Philip James Smith v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Mode of Hearing

1. This appeal was listed for remote oral hearing by CVP on 16 March 2026. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and made oral submissions. No representative appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal decided to proceed and determine this appeal in the absence of a representative for the Respondent. In doing so, the Tribunal was satisfied that this complied with the overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Tribunal) Rules 2009, as amended (‘the Rules’), and with Rule 36, in that the Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Decision under Appeal

2. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 5 September 2025 to refuse his application for a third trainee driving instructor licence made on 17 August 2025, pursuant to s.129(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’) on the stated grounds that the Appellant had not provided evidence of lost training time; that he had already been grated 2 trainee licences (12 months in total) (2 September 2024 to 1 September 2025) considered to be more than an adequate period of time to gain sufficient experience to pass his Part 3 test – the sole purpose of a trainee licence (plus more than 6 further months permitted until determination of this appeal); that it was not intention of Parliament that a trainee licence be issued for however long it took an applicant to pass his Part 3 test; that the trainee licence system must not be allowed to become an alternative to registration as a fully-qualified Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’); that it is not necessary to hold a trainee licence to undertake a Part 3 test and that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence does not prevent him undertaking a Part 3 test. Notice of Appeal

3. The Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal dated 11 September 2025 against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, (incorporating his representations to the Respondent in advance of the Respondent making the decision under appeal): - that he had been unable to take a second attempt at his Part 3 test and required a third trainee licence as he had been unableto meet with his validator and obtain the required training and have questions answered to ensure he was training pupils correctly; - that due to the number of pupils his franchise was ‘pushing’ on him, and with lessons lasting two hours, he had very little available time; - that his health condition (suffering from Multiple Sclerosis (‘MS’)), created difficulties meeting with his validator and that it would have taken a long time to travel to meet her in Bristol; - that no manoeuvre training had been provided to him; - that his validator took ill too; - that he had no other source of income; - that he wanted a third trainee licence to carry on training and earn while learning, as he had financial expenses, including insurance and validation lessons and wanted to continue training to pass his Part 3 test to further his career; - that he had now changed his sponsor with whom he was confident and happy. Response of Respondent

4. The Respondent, in his written Response, dated 22 January 2026, reiterated the reasons contained in the decision under appeal, not least that the Appellant had the benefit of two trainee licences from 2 September 2024 to1 September 2025 (plus an additional period of more than 6 months pending the outcome of this appeal); that the Appellant had made application for a third trainee licence on 17 August 2025 and had produced no evidence of lost training time nor a lack of pupils. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant could obtain further training, if necessary, to prepare for his third and final attempt at a Part 3 test (he having failed his Part 3 test attempts on two previous occasions, namely, on 10 June 2025 and 2 September 2025) and cancelled a Part 3 test appointment on two occasions, namely, 20 August and 2 September 2025), by attending a training course or studying and practising under an ADI or providing unpaid driving tuition to pupils, all of which had been availed of over time by ADI candidates in preparation for taking a Part 3 test; that the Appellant’s third, and final, attempt at his Part 3 test was booked for 16 February 2026 (subsequently put on hold due to a flare-up in the Appellant’s MS condition). Significantly, the said Response simply did not adequately address the implications, if any, of the assertions made by the Appellant that limited his ability to make most use of his existing trainee licence, in respect of which he had sent written evidence to the Respondent, nor the impact of his MS condition. Tribunal Hearing: 5 February 2026

5. A previous Tribunal adjourned the hearing of this appeal as the Appellant was experiencing technical difficulties and was unaware his appeal hearing was listed for that date due to a mistake caused by a flare-up in his MS symptoms. Appellant’s Oral Evidence

6. In his oral evidence, the Appellant advised that his third, and final attempt to pass his Part 3 test was now scheduled to take place on 13 May 2026; that the scheduled date of 16 February 2026 had been put on hold due to a flare-up in his MS symptoms, namely, being unfit following his 6 monthly drug infusion therapy and that his health issues affected his thinking ability. He strongly disputed the validity of his having failing his second attempt to pass his Part 3 test on 18 November 2025. He stated that he needed a third trainee licence as he could not work for free and had separated from his partner, following which he had, he stated, attempted suicide. He stated he had no other income and no state benefits and was considering filing for bankruptcy. He confirmed he was a builder by trade but could no longer carry out that trade due to his MS condition. The Appellant reiterated that he had lost training time and had sent supporting evidence in that regard to the Respondent. In respect of the reference in his appeal document to his former franchise ‘bombarding’ him with pupils, he explained that he was not given enough time to teach his pupils and the franchise was unable to give him the help he requested. He stated that he had cancelled a Part 3 test twice due to being unwell as a result of his MS condition. He advised that his new franchise had resulted in a significant difference in the quality of training made available to him and that he was confident that he would pass his third and final attempt at his Part 3 test since he now fully knew what he was doing and that he adored teaching his young adult pupils. Decision of Tribunal

7. This appeal concerned a decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant’s application for a second ADI trainee licence. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in s.131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘ the Act ’). In determining the appeal, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, standing in the shoes of the Respondent, considering the decision afresh on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s reasons. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.

8. An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds is an appeal by way of re-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

9. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence and submissions that I received, written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

11. The decision of the Respondent, made on 5 September 2025 is set aside. The Appellant is granted a third licence with effect from the date of promulgation of this Decision.

12. The Appellant is advised that allowing his appeal is a highly unusual course, dictated by his somewhat unique personal circumstances, namely, his significant health condition, and his unfortunate experience with his former franchise, in respect of which, in relation to both matters, insufficient account was taken by the Respondent and the fact that the Appellant presented as being forthright, honest and credible.

13. The Appellant is specifically advised that his appeal is not allowed on the basis that he states he needs a third trainee licence to order to be able to charge pupils for driving instruction.

14. Further, the Appellant is advised that should his third, and final, permitted attempt to pas his Part 3 test, scheduled for 13 May 2025 fail, no further appeal can succeed as a trainee licence may only be issued in order that he can gain the practical experience required to take a Part 3 test.