Abel Vermeulan 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 29 July 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. 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 in this decision to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. Non-attendance

3. In his appeal form (10) the Appellant asked for the appeal to be decided with a hearing. On 29 September 2025 the Tribunal sent an email message to the parties (including the Appellant) notifying them:- "...that the hearing will take place remotely on 22 January 2026 at 12:00 using HMCTS Cloud Video Platform or CVP. If a party fails to attend the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in their absence. and providing the CVP joining instructions.

4. The Appellant did not appear at 12 noon on 22 January 2026. The clerk called the Appellant and left a message. I waited until 12.30 but there was still no attendance. I considered whether to proceed with or adjourn the appeal in light of the above, the overriding objective in rule 2 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and rule 36 2009 Rules which provides that:- "36. If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal— (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing."

5. I was satisfied from the email of 29 September 2025 that he knew of the date and time for his appeal and had the joining instructions. I also concluded it would be in the interests of justice to proceed and it would not be dealing with the appeal "justly and fairly " to adjourn because:- (a) no request to change the date had been made by the Appellant. (b) the parties were otherwise ready to proceed. (c) it would cause delay which was not needed to enable there to be a proper consideration of the issues.

6. Accordingly, after delaying the start of the appeal to 12.30 to give more time for the Appellant to join, I proceeded to deal with the appeal in the absence of the Appellant and the Registrar. Law

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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." A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not required to be able to take part 3.

10. 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 he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representations 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.

11. 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

12. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "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."

13. 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.

14. 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, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions (see 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). 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

15. For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 24 p df pages. Chronology

16. I find from the bundle that:- (a) the Appellant passed part 1 on 29 April 2024 and part 2 on 7 May 2024. (b) on 8 July 2024 the Appellant was given a Licence. (c) on 30 October 2024 the Appellant took part 3 for the first time but failed. (d) in January 2025 the Appellant was given a second Licence. (e) on 3 February 2025 the Appellant took part 3 for the second time but failed. (f) on 2 July 2025 the Appellant asked for a third Licence. (g) on 3 July 2025 the Registrar indicated he was considering refusing the third Licence about which on 15 July 2025 the Appellant made representations. (g) on 29 July 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse a third Licence.

17. This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 10 August 2025. Thereafter:- - (a) on 10 November 2025 a part 3 test was provided but was "non -completed. " (b) the Registrar filed a response on 2 December 2025. The Appellant's position

18. In his representations of 15 July 2025 and his grounds of appeal the Appellant referred for example to:- (a) the feedback he got after his second part 3 attempt and confidence in passing next time. (b) the difficulty his school had in providing him with a range of suitable pupils supported by a letter from the office manager at "driveJohnson's" (c) the need to wait for a test date in his chosen test centre. The Registrar's position:-

19. The Registrar said in summary in his response that:- (a) the Appellant has provided "5... no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils and has had the benefit of two trainee licences for twelve months." (b) a Licence is not to be used as an alternative to registration nor to give an applicant as "long as it takes" to pass part 3 while giving paid lessons. (c) the Appellant has already had 12 months with a Licence which is long enough to pass part 3. ( d ) he has failed part 3 twice and failed to attend for the test booked on 10 November 2025. (e) by section 129(6) the Appellant has been able to continue with his Licence pending the outcome of this appeal. (f) "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 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" Review

20. The statutory purpose for having a Licence is as set out in section 129(1) of the Act which does not include simply having one up until a successful or final attempt at part 3. A Licence is not needed to be permitted to take part 3 or to provide unpaid lessons.

21. The Appellant was first granted a Licence on 8 July 2024. Despite the third application being refused the Appellant has been able, since and despite the Decision, to continue as a paid driving instructor with the benefit of a Licence pending the outcome of this appeal by section 129(6) of the Act . The Appellant has therefore, as at the date of this appeal, had the benefit of a Licence for just over 18 months and had he been granted a third Licence it would have expired just prior to the appeal hearing.

22. Despite the Appellant's position on the issue of test dates, during the period of the first two Licences, he had two test dates and a third was provided in November 2025.

23. The Registrar's position that there was ... no evidence of lost training time or a lack of pupils" is contradicted by the evidence from " drivejohnson's" (21) dated 15 July 2025 (which I accept) that there had been difficulty in providing the Appellant with "a consistent and well-rounded mix of pupils at various stages of their learning."

24. I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's view. I accept that there was the difficulty as explained by drivejohnson' but because:- (a) of the length of time the Appellant has had with a Licence (b) of the other submissions made by the Registrar (c) if a third Licence had been granted it would have expired prior to the hearing of this appeal that difficulty, and the Appellants other submission, have not persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision, which I consider to have been proportionate, was wrong. Decision

25. For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 22 January 2026.