday as reasons for missed training. On the materials before the Tribunal, these explanations do not substantively account for non-completion over a three-month period, nor do they demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to meet the objectives within the timeframe. The Tribunal therefore finds that non-compliance with licence conditions is made out.

11. The Registrar emphasises that trainee licences exist to provide a limited opportunity (up to six months) to obtain practical instructional experience while striving to meet the qualifying standard for ADI registration; they are not an open-ended alternative to registration. The Tribunal accepts this as consistent with the stated statutory scheme and the materials in the bundle. It is accepted that granting a second licence where the first was not complied with would dilute that purpose and risk trainee licences becoming a substitute for qualification. Progress and Proportionality:

12. The Appellant has passed the driving ability test and has twice failed the instructional ability test, with the final attempt un-booked as at the date of the Registrar’s Statement. The Registrar points out, and the Tribunal accepts that refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from continuing preparation for the instructional ability test: he may attend training courses, practice under the supervision of an ADI, or practice without receiving payment, all of which remain available routes. In these circumstances, the prejudice to the Appellant from refusal is limited, and the decision is proportionate to the legitimate regulatory aims of ensuring standards and safeguarding pupils receiving paid instruction.

13. Procedural Fairness: The sequence—notice of contemplated refusal (15 August 2025), invitation to make representations, consideration of those representations, and communication of a reasoned decision (12 September 2025)—is consistent with procedural fairness obligations and with the Tribunal’s procedural framework. No procedural deficiency has been identified that would undermine the decision. Conclusion on Merits:

14. Taking these matters together, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s decision was lawful, fair, and proportionate. The grounds relied upon by the Registrar are reasonable and supported by the evidence currently before the Tribunal.

15. The appeal is dismissed on the basis of the evidence currently before the Tribunal. RIGHT OF APPEAL

16. A party to these proceedings may have a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law arising from this decision. Any application for permission to appeal must be made in writing and received by the Tribunal within 28 days of the date this decision is sent to the parties (or such other period as may be specified in the applicable procedural rules). The application should identify the alleged error of law and set out the grounds for appeal. (See the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 regarding time limits and procedure.) Brian Kennedy KC 19 January 2026.