Lewis Hutchinson v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA)

Introduction

1. This is an appeal under Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors dated 16 April 2025 refusing the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence under Section 129 of the Act . Background

2. The Appellant held two previous trainee licences between 25 March 2024 and 24 March 2025.

3. On 13 March 2025, the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. The Registrar refused the application, stating that the Appellant had already had sufficient opportunity to gain experience and that the licensing system should not become an alternative to registration.

4. The Appellant contends that he requires further training and practical experience to pass the instructional ability test. Issues

5. The Tribunal must determine: (i) Whether the Registrar acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the third trainee licence under Section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 . (ii) Whether the refusal was proportionate given the Appellant’s circumstances and progress towards qualification. Relevant Law

6. Section 123(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits giving paid instruction unless registered or licensed.

7. Section 129(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 empowers the Registrar to issue a trainee licence for up to six months to enable practical experience.

8. Decisions of public authorities must not be irrational or unreasonable ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 ).

9. Proportionality is a relevant principle in regulatory contexts ( R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 ).

10. Discretion must be exercised to promote the statutory purpose ( Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 ). Submissions Appellant’s Case

11. The Appellant argues that: a) He has completed required training but needs further practical experience to meet the qualifying standard ( R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khan [1985] 1 All ER 40 ). b) Cancellation of one test was due to personal circumstances; refusal is disproportionate ( R (Daly) [2001] UKHL 26 ). c) Other trainees have allegedly been granted extended opportunities; consistency is required ( R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Nadarajah [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 ). Registrar’s Case

12. The Registrar contends that: a) Two licences already granted (12 months total); the scheme is intended for short-term experience, not indefinite teaching ( Section 129 ; R (G) v Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 ). b) The Appellant failed one test and cancelled another; no evidence of exceptional circumstances ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses [1948]). c) Alternatives exist for preparation without a licence (unpaid practice or courses) ( Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 ). d) Unlimited extensions would defeat legislative intent ( Padfield [1968] AC 997 ). e) The Respondents detailed reasons given for refusing the application for a second licence were: “i. 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; ii. 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 second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; iii. since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability est once . (Annex A) . Despite ample time and opportunity, the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and iv. the refusal of a second licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. 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 further training. The Appellant could attend a training course, or study and practice with an Approved Driving Instructor or give tuition on his own (provided that he 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.”

13. . It should also be noted that at the material time the Appellant had not booked his second attempt at the instructional ability test. Tribunal’s Analysis

14. The statutory scheme envisages limited trainee periods; repeated extensions risk defeating legislative intent ( Padfield ).

15. The Appellant has had ample opportunity (12 months) and has not demonstrated compelling reasons for further extension.

16. While personal circumstances may justify some flexibility, evidence of exceptional hardship or systemic failure is required ( Daly ).

17. Alternatives exist for preparation without a licence ( Bank Mellat ).

18. On balance, the Registrar’s decision appears within discretion and proportionate ( Wednesbury ). Decision

18. The appeal is dismissed. The refusal of a third trainee licence is consistent with statutory purpose and proportionate given the Appellant’s history and available alternatives.

19. The decision of the Registrar dated 16 April 2025 is upheld. Brian Kennedy KC. 28 November 2025.