Anna Zaborowska v Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (‘the Registrar’) made on 24 June 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The Registrar did not attend. The Registrar had provided a detailed written response to the appeal and I was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Registrar. Legal framework

3. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.

4. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

5. 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.’

6. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’).

7. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.

8. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

9. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Act . The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.

10. When making its Decision, 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. Factual background to the appeal

11. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 7 November 2023 and passed Part 2 on 21 March 2024. The Appellant applied for two trainee licences which were granted and were valid from 3 June 2024 to 2 June 2025.

12. On 19 May 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, this means that, at the date of the hearing, the appellant had been the beneficiary of a trainee licence for 1 year and 6 months.

13. The Appellant took and failed her first attempt at the Part 3 exam on 18 September 2024 and failed the second attempt on 10 January 2025. The DVSA cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 17 July 2025. The Appellant cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 25 July 2025.

14. The DVSA cancelled a Part 3 exam booked for 24 October 2025, as the Appellant was on her way to the test centre. That attempt would have taken place before this hearing. The Appellant’s final attempt has now been rebooked for 19 January 2026. If the Appellant fails this attempt she will have to start the entire process again. Appeal to the Tribunal

15. The grounds of appeal are, in summary: 15.1. The Appellant says that she received poor training initially and is now trying to rectify this. The licence is vital to enable her to practice her newly acquired skills. 15.2. The Appellant will be unable to take the test without her trainee licence because she will lose her AA franchise car and her pupils from the AA. 15.3. The Appellant has had tooth canal treatment and an infection that was extremely painful. This took a lot of energy and caused mild depression. 15.4. The Appellant is a single parent in her early 50s who does not learn as well as she did in her 20s. She is menopausal and suffers from brain fog.

16. The Registrar, in his response, states: 16.1. 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. 16.2. The licence granted to applicants is not to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the examinations, but to allow up to six months experience of instruction. This provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the examination and in particular, to obtain any necessary practical experience in tuition. Moreover, by virtue of the Appellant having applied for a third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal. 16.3. Since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test twice and cancelled one test. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor. 16.4. The refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her to give professional tuition under licence in order to obtain further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on her own (provided that she does not receive payment of any kind for this). These alternatives are used by some trainees who acquire registration without obtaining any licences at all. Evidence and findings of fact

17. I read and took account of a bundle of documents.

18. I heard evidence from the Appellant and I make the following findings.

19. The Appellant had real difficulties with her first instructor who had not prepared her adequately for the part 3 test. She has since changed instructor and carried out further training. She now understands where she was going wrong and can also see the shortfalls in the training she initially received.

20. The Appellant was fully prepared for the Part 3 test in October. She had been confident of passing. The test was cancelled by the DVSA at the very last minute while she was driving to the test centre.

21. The Appellant is undertaking her training with and is an instructor for AA. She makes very little money from her instruction and the purpose of her current instruction with AA is to prepare herself for the third test, rather than as a source of income.

22. The AA provide the Appellant with a car, that she intended to use for the Part 3 test in October. The Appellant’s own car is not suitable for using in the Part 3 test because it is very old. The Appellant has limited funds. She is a single parent and on Universal Credit.

23. The Appellant also has a pupil with AA who had agreed to take part in her Part 3 test. That pupil has been taught in the AA car and is not used to driving a different car. The pupil has agreed to take part in the Part 3 test on 19 January, but it would be very difficult at this short notice, particularly given the Christmas period, to get the pupil used to driving another car.

24. The Appellant has suffered with dental issues, which have caused some distraction, but it is the initial difficulties with her trainer which have really caused her problems with passing the Part 3 test. Discussion and conclusions

25. I acknowledge that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months in total. Further I note that the Appellant has had the benefit of a further period of 6 months up to today. Ordinarily this should have given the Appellant adequate time to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act .

26. However there are two significant and exceptional matters in this case that have persuaded me that it is appropriate to grant a further extension to the licence.

27. First, the Appellant’s initial instructor fell short. This meant that a period of time that would otherwise have been used for practice was wasted, and the Appellant then had to work on correcting the matters that had been wrongly taught. The Appellant has clearly gone to significant effort to remedy that shortfall.

28. Second, the Appellant was ready and prepared to take her Part 3 test in October. She had arranged a pupil and had the use of her AA car and was on the way to the test centre. She felt confident of passing. Through no fault of her own that test was cancelled as she was on the way to the test centre and re-arranged for January. The Appellant’s case is therefore that the amount of time that she has had so far would have been sufficient to prepare her, if the DVSA had not cancelled the test in October.

29. I acknowledge that the cancellation of the October test has caused the Appellant real difficulties, because of her inability, realistically, to obtain a suitable alternative vehicle and pupil in time for that test, particularly because of the short period between this hearing and the test, taking into account the festive period.

30. I acknowledge that the trainee licence should not be used as an alternative to registration, but it is clear that the Appellant has spent the entire period working towards taking her test. She is now ready to take her Part 3 test, and would already have done so had it not been cancelled by the DVSA.

31. Having weighed all matters in the balance, the Appellant has persuaded me that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. The appeal is allowed. Signed Sophie Buckley Date: 2 December 2025 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal