Hayley Meakin v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Background to Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made 8 th July 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

2. The Appellant was a trainee driving instructor who was granted a trainee licence under s.129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/licences the Act ’) for a six-month period, then another, but was refused a further licence at the end of the relevant period.

3. The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had not passed the final part of the ADI qualifying examination within the relevant period and as insufficient evidence of loss of training time was supplied that the Appellant had had long enough to progress, and the application to issue a third trainee licence was therefore refused.

4. The Appellant appeals the Registrar’s decision. Appeal to the Tribunal

5. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 18 th July 2025, relied on grounds that she didn’t feel that her initial instructor was able to assist her properly. She indicated that her new instructor had clarified things considerably, and she was no confident of passing her third attempt at her Part 3. She asked for more time.

6. The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the decision letter sets out their position. The Registrar points out that the Applicant has failed to provide any proper indication of a lack of training opportunity, and as a result no further licence is appropriate.

7. Latterly, the Registrar points out that the Appellant failed her final test on 30 th October 2025 and therefore must restart the process if she is to become an ADI, pursuant to Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instructor) Regulations 2005.

8. The Appellant indicated that she was not attending the hearing listed on 16 th December as she understood that having failed her Part 3 again she had no prospects of success. Mode of Determination

9. The case was determined on the papers, after the Appellant failed her third Part 3 attempt and Case Management Directions were issued in November 2025. The Tribunal considered the papers and came to the conclusion that such a determination was fair and appropriate, and in accordance with the Tribunal Rules and the wider interests of justice.

10. The Tribunal considered a bundle of evidence. The Law

11. 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 s. 129 of the Act and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1902/pdfs/uksi_20051902_en.pdf

12. 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’.

13. 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’). 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.

14. If a candidate has passed part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. However, holding a trainee licence is not a prerequisite to qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor and many people qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.

15. 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.

16. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar of approved Driving Instructors 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. See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 . http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html . Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf . Conclusion

17. The Tribunal considered carefully all the papers before it.

18. In fixing a period of 6 month to allow for trainee instructors to progress Parliament must have had in mind that we are all subject to differing life events that affect our ability to undertake certain tasks. Sometimes those events are so unusual or have such a bearing on an individual that it will be entirely appropriate to find that a longer than normal period of time should be allowed to complete a task. Here the Appellant indicates there were issues with her instructor, but now has a new one. No other lack of training opportunity is stipulated. The Tribunal finds that there has been appropriate time to train, holding a licence for 12 months is well in excess of what is expected and the issue raised does not justify a further licence.

19. Having indicated the Appeal would have failed on the merits, it must fail because the Appellant has failed her Part 3 examination three times. Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instructor) Regulations 2005 makes it plain that trainee instructors have 3 attempt to pass their Part 3 examination and having failed in that regard the licence then issued ceases to have effect. Accordingly the appeal is struck out as having no merit.

20. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Registrar’s initial decision was correct, and the appeal would have failed on that basis. However, it must fail on the further 3 failure ground.

21. This appeal is struck out and dismissed. (Signed) HHJ David Dixon DATE: 16 th December 2025