Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 758 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT.D.2024.1099
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Transport
Decided without a hearing
Decision given on: 25 June 2025
Before
JUDGE SANGER
Between
KHRYSTINEA ANTOINETTE FARNWORTH
Appellant
and
REGISTRAR FOR APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is allowed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ('the Registrar'), made on 25th November 2024, to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.
2. The matter was set down for a paper hearing with the agreement of both parties.
Legal Framework
3. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified.
4. A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in s. 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the Act') and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.
5. 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.'
6. 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').
7. Three attempts are permitted at each part. The Part 3 test must be booked within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination has to be retaken.
8. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence. The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified. It is possible to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor without having held a trainee licence.
9. 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.
10. When making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar 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.
11. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar's decision was wrong rests with the Appellant.
Factual Background to the Appeal
12. The Appellant had not previously been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.
13. The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 16th February 2023. The Appellant passed Part 2 on 18th July 2023.
14. The Appellant was in receipt of two trainee licences which were valid from 25th September 2023 to 24th September 2024.
15. The Appellant failed her first attempt at the Part 3 test on 31st May 2024. It was rebooked on 23rd September 2024 but the attempt was cancelled by the Appellant. There is reference in the bundle to the timings being inconvenient with regard to her family schedule.
16. On 24th September 2024 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. This application was therefore made before the expiry of the second trainee license.
17. On 14th October 2024 the Appellant was informed, by the Registrar, that he was considering refusing the application and invited to make representations.
18. A further attempt for the test was made for 23rd October 2024 but, again, this was cancelled by the Appellant.
19. The Appellant made representations to the Registrar on 27th October 2024. In summary, she said:
a. her twins (aged almost 3) had started nursery in order to allow her to take on more students but they had not settled;
b. the nursery had raised the possibility that the Appellant's children may have "needs" although no further evidence or explanation was provided as to the nature of these needs other than that they were not able to speak and were having behaviour issues;
c. the Appellant's partner works night shifts 5 days per week and therefore childcare "is an issue" without any family living locally;
d. due to her availability, around childcare responsibilities, the Appellant was only able to take on 5 - 7 students at a time;
e. the Appellant had taken on extra training but was finding it difficult to book a test owing to a lack of availability;
f. the Appellant's trainer struggled for time to train her over the summer of 2024 as he had taken on another PDI;
g. owing to a family emergency the Appellant had had to take four weeks out to travel abroad in September 2024.
20. The application was refused on 25th November 2024.
21. The reasons for the Registrar's decision, in summary, were that no evidence of lost training time had been provided, the Appellant would have been aware of childcare prior to applying and she had already had sufficient time to gain experience to pass the Part 3 test.
22. Further test bookings were made on 8th January 2025 and 1st April 2025, both of which were cancelled by the DSA.
23. A further date was booked for 23rd June 2025 at 08:45. This was the day on which the appeal fell to be considered.
Appeal to the Tribunal
24. The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 9th December 2024.
25. The grounds of appeal were, in summary, that her children had not taken well to childcare and did not cope with two days a week in nursery and that she had struggled to find availability for a Part 3 test; one having been booked (as at the date of the Appeal notice) on 8th January 2025.
26. The Registrar, in his response, states:
a. 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;
b. 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 third licence before the expiry date of the second, that licence has remained in force to the present time and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal;
c. since passing her driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once and cancelled two more such tests booked for 23 September 2024 and 22 October 2024. Regrettably, DVSA cancelled two such tests booked for 08 January 2025 and 01 April 2025. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor; and
d. the refusal of a third licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ability test of the Register examinations. She does not need to hold a licence for that purpose, nor is it essential for her 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 her own (provided that she 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.
e. the Appellant has a second attempt at the instructional ability (Part 3) test booked on 23rd June 2025.
Evidence
27. I read and took account of a bundle of documents.
Discussion and Conclusions
28. I may overturn the decision of the Registrar if I am of the opinion that it was wrong. The burden is on the Appellant to show this.
29. The Registrar has written, in his response to the Tribunal, "Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor". This is not strictly accurate, as the Appellant last took the test in May 2024 and has had no further opportunity to demonstrate whether or not she has reached the required standard. Subsequent opportunities have been cancelled, initially by the Appellant but most recently, and on two occasions, by the DSA.
30. I accept the evidence of the Appellant with regard to the difficulties she has experience with regard to childcare. I do not agree with the Registrar's assessment that she would have anticipated these problems prior to beginning the ADI process. It is clear to me that, having made arrangements for her children to go to nursery two days a week, in order to enable the Appellant to complete her own training and to train students, the children had difficulty settling and that this was not foreseen. I also note that this has led to a number of meetings with nursery staff, who have suggested that the Appellant's children may have some additional educational needs. I do not underestimate the pressure that these circumstances place on a family. I note, in particular, the fact that the Appellant has not been able to enrol her children in nursery for the time that she had intended has had a direct impact on her capacity to fulfil her training as planned.
31. All this is in the context of a system in which the Appellant has been prejudiced by having booked appointments for her second Part 3 test that have been cancelled by DSA. I have seen no evidence as to why those were cancelled. This introduces delay into a process which is strictly time limited and in which applicants have no time to waste.
32. I note that the Appellant has already had the benefit of trainee licences, initially covering a period of twelve months from 25th September 2023 to 25th September 2024 and, by virtue of this application, up to today's date. This is almost 18 months, which the Registrar states should have been adequate time to prepare. Under ordinary circumstances I would agree but the fact is that the Appellant has been denied the opportunity to take the test a second time so she may well be at the required standard and ought to have the opportunity to demonstrate that.
33. The test on 23rd June 2025 is the Appellant's second attempt. In the event that that is cancelled I would not wish her to be denied an opportunity to take that test.
34. I am persuaded that the decision of the Registrar was wrong, and that the Appellant's circumstances are such that it would be fair to allow her to sit the second Part 3 test.
35. The Tribunal may make such order as it sees fit and the decision is therefore as follows:
36. The appeal is allowed, insofar as the Registrar has the power to award a further trainee license.
37. In practice this means that:
a. if the Appellant passed her Part 3 test on 23rd June 2025, there will be no power for the Registrar to grant her a further license;
b. if the Appellant failed her test on 23rd June 2025, she will have no further opportunity to re-sit it, given that two years has elapsed since she passed Part 1 on 16th February 2023 and the Appeal is dismissed if those are the circumstances in which the Appellant finds herself;
c. if the test was cancelled by DSA on 23rd June 2025, the trainee license shall be extended until 23rd September 2025 to allow the Appellant a fair opportunity to participate in a second attempt at the Part 3 test.
Signed: Judge Sanger Date: 23rd June 2025