Eric John v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Tribunal dismisses the appeal. The Registrar’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second trainee driving instructor licence was lawful, proportionate and within the scope of the statutory discretion. REASONS

1. Background

1. The Appellant has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He was granted a first trainee licence from 14 April 2025 to 13 October 2025.

2. On 1 October 2025, he applied for a second trainee licence.

3. The Registrar indicated concerns about potential refusal and invited representations (3 October 2025).

4. The Appellant responded citing family health issues and personal hardship affecting his training time.

5. On 7 November 2025, the Registrar refused the application, principally due to non-compliance with training record requirements and concerns that the licence had been used contrary to the conditions.

2. Chronology Date Event 14 Apr 2025 First trainee licence begins (D1) 1 Oct 2025 Application for second trainee licence (D2) 3 Oct 2025 Registrar invites representations (D3) 6 Oct 2025 Appellant submits representations (D4) 7 Nov 2025 Registrar refuses second licence (D6) 2025–2026 Appeal lodged; test history provided (Annex A)

3. The Law The Tribunal considered Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988, including: • s.123(1) – prohibition on paid instruction except by registered ADIs or licensed trainees • s.129(1) – Registrar’s discretion to issue traineeship licences • Purpose of the trainee licence: ◦ To provide limited experience (up to 6 months) while preparing for examinations ◦ Not to act as an ongoing alternative to full qualification The Tribunal also considered Rule 23 of the GRC Procedure Rules 2009.

4. Issues for the Tribunal to Determine

1. Did the Appellant comply with the conditions of his first trainee licence?

2. Was the Registrar entitled to refuse the application based on non-compliance and insufficient progress?

3. Do the Appellant’s personal circumstances require the Registrar to exercise discretion differently?

4. Was the decision lawful, rational and proportionate?

5. Analysis and Findings Issue 1 – Compliance with licence conditions The Appellant ticked the supervisory option on his application and was required to produce ADI 21S forms. Instead, he submitted ADI 21AT, which is used for a different mode of training. This constitutes non-compliance. The Tribunal accepts the Registrar’s assessment that the records suggest active tuition was given, contrary to the Appellant’s contention that little training occurred. Issue 2 – Registrar’s entitlement to refuse The Registrar must ensure the limited trainee licence route is not used indefinitely or as an alternative to qualification. The Appellant has: • Failed the instructional ability test once • Not shown satisfactory progress • Not complied with conditions The Registrar therefore acted within statutory discretion. Issue 3 – Personal circumstances The Tribunal accepts the Appellant was affected by serious family matters. However, the statutory test concerns compliance and progress toward qualification, not personal hardship. The Registrar also noted the Appellant may continue training without a second licence. Issue 4 – Proportionality and rationality The refusal did not prevent the Appellant from continuing training or attempting tests. The decision was supported by evidence and clearly reasoned. The Tribunal finds it neither irrational nor disproportionate.

6. Conclusion The Registrar’s decision was lawful and properly reasoned. The Appellant did not meet the conditions for a second trainee licence and has not shown grounds for the Tribunal to interfere. DECISION The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision is upheld. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 11 February 2026.