[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Ridgewell v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 363 (GRC) (27 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/363.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 363 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport

		Decided without a hearing
		Decision Given On: 27 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed.

The Decision of the Respondent dated 22 October 2024 is confirmed.

REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against the decision made by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Registrar) on 22 October 2024 to refuse her application for a second trainee licence. The appeal was listed for determination on the papers only, with the agreement of the parties.
2. The appellant had been granted a previous trainee licence. It was valid from 18 March 2024 to 17 September 2024 (as its validity was extended as she made her application before expiry of her existing trainee licence until determination of this appeal). The appellant applied for a second licence on 14 August 2024.
3. On 24 September 2024 the respondent notified the appellant that consideration was being given to refusing her application. She was invited to make representations but did not do so.
4. The respondent gave the following reasons for the decision made on 22 October 2024:

a. The appellant had the benefit of a trainee licence for a period of 6 months, which is considered sufficient.

b. It is not necessary to hold a trainee licence in order to sit the part 3 examination.

5. The appellant lodged a notice of appeal dated 2 November 2024. In her notice of appeal, the appellant does not explain why she considers that the respondent's decision is wrong. She states that she had had a test booked for 27 June 2024, but that her partner tried to take his own life on 11 June and spent a few weeks in hospital as a result. She states that the impact of this on her meant that she was not in the right frame of mind to take the test. She subsequently failed a Part 3 test on 15 October 2024.
6. The respondent in its response dated 9 January 2025 reiterated the above reasons for refusal. In addition, it noted that the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of her first licence because the training objectives on her ADI 21AT form were not completed within the first three months of the licence period. It noted that by applying for a second trainee licence before expiry of the first, her existing trainee licence continues in force until determination of the appeal. It stated that the purpose of the provisions governing the issue of 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 and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration The respondent noted that since passing her driving ability test the appellant had failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled two more such tests booked for 15 April 2024 and 27 June 2024.
7. The appellant emailed the Tribunal on 24 March 2025 to bring to its attention the fact that she had been booked to sit the instructional ability test on 18 February 2025 but that the DVSA had cancelled this and rebooked for 8 May 2025. We took this into account, but it did not change the Tribunal's decision because it did not affect the appellant's failure to comply with the terms of her first trainee licence.
8. The circumstances in which a person may be granted a trainee licence are set out in Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
9. The appellant's right of appeal and the powers of the Tribunal to determine this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act. The Tribunal will make a fresh decision on the evidence before it and may make such order as it thinks fit.
10. It is for the appellant to show on balance of probabilities that the respondent's decision was wrong.
11. The essence of the respondent's decision is that the appellant has been provided, under her previous licence, with more than adequate time to sit the required tests to become an ADI. The appellant has already had a trainee licence and because the application for her second licence was made before the expiry of her first licence, she has had the benefit of a continuing licence while his appeal has been pending. The appellant can continue to provide instruction, so long as it is without payment, if she considers that she needs further experience before sitting the test.
12. In relation to the other points raised by the appellant, the Tribunal acknowledges and empathises with the traumatic events surrounding the applicant's partner in June 2024 and the impact this had on her. However, this does not change the fact that the appellant failed to comply with the terms of her first trainee licence and therefore was not sufficient to persuade the Tribunal that the respondent's decision was wrong.
13. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has taken into account all the evidence submitted to it in advance of the hearing and considered all the circumstances relevant to this appeal.
14. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has not persuaded it that the Registrar's decision was wrong in any way and accordingly dismisses the appeal.

Signed Judge Harris

Date: 27 March 2025