Haben Tadese Gebreslasie v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

2. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 11 August 2026 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

3. The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor who has previously been granted two trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). These licences ran between 6 July 2025 and 5 July 2025. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 2 July 2025. This application was refused by the Registrar on 11 August 2025. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

4. The hearing was held by CVP. I was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to hold the hearing in this manner. The Appellant attended the hearing and made submissions on his own behalf. The Registrar did not attend as is now his usual practice, but I considered that it was appropriate and justified to continue with the hearing in the absence of the Registrar having regard to r.36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). The Appeal

5. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 24 August 2025 relies on the following grounds: a. He had not had sufficient opportunity to take his test of instructional ability – the “Part 3 test” due to the lack of availability of such tests. This was beyond his control and it was unreasonable to penalise him for this. b. The purpose of the trainee licence was to gain real world experience and denying him a further licences prohibits the Appellant from gaining necessary practice to pass his Part 3 test. c. The Registrar had applied a blanket prohibition on a third trainee licence, rather than considering the Appellant’s personal circumstances. This approach was disproportionate and unfair.

6. The Registrar has filed a Statement of Case dated 2 December 2025 in which he resists the appeal. The Registrar says that: a. The purpose of the provisions governing the issue of trainee 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 an alternative to the system of registration. b. The purpose of a trainee licence is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the exams but to allow a confined period of experience of instruction. Six months is ordinarily a very reasonable period in which to reach the necessary standard and in particular to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. The Appellant has already had two trainee licences, and by virtue of his appeal in respect of his latest application, his second licence has remained in force, which allows him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. c. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test. 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 training. d. Since passing his driving ability test, the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled a further test booked for 14 August 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the require standard for qualifying as an Approved Driving Instructor. The law

7. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. The circumstances in which trainee licences may be granted are set out in section 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

8. A licence under section 129(1) of the Act 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… as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct ”.

9. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This is made up of: the written examination (Part 1); the driving ability and fitness test (Part 2); and the instructional ability and fitness test (Part 3). Three attempts are permitted at each part. The Part 3 test must be booked within two years of passing Part 1, otherwise the whole examination has to be retaken.

10. A candidate may be granted a trainee licence if they have passed Part 2. However, holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence.

11. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit ( section 131(3) ). 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 as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. The evidence

12. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 25 numbered pages.

13. I have carefully considered all of the evidence in the hearing bundle. That evidence also includes a printout from the Appellant’s records from the Registrar. This shows that the Appellant passed his theory Part 1 test on 29 April 2024 and passed his Part 2 test on 24 May 2024. He failed a Part 3 test on 28 January 2025. The Appellant was scheduled to have a further Part 3 test on 14 August 2025, but he cancelled this test.

14. During the hearing, the Appellant provided further oral evidence to the Tribunal. In particular the Appellant explained the particular importance to him of being an ADI. He further explained that he had experienced a substantial backlog in procuring a test. The Appellant also told the Tribunal that due to extenuating family circumstances, he had had to cancel the test scheduled for 14 August 2025 to fly to Eritrea. The Appellant explained he had a further test booked for 13 April 2026. Discussion and Conclusion

15. I have given careful consideration to all of the evidence in this case. The Tribunal considered the Appellant to be an honest witness and accepts the evidence he gave orally and in writing.

16. I am satisfied that the decision of the Registrar to refuse a third trainee licence was wrong in these circumstances. This is for three main reasons: a. First, because the Registrar failed to give any, let alone adequate weight, to the shortage of tests which has plainly delayed the Appellant’s ability to take and pass his test of instructional ability. The Registrar did not dispute that there was such a backlog, and indeed this is a point which is regularly raised in this Tribunal. The Registrar should have taken this evidence into account in reaching his decision to refuse the Appellant’s application. The Registrar’s assertion that “the Appellant has not been able to reach the require standard for qualification as an approved driving instructor” is flawed – the Registrar does not know this, because the Appellant has not had a further test to see whether he has or has not meet the required standard. b. Second, because insofar as the Appellant purports to take account the cancellation of the Appellant’s test in August 2025, he was wrong to do so. I am satisfied that it was entirely appropriate and justified for the Appellant to his cancel the test scheduled for August 2025 due to extenuating family circumstances. The Tribunal was satisfied that the explanation given for the cancellation of the August 2025 was sincere, justified and appropriate in the particular circumstances. It would be wrong and unfair for the Appellant to be penalised in this matter. c. Third, I am satisfied that gaining sufficient experience to become an ADI is a priority for the Appellant and that he is keen to devote sufficient time to acquire the necessary skills to pass the Part 3 test. This is not a case where the Appellant has been unduly dilatory. The fact that he failed the test once is not a good reason for not providing him with a licence which will give him paid opportunities to gain the necessary experience.

17. Accordingly, I would allow the appeal. The question then falls as to what order, if any, I should make in respect of the Appellant’s trainee licence and whether I should grant any further extension. S.131(3) of the Act provides a broad discretion to the Tribunal to make an order as it “sees fit” . Such a decision must necessarily be made on a case by case basis, taking into account the evidence available in this case. While it is a broad discretion, it must be subject to the usual limits of rationality and be in accordance with the law. For example, I do not consider that a trainee licence could be issued where it was no longer possible to be permanently registered.

18. I am conscious that by virtue of this “in-time” appeal, the Appellant has in practice already had the benefit of his licence being extended in practice until the determination of the Appeal. That is a period of over 6 months since the second licence was due to expire. In effect, the Appellant has already had the benefit which he had sought. However, the Appellant explained that the delay in tests is such that his further test of instructional ability is due to take place on 13 April 2026. This is a few weeks before the two year anniversary of the Claimant having passed his Part 1 test on 29 April 2026. In the circumstances, I consider that the fair and appropriate direction is for the licence to be extended until 13 April 2026 to allow the Appellant to acquire sufficient experience to pass that test.

19. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is extended until 13 April 2026.