[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Bates v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency [2025] UKFTT 292 (GRC) (12 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/292.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 292 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport

		Heard : Determined on the papers on 13 December 2024
		Decision Given On: 12 March 2025

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS
1. The parties and the Tribunal agreed that the appeal could be determined on the papers pursuant to rule 32 (a) and (b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.
2. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the Act) prohibits the giving of instruction paid for by or in respect of a pupil in the driving of a motor car unless the instructor's name is on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors or he is the holder of a current licence issued under Section 129(1) of the Act.
3. The Appellant is not now and has never been on the said Register.
4. A licence under Section 129 of the Act was granted to the Appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and were valid from 20 November 2023 to 19 May 2024.
5. On 29 April 2024 the Appellant applied for a second licence. In an email dated 30 April 2024 the Appellant was notified that the Respondent was considering the refusal of his application for a second licence. In an email received on 10 May 2024 the Appellant made representations. He stated that he had done all the training required and DVSA cancelled a Part 3 test attempt. He stated that the financial impact would be catastrophic and would mean giving up his rented property and moving in with his parents..
6. After considering these representations the Respondent decided to refuse the Appellant's application and the grounds that he had failed to comply with the conditions of his first licence as the training objectives on his ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the licence period. He provided no evidence of lost training time and appeared to be using his trainee licence as a source of income.
7. The Respondent gave the Appellant notice of the decision in accordance with Section 129(4) of the Act in an email dated 21 May 2024.
8. The reasons for refusing the application for a second licence were as follows:

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 second licence before the expiry date of the first, that licence has remained in force to the date of the decision and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal.

c. Since passing his driving ability test the Appellant has failed the instructional ability test once. The DVSA cancelled one test booked for 22 May 2024. Despite ample time and opportunity the Appellant has not been able to reach the required standard for qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor.

d. The refusal of a second 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.

9. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not booked his second attempt at the instructional ability test at the date of the decision.
10. The Appellant submitted that he was deeply committed to becoming a fully qualified driving instructor and asked that consideration be given to the following:

a. He has wanted to be a driving instructor for 20 years because he enjoys being behind a wheel and he wants to help people get on the road and enjoy a lifetime of safe driving. He enjoys helping people to improve their lives by helping them to drive, pass their driving test and get a better life for themselves.

b. He has been told by people that they enjoy his lessons and learn something because he explains things and helps them understand things and road safety is a big thing for him.

c. He is calm and believes that coaching is more beneficial than shouting.

d. The financial implications for him will be catastrophic. He would have to give up his rented property and move back with his parents. This would mean he would not be able to have his children stay over at weekends.

e. He has given up a safe job with good money to follow what he wants to do.

f. He has done all his online learning but the tests were not available in his area to do Part 3 test.

g. When he finally got a test booked on 22 May 2024 the DVSA postponed it until 11 July 2024. He does not know how he is meant to pass the test if it is not available.

h. His in-car learning has been hindered by his in-car trainer becoming ill and having to cancel his last lesson for three weeks.

i. This has caused a great deal of stress and impacted his health and his relationships with the constant worry.

j. He had a Part 3 test booked for the 11 July 2024.

11. In all the circumstances there is not sufficient evidence of significant gravity presented to upset the Respondent's decision and accordingly the appeal is refused.

(Signed)

Judge J Findlay

Dated: 6 March 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 20