Simon Preston v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Promulgated: 11 February 2026. Introduction

1. This is the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s refusal to grant a third trainee driving instructor licence under the statutory scheme governing access to the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (ADI).

2. I have considered the appeal bundle, the Respondent’s written reasons, and the Appellant’s submissions. I am satisfied that the Appellant received all relevant correspondence; prior case ‑ management issues on notification have been resolved.

3. The Tribunal’s task is not to substitute its own view, but to determine whether the Respondent acted lawfully, rationally, and for the proper statutory purpose. Legal Framework

4. The trainee licence regime is created by the Driving Instruction (Compensation for Loss of Driving Licence) Regulations 1990, related DVSA policy, and the statutory framework governing admission to the ADI Register.

5. A trainee licence (‘ pink badge’ ) is a time ‑ limited, experiential authorisation granted for the purpose of enabling a prospective instructor to acquire practical instructional experience in preparation for the Part 3 instructional ability test.

6. Key principles governing the Respondent’s discretion include: • (a) Statutory Purpose – A discretionary power must be exercised to promote the policy and objects of the Act (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 ). • (b) Rationality / Wednesbury – A decision will only be unlawful if irrational or outside the range of lawful responses (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 ). • (c) Proper considerations – A public authority must consider relevant matters and ignore irrelevant ones (R v SSHD ex p Venables [1998] AC 407 ). • (d) Avoiding improper use – Temporary schemes must not become alternative qualification routes (R (Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39 ). • (e) Proportionality – Licensing decisions must be proportionate where relevant (Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 ). Respondent’s Reasons for Refusal

7. The Respondent refused a third licence for the following reasons, which I summarise and adopt: (i) The statutory purpose is to provide limited instructional experience, not an alternative to registration. (ii) The Appellant has already held two licenses totaling 12 months, double the intended experiential period. The existing licence remains valid pending this appeal. (iii) Since passing Part 2, the Appellant has twice failed Part 3, cancelled one test, and had one cancelled by DVSA. (iv) A licence is not required to take the instructional ability test; the Appellant can seek further training without one.

8. The Appellant’s final attempt at the Part 3 test is booked for 12 March 2026. The scheme does not permit a licence solely to await or prepare for that test. Analysis

9. The Respondent’s decision was consistent with the statutory purpose set out in Padfield.

10. The Appellant has been afforded more than sufficient time — 12 months of instructional experience — to acquire the necessary skills.

11. The Respondent took into account all relevant considerations and ignored irrelevant ones.

12. Applying Wednesbury, the decision was rational, proportionate, and within the lawful range of responses.

13. The refusal does not prevent the Appellant from taking the Part 3 test or receiving further training. Conclusion

14. The Tribunal find Respondent acted lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with the statutory purpose when refusing to grant a third trainee licence.

15. The appeal is dismissed. Brian Kennedy KC. 11 February 2026.