Chloe Louise Walton v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

BACKGROUND:

1. This appeal concerns the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, dated 11 November 2025, refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . The Tribunal has considered the full hearing bundle, including the Registrar’s Statement, the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, and the supporting documents. The Appellant has never been registered as an Approved Driving Instructor.

2. The Appellant previously held two trainee licences, valid from 28 October 2024 to 27 October 2025 (Bundle, p.16). A third application was submitted on 14 October 2025. The Registrar invited representations, which were made on 15 October 2025, in which the Appellant asserted inadequate training from her first sponsor and the impact of medical conditions on her progress. The Registrar refused the application, noting a lack of supporting evidence and that the Appellant had already benefitted from two licences (Bundle, pp.14–16). CHRONOLOGY: • 28 October 2024 – Appellant issued with first trainee licences (Bundle, p.16). • 24 January 2025 – First instructional ability test cancelled (Annex A, p.32). • 02 April 2025 – Second test cancelled. • 09 April 2025 – Third test cancelled. • 29 April 2025 – Fourth test cancelled. • 07 May 2025 – Fifth test cancelled. • 29 July 2025 – Sixth test cancelled. • 03 October 2025 – Seventh test cancelled. • Appellant failed two attempts at the instructional ability test during this period (Registrar’s Statement, p.15). • 14 October 2025 – Application for third trainee licence submitted (Bundle, p.17). • 15 October 2025 – Appellant makes written representations (Bundle, pp.19–30). • 11 November 2025 – Registrar refuses third trainee licence (Bundle, p.31). • 27 January 2026 – Registrar issues Statement including note of ‘final attempt’ booked for 30 March 2026 (Bundle, p.16). THE ISSUES: 3 . The Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination: (1) Whether the Registrar erred in refusing to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence; (2) Whether the refusal was disproportionate, irrational or otherwise unlawful; and (3) Whether, in all the circumstances, the Appellant provided sufficient evidence that a further licence was necessary to achieve the statutory purpose of enabling preparation for the instructional ability test. RELEVANT LAW:

4. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits a person from giving paid driving instruction unless either registered or holding a trainee licence (Registrar’s Statement, p.14).

5. Section 129 permits the Registrar to issue a trainee licence for the purpose of allowing a candidate to obtain practical experience before attempting the instructional ability test. The statutory scheme is clear that trainee licences are time ‑ limited and exist solely to support preparation for the qualifying examination; they are not intended to allow prolonged commercial instruction (Registrar’s Statement, p.15). REASONS

6. The Tribunal has sympathy with the Appellant’s personal and medical circumstances. However, the burden rests on the Appellant to demonstrate that the Registrar’s decision was wrong or disproportionate. Despite assertions regarding inadequate initial training and health conditions, the Appellant provided no material documentary evidence to support these claims.

7. The Registrar placed weight on the Appellant’s test history, including seven cancellations and two failed attempts at the instructional ability test (Annex A, p.32). The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar was entitled to regard this history as evidence that the Appellant had already been provided ample opportunity to reach the qualifying standard.

8. The Tribunal also accepts the Registrar’s reasoning that a trainee licence is not required to attempt or prepare for the instructional ability test. Candidates may train with an Approved Driving Instructor, undertake structured training, or practise without payment.

9. The Registrar’s remark that the appeal would be “bound to fail” if the final test attempt proceeds on 30 March 2026 is recorded as a legal submission rather than a finding of fact (Bundle, p.16). The Tribunal affords it no determinative weight. 10. However, having reviewed all the evidence, the Tribunal finds no basis to overturn the Registrar’s conclusion that the statutory purpose of granting trainee licences had been fulfilled and that issuing a third licence would fall outside that purpose. CONCLUSION: 11. For all the above reasons the Tribunal dismisses the appeal. Signed, Brian Kennedy Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy KC