Charlotte Jenkinson v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Preliminary matters

1. References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of T he Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. In this decision, I use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: ADIs: Approved Driving Instructors (those whose name appear on the Register) . Appellant: Charlotte Jenkinson. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 29 September 2025, for the grant of a second Licence. Licence: A licence under section 129 to give paid instruction in the driving of a motor car (see paragraph 19 below); often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’. ORDIT: Official Register of Driving Instructor Training. Register: The Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Registrar: The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the Respondent). Registrar’s Decision: The decision of the Registrar, by way of email to the Appellant dated 7 November 2025, refusing the Application. Qualifying Examination: The qualifying examination referred to in paragraph 16 below. Introduction - background to the appeal

3. This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

4. The Appellant is an aspiring ADI who has previously been granted a Licence. The Appellant applied for a second Licence (the Application), resulting in the Registrar’s Decision.

5. The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision are set out in paragraph 8 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong because (in essence): a. Problems with availability of dates for ‘Part 2’ and ‘Part 3’ tests of the Qualifying Examination meant that training was taking longer than expected (and linked to this was her stated need to have training up to date ahead of the tests). b. The Appellant’s current driving school which is giving her instruction only has one trainer for Devon and Cornwall and it was therefore problematic obtaining training within the first three months of a Licence being granted. The trainer had also had an issue with their car which had also delayed a session.

7. The Appellant also stated in her grounds of appeal that she was currently ‘on hold’ awaiting a test date for her second attempt for the ‘Part 3’ test and that obtaining a second Licence would enable her to focus on her training without the stress and worry of the second Licence being refused. The Registrar’s case

8. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s Decision’s stated that the reason for refusing the Application were that: a. The Appellant had not complied with the conditions of her first Licence. b. The Appellant has had sufficient time to reach the required standard for qualification as an ADI. c. A Licence is not granted to enable the instructor to teach for however long it takes to pass the Qualifying Examination and the system of issuing Licences is not and must not be allowed to become an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI.

9. The Registrar’s response to the appeal also stated that: a. The reason why the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of her first Licence was because the training objectives on her ADI 21AT training record form were not completed within the first three months of the period of her Licence. b. 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 as an ADI. c. The six month period of the Appellant’s first Licence provides a very reasonable period in which to reach the qualifying standard in the ‘Part 3’ test 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 her first Licence, that Licence has remained in force and will allow her to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal d. The refusal of a second Licence does not bar the Appellant from attempting the instructional ‘Part 3’ test. The Appellant 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 ADI 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 ADI registration without obtaining any Licences at all. Mode of hearing

10. The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal, the Appellant and the witness (see paragraph 13) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions during the hearing.

11. The Registrar did not attend the hearing and was not represented (having previously indicated that they would be content to rely on their written submissions if there was an oral hearing). The evidence and submissions

12. The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle which included the Appellant’s reasons for the appeal, the Respondent’s response and details of the Appellant’s Licence history from the Registrar, as well as other written arguments and supporting evidence from both parties.

13. A witness attended the hearing on behalf of the Appellant (and some evidence of theirs was included in the bundle). The witness attended in their capacity as the Appellant’s ORDIT trainer. It is not necessary for us to identify this witness by name in this decision - therefore we merely refer to them as “the witness” and we mean no disrespect to them in doing so.

14. All of the contents of the bundle were taken into account, as well as the arguments and evidence of the Appellant and the witness during the hearing, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

15. Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor is an ADI or the holder of a current Licence.

16. A person must pass a qualifying examination in order to qualify as an ADI. The qualifying examination is made up of: a. a written examination (Part 1); b. a practical test of ability and fitness to drive (Part 2); and c. a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct (Part 3).

17. An application to take the ‘Part 3’ test must be made within two years of passing the ‘Part 1’ test, otherwise the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

18. Three attempts are permitted in respect of each part of the Qualifying Examination. If any part of the Qualifying Examination is failed after three attempts, the whole Qualifying Examination has to be retaken.

