Iain Exley v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed REASONS Background

1. This is an appeal brought by the Appellant, Mr Iain Exley, under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the Registrar’s decision dated 16 October 2025 refusing his application for the grant of a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Act .

2. The Appellant has never been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. He previously held two trainee licences, each valid for six months, covering a combined period of 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025. Each was intended to allow him to gain instructional experience ahead of attempting the Part 3 instructional ability test.

3. On 8 September 2025 he applied for a third licence. He was notified on 18 September 2025 that refusal was being considered, and he made written representations dated 22 September 2025. On 16 October 2025 the Registrar refused the application.

4. This appeal has been determined on the papers. I have considered the bundle in full, including the Registrar’s Statement, the representations, the test history, and all documents listed at pages 1–21 of the hearing bundle. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are evidenced. Chronology: a) 23/09/2024 – 22/09/2025: Appellant holds two trainee licences (D1). b) 06/12/2024: Part 3 test cancelled by candidate (Annex A). c) 06/03/2025: Part 3 test attempted – failed. d) 18/07/2025: Part 3 test attempted – failed. e) 08/09/2025: Application for third trainee licence submitted (D2). f) 18/09/2025: Registrar invites representations (D3). g) 22/09/2025: Appellant provides representations citing delays in obtaining test dates and lack of success in two attempts (D4). h) 16/10/2025: Registrar refuses application (D5). i) 19/03/2026: Appellant’s final statutory attempt at Part 3 booked (Annex A). Issues: The issues for determination are: a) Whether the Registrar’s decision to refuse a third trainee licence was reasonable, fair and proportionate in light of the statutory purpose of trainee licences under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . b) Whether the Appellant has demonstrated any material evidence or exceptional circumstances that could justify interference with the Registrar’s decision. Analysis:

5. Section 129 licences are granted to provide limited, time-bound experience while a candidate prepares for the Register examinations. The Registrar emphasises, correctly, that a trainee licence is not an alternative long-term route to teaching but a temporary mechanism to gain practical experience.

6. The Appellant has had the benefit of two consecutive trainee licences amounting to a full 12 months of on-road instructional experience. This constitutes the maximum intended period of supported practice envisaged by the Registrar’s policy. During this period, the Appellant: (a) cancelled one Part 3 test; (b) failed two Part 3 tests; and (c) provides no evidence of lost training time, lack of pupils, medical issues, or circumstances beyond his control which prevented adequate preparation or progression.

7. The Registrar was entitled to conclude that the Appellant has had ample time and opportunity to reach the required instructional standard. The Appellant’s representations do not identify any material factor that the Registrar failed to consider, nor do they demonstrate any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying further licenced teaching.

8. Importantly, the refusal does not prevent the Appellant from taking his final Part 3 attempt. A trainee licence is not required to sit the examination. The Registrar correctly notes that candidates may continue training through alternative, lawful means including private practice without payment or supervised training with an ADI.

9. The statutory purpose of a trainee licence is time-limited. Allowing repeated consecutive licences in the absence of compelling justification would risk undermining the integrity of the registration system. On the material before me, the Registrar’s reasoning is coherent, rational, and aligned with statutory purpose.

10. Having reviewed the evidence with care, I find nothing exceptional or extraordinary that would warrant departure from the Registrar’s decision. The decision was reasonable, fair and proportionate. Conclusion:

11. The appeal is dismissed and the Registrar’s decision dated 16 October 2025 is upheld. Judge Brian Kennedy KC. 12 March 2026.