Darren Barnham v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

1. This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(2) (a) Road Traffic Act 1988 (" the Act "). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 21 August 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse the Appellant's application for a third (trainee) Licence.

2. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and the law. It does not seek to provide every step of the reasoning. The absence of a reference in this decision to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered Law

3. The Appellant's name is not on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") and he is therefore prohibited from giving paid (as defined) driving instructions by section 123(1) of the Act unless he holds a Licence issued by the Registrar pursuant to section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

4. To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part.

5. A Section 129(1) Licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This 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 referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct." A Licence relates to giving paid instruction and is not required to be able to take part 3.

6. By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued." If he does so he must tell the applicant and give particulars of the grounds on which he is considering the refusal. The applicant may make representation within certain time limits and by section 129(8) (c) of the Act "before deciding whether or not to refuse the application" the Registrar must take any such representations into consideration.

7. By section 129(4) of the Act if such an application is refused the Registrar must give notice of that in writing to the applicant and provide the grounds of refusal and by section 129(6) of the Act :- "Notwithstanding any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) above prescribing the period for which a licence is to be in force, where a person applies for a new licence in substitution for a licence held by him and current at the date of the application, the previous licence shall not expire— (a)until the commencement of the new licence, or (b) if the Registrar decides to refuse the application, until the time limited for an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act against the decision has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, it is finally disposed of." Role of the Tribunal

8. Section 131(2) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar—(a)to refuse an application for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act ...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

9. Section 131(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:- ( a)for the grant or refusal of the application or, (b)for the removal or the retention of the name in the register, or the revocation or continuation of the licence, (as the case may be) as it thinks fit.

10. The Appellant has the burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision being the person tasked with making such decisions (see Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) . It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Evidence and matters considered

11. For this appeal I considered the content of a bundle of 26 p df pag es and heard from the Appellant. Chronology

12. The Appellant agreed that:- (a) he passed part 1 on 9 May 2024 and part 2 on 2 July 2024. (b) on 5 August 2024 he was granted a first Licence. (c) on 12 January 2025 the Appellant cancelled his first part 3 test and was immediately offered a new second date of 1 February 2025 but was unable to accept it. (e) in February 2025 he received a second Licence which expired on 4 August 2025 (f) on 4 July 2025 he failed part 3 for the 1st time (at the 3rd test date) (g) on 30 July 2025 the Appellant applied for a third Licence. (h) on 1 August 2025 the Registrar indicated he was considering refusing the third Licence about which on 12 August 2025 the Appellant made representations. (i) on 21 August 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision to refuse a third Licence.

13. This appeal is against the Decision and was commenced on 1 September 2025. Thereafter (a) the Registrar provided a response on 2 December 2025 and (b) a second test (4th date) has been booked for 26 January 2026. The Appellant's position

14. In his representations of 12 August 2025 and his appeal form of 1 September 2025 the Appellant referred to disruption to his training caused by "profound personal challenges" and issues in obtaining test dates as well as his family's reliance the income while training. Details were added to this at the appeal hearing.

15. He said that at the time he was given the first Licence he was the main carer for his elderly Father in his 90s who did not have long to live and who died on 24 September 2024. Almost immediately thereafter, as well as dealing with this bereavement himself, he was faced with wanting to (and having to) assist one of his siblings whose mental health had suffered severely. This took a considerable amount of his time and energy and meant he was only able to spend very small amounts of time on his ADI training. He said that it was not until the early summer of 2025 that the amount of time he spent care-giving began to reduce enough to enable him properly to focus again on his desire to qualify as an ADI. Sadly his wife also now needs treatment but he told me he was now able to make use of his Licence for about 12-14 hours a week in preparation for his second part 3 on 26 January 2026.

16. His position was supported by a letter from his sister of 9 August 2025 (20) and from Aff's School of Motoring dated 30 August 2025 (22). The Registrar's position

17. The Registrar says in summary in his response that:- (a) the Appellant appears to be using the Licence as a source of income. (b) no evidence of lost training time has been provided (14). (c) a Licence is not to be used as an alternative to registration nor to give an applicant as "long as it takes" to pass part 3 while giving paid lessons. (d) "since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability once and cancelled two more such tests booked for 23 January 2025 and 01 February 2025" and the Appellant has already had 12 months with a Licence which is long enough to pass part 3. (e) by section 129(6) the Appellant has continued with his Licence pending the outcome of this appeal. (e) "the refusal of a third 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." Review

18. The Appellant was first granted a Licence on 5 August 2024. Despite the third application being refused the Appellant has been allowed, since and despite the Decision, to continue as a paid driving instructor with the benefit of a Licence pending the outcome of this appeal by section 129(6) of the Act . The Appellant has therefore, as at the date of this appeal, had the benefit of a Licence for over 17 months. Had he been granted a third Licence it would be due to expire in early February 2026.

19. I agree that the purpose of a Licence is not to provide an income to those seeking to become ADI and there is no right to have one until a successful or final attempt at part 3. The statutory purpose for having a Licence is as set out in section 129(1) of the Act which is to enable an applicant "... to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination referred to in section 125(3)(a) as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct." Also a Licence is not needed to be permitted to take part 3 or to provide "unpaid" lessons.

20. In this case there were test dates provided in January 2025, February 2025 and on 4 July 2025 all prior to the expiry of the second Licence and I did not accept that this issue was a supportive factor in this appeal.

21. In his representations of the 12 August 2025 the Appellant did outline the issues referred to above and he did provide his siblings corroborating letter as an attachment to it. I accept that the Appellant provided more information at the appeal but I do not agree that no evidence of lost training time had been given to the Registrar prior to the Decision being made on the 21st August 2025. In my view the issues with which he was dealing (which I accept) caused there to be a very substantial (but not complete) loss of a realistic opportunity for the Appellant to make use of a Licence from the time the first one was issued to the early summer of 2025.

22. I took account of and gave weight to the Registrar's view. Although I agree with almost all said by the Registrar in my view, in light of the lengthy period of lost training time about which I have concluded above, the Appellant's application for a third Licence should have been granted. Decision

23. The appeal is allowed. Signed Judge Heald Date: 26 January 2026