Martyn Giddens v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal was an appeal against a decision of the Respondent dated 17 July2025, to refuse the Appellant’s application for a third trainee driving instruction licence, having taken account of the Appellant’s written representations in letters received by the Respondent on 14 and 25 June 2025.

2. On 29 September 2025, the Respondent made application that this appeal be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the Rules’) as having no reasonable prospects of success, since the Appellant, on 27 September 2023, passed his Part 1 test and allegedly made no application to take his Part 3 to become a qualified Approved Driving Instructor, that was successfully passed by him and to have his name entered onto the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, within two years of that date. Accordingly, pursuant to Regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 (‘the Regulations’), the Appellant would no longer require a trainee licence to aid preparation to take a Part 3 test (that is the sole purpose of a trainee licence) as he was no longer eligible to apply to take a Part 3 test. This application was copied, on the same day, to the Appellant.

3. In Case Management Directions dated 10 October 2025, issued by the Tribunal, the Appellant was advised that the Tribunal was considering striking out his appeal based on the Respondent’s said application and invited him to make representations by 24 October 2025 as to why his appeal should not be struck out or to confirm that he wished to withdraw his appeal.

4. The Appellant made written representations dated 22 October 2025 opposing the application, asserting that he had been hindered from taking a successful Part 3 test by excessive waiting times for that test; systematic administrative failures and an increasingly broken and exploitative trainee system, all resulting in an assertion that it would be unjust to penalise him in those circumstances. He also submitted that the circumstances that had arisen had placed him under significant financial strain; that his training franchise, that was of poor quality, had not provided a single new lead or pupil in five months. He submitted that issues of fairness, proportionality and administrative justice arose; that there was a requirement on the Tribunal to deal with cases justly and fairly and that, again, there were structural failings in the system.

5. Many of the matters raised by the Appellant were not matters that could be taken into account by the Tribunal but required to be addressed, possibly, if at all, in another judicial forum. Further, the Appellant is correct that the Tribunal must deal justly and fairly in determining matters that come before it, including being proportionate in making its decisions. This has been done in this case, within the confines of the applicable law within the remit of the Tribunal.

6. However, based on the representations of the Respondent and the terms of the law, I grant the Respondent’s application in all the circumstances without further direction and strike out this appeal, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules. The Appellant has, unfortunately, somewhat misinterpreted and misconceived the requirements of the law and the particular remit and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Signed Judge McMahon Date: 7 November 2025