Gurmukh Singh v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 28 August 2026 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. 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 5 August 2024 and 4 August 2025. The Appellant applied for a third trainee licence on 20 July 2025. This application was refused by the Registrar on 28 August 2025. The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

3. 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

4. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 2 September 2025 asserts that the Registrar did not adequately take into account the “exceptional” circumstances which prevented the Appellant from completing three attempts at the Part 3 test of instructional ability. These were namely that (a) the Appellant’s first test was cancelled by the DVSA due to adverse weather conditions and (b) he had faced significant delays in securing new test dates due to limited availability. Accordingly the Appellant says that he was denied a chance to take a third test on the same basis as other candidates who did not face such disruption. In addition, the Appellant says he should have given more thought to his own employment and family circumstances before beginning the ADI qualification process.

5. 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 twice and cancelled a further test booked for 8 October 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

6. 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.

7. 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 ”.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. I have considered a bundle of evidence containing 23 numbered pages.

12. 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 20 December 2023 and passed his Part 2 test on 22 May 2024. The DSA cancelled the Appellant’s first Part 3 test due on 6 January 2025. He subsequently failed two attempts at the Part 3 test on 31 March 2025 and 9 July 2025. He cancelled a Part 3 test scheduled for 8 October 2025, and was due to have his third attempt at the Part 3 test on 8 December 2025.

13. During the hearing, the Appellant provided further oral evidence to the Tribunal. In particular the Appellant explained that: a. his third attempt at the Part 3 test in December 2025 had been cancelled shortly before by the DSA due a lack of available instructors. It had now been rescheduled until 3 March 2026; b. he had experienced long waits to take his Part 3 test; c. he had to cancel his Part 3 test in October 2025 due to his “travel plans”, but he was unable to elaborate on those reasons when he was asked, although he thought it was something “very urgent”; and d. he had paid significant expenses to his driving instructor franchise and that he needed to work to pay for his expenses to afford these fees and to support his family. He could not afford to give instruction for which he was not paid. Discussion and Conclusion

14. 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.

15. This matter is finely balanced. In the Appellant’s favour, there are the exceptional and highly unusual circumstances that the Appellant has had two Part 3 tests cancelled through no fault of his own. While the second one post-dates the Registrar’s decision, the fact of the first cancellation was not taken into account by the Registrar when he reached his decision. Equally, the Registrar failed to give adequate regard to the Appellant’s family circumstances which explained, in part, why he had not been able to gain the necessary skills and experience to pass his Part 3 test earlier. These are relevant factors which should have been taken into account by the Registrar.

16. Set against is the fact that I do not accept on the facts before me (cancellation of the first Part 3 test aside) that the Appellant has had to wait unduly long for his Part 3 tests. Indeed, the second Part 3 test followed just over 3 months after the first. A further Part 3 test was scheduled for 8 October 2025 but the Appellant chose to cancel it. I was not satisfied that the Appellant gave an adequate explanation for this cancellation. There may well be cases where exceptional extenuating circumstances justify a candidate cancelling the test themselves (see for example Gebreslasie v RADI [2026] UKFTT 00139 (GRC)). I did not consider the evidence in this case allowed me to draw a similar conclusion. If a trainee instructor chooses to cancel a Part 3 test without good reason, they cannot expect that they will receive the benefit of a further extended trainee driving licence. However, I am conscious that this cancellation by the Appellant post-dates the Registrar’s decision. This issue therefore should, in my view, be addressed in considering what order, if any I should make, should I consider that the Registrar’s decision was wrong.

17. On balance, I am persuaded that the Registrar’s decision was wrong because he failed to take into account the cancellation of the first attempt at the Part 3 test and failed to give adequate regard to the Appellant’s personal circumstances in reaching his decision.

18. 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.

19. 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. I also take into account the points which the Registrar has cited about the purpose of a trainee driving licence.

20. The fact that the Appellant cancelled his October 2025 Part 3 test without good reason would ordinarily mean that I would not have been minded to grant any further extension. However, while very finely balanced, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a further short extension of the Appellant’s trainee licence. This is because of the unusual fact that the Appellant has had a second Part 3 test cancelled by the DSA in December 2025. Taking into account alongside his personal and family circumstances, I do not feel it would be fair and just in all the circumstances for the Appellant to be penalised for that cancellation, even allowing for his own cancellation of the October 2025 test. There is now a short period until his Part 3 test will take place on 3 March 2026. I consider a short further extension until that date is appropriate to allow the Appellant to acquire sufficient experience to pass that final test.

21. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and direct that the Appellant’s trainee licence is extended until 3 March 2026.