19. The grant of a Licence enables a person to provide instruction for payment before they qualify as an ADI. The purpose for which a Licence is granted is set out in section 129(1). In essence, a Licence is granted for the purpose of enabling a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. The circumstances in which Licences may be granted are set out in section 129 and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

20. An applicant may be granted a Licence if they have passed ‘Part 2’ of the Qualifying Examination and if they are eligible to take the ‘Part 3’ test. An application for a Licence must be made within two years of passing ‘Part 1’ of the Qualifying Examination.

21. A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 15 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

22. Subject to certain conditions being met, the Registrar must grant a person’s first application for a Licence. However, pursuant to section 129(3), the Registrar has the discretion to refuse any subsequent application for a Licence. Where an applicant appeals to the Tribunal in respect of the Registrar’s decision to refuse a new Licence, the Licence continues in effect until the appeal is determined.

23. Holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Many people qualify as an ADI without having held a Licence. The role and powers of the Tribunal

24. An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

25. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the grant or refusal of the Application, as it thinks fit.

26. However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

27. Where the Tribunal makes an order for the refusal of the Application, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply for a Licence for a period of up to four years. Discussion and findings

28. During the hearing, the Appellant and the witness both explained that there were ongoing problems with availability of ORDIT trainers. The witness stated that, in the Appellant’s region, there were only two ORDIT trainers (and only 66 nationally), and that the witness was the only ORDIT trainer for the Appellant’s driving school (RED driving school) in their region. The witness stated that problems securing an ORDIT trainer were widespread, exacerbated by the increasing number of new potential ADIs. In turn, this of course also impacted the availability of time with an ORDIT trainer.

29. The witness also stated that the Appellant h ad been impacted by a “perfect storm” affecting her ability to undertake the necessary amount of training during the period of her first Licence. The witness explained that they had been affected by illness, had been on holiday for three weeks and their car had had a major breakdown which meant that it was also unavailable for the week prior to their holiday.

30. Taking into account the above, in my view there are extenuating circumstances which have affected the Appellant’s ability to undertake the requisite amount of training in accordance with their conditions of her first Licence.

31. The Appellant also explained during the hearing that she has particular needs relating to her learning style. In particular, she needed to take additional time on the written and theory aspects of the Qualifying Examination and that part of her learning process was to take extra time to work through those aspects, particular taking the time to think through matters after some practical experience.

32. The Appellant stated that having a Licence helped to enable the additional time she needed for preparation for the ‘Part 3’ test, as being able to give paid instruction meant that she did not have to have a separate full-time job (and that, if she did, then she would not have the requisite time to work towards her ADI qualification, given her particular learning needs). The Appellant’s position was that not having a Licence would therefore materially impact on her ability to learn and practice the skills necessary for the ‘Part 3’ test.

33. The witness supported the Appellant’s need for a second Licence. He also stated that the Appellant had the character and skills to be a very capable ADI and that, in essence, she would be a credit to the industry.

34. Both the witness and the Appellant recognised that Licences are not to be issued and used inappropriately. Likewise, I understand the Registrar’s concerns about lengthy durations of Licences and about Licences not being used as an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI. I also recognise that a Licence is not intended to be granted for the purpose of providing a means of income to a potential ADI. However, based on the specific circumstances of this case, I consider that there are good reasons in this case for the Appellant to be granted a second Licence.

35. I also note that the Appellant stated during the hearing that her third attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test had now been booked for 5 May 2026. This represents the Appellant’s last opportunity to pass the Qualifying Examination, otherwise (as I have noted), the whole Qualifying Examination will need to be retaken and the Appellant will no longer be eligible to hold a Licence.

36. For all of the reasons I have given, in my view it is appropriate for the Appellant to be granted a second Licence and I conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was incorrect. I therefore allow the appeal and I order that the Application be granted. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 17 March 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal