Edwin Funtilon 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: Edwin Funtilon. Application: The Appellant’s application to the Registrar, dated 18 March 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 17 below); often referred to as a ‘trainee licence’. 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 letter to the Appellant dated 8 May 2025, refusing the Application. Qualifying Examination: The qualifying examination referred to in paragraph 14 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 one Licence. That Licences was valid from 30 September 2024 to 29 March 2025. 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 7 below. The appeal The grounds of appeal

6. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal stated: a. The decision made against my application is lack of due consideration. I applied for a further trainee due to my circumstances. b. First, I’m a part-time PDI. As part time PDI my availability most of the times doesn’t suit to the availability of some pupils as well, which therefore limit and hinder me to gain enough experience to prepare myself for part 3 test. c. Secondly, and the worst thing that I couldn’t imagine was, my learner’s car broke down less than 3 months after receiving my pink license. I’m struggling with my finances and that makes everything worsened. I was supported by local instructor who has manual learner’s car while I’m using my automatic car with dual control. So I am not using the most of that 6 months trainee licence. The Registrar’s case

7. The Registrar resisted the appeal. The Registrar’s response to the appeal stated that the reasons for refusing the Application were: 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 present time and will allow him to continue to give paid instruction until determination of the appeal; c. 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 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.

8. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had not provided evidence to support his vehicle being off the road and that he had not complied with the conditions of his first Licence. Mode of hearing

9. The Appellant asked for the appeal be decided without a hearing. The Respondent did not request an oral hearing, effectively indicating their consent to the appeal being determined without a hearing. The Tribunal has the benefit of the bundle referred to in paragraph 11 below. Having reviewed the same, I did not consider that further information was required from either party in order to make an informed decision.

10. I was therefore satisfied that the appeal was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and that it was fair and just to conduct the appeal in this way. The evidence and submission

11. 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.

12. All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant legal principles

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. A Licence lasts for six months. When a Licence expires, giving paid driving lessons is prohibited unless (as set out in paragraph 13 above) a further Licence is obtained or ADI status is achieved.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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 take 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 him to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

25. 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

26. On balance, I have concluded that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the grant of the Application is appropriate.

27. I have taken into account the Appellant’s assertion that his car broke down less than three months after being granted the first Licence. I note that the Registrar contended that the Appellant had not provided evidence to support his car being off the road. The Appellant did, however, provide to the Registrar by email dated 7 April 2025 a corroborating statement from his supporting ADI stating that the Appellant’s car had broken down since 3 December 2024.

28. The Appellant stated that he had been struggling financially and the implication was that he could not afford to repair his car at the time. If the Appellant could not afford the repairs then it seems reasonable to assume that there would not be any garage repair bills, or similar, to evidence the breakdown. It is not clear to me that much other evidence could be provided to demonstrate that the Appellant’s car had broken down, in addition to the statement from his supporting ADI.

29. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the Appellant’s car had broken down during the period of the first Licence. However, that finding has not been material to my conclusions, for the following reasons.

30. As I have noted, holding a Licence is not necessary in order to take ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination or to qualify as an ADI. Accordingly, there is still scope for the Appellant to develop and practice for the purposes of taking ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination.

31. As the Registrar submitted, the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to attend a training course, study and practice with an ADI and give tuition on their own (provided that they do not receive payment of any kind for this). These options are used by some prospective ADIs and, as I have noted, many people qualify as an ADI without ever having held a Licence.

32. The only additional benefit to holding a Licence is that driving lessons can be given on return for payment. I acknowledge the Appellant’s statement regarding his financial difficulties but, as set out in paragraph 17, the purpose of a Licence to enable a potential ADI to acquire practical experience as a driving instructor, with a view to them undergoing ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. In that regard, I agree with the Registrar’s submission that the system of issuing Licences is not intended to be an alternative to the system of registration as an ADI.

33. Moreover, in this case I am mindful that the Appellant has effectively had the benefit of a Licence for more than 15 months (since 30 September 2024). I agree with the Registrar’s view that the Appellant has therefore had a reasonable period in which to prepare for ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination whilst also being entitled to receive payment for giving driving lessons.

34. In a similar vein, I have taken into account the Appellant’s arguments about working part-time and the availability of pupils which he stated limited his ability to gain enough experience to prepare for ‘Part 3’ of the Qualifying Examination. However, for the same reasons as above, I consider that this is immaterial given that the Appellant does not need a Licence in order to develop and practice for the purpose of taking the ‘Part 3’ test.

35. The Registrar also contended that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions of his first Licence. The Registrar’s response to the appeal did not specify what this non-compliance was, but it appears that this contention was based on the Appellant failing to submit his completed ADI 21AT training record form within the requisite period. I consider that there was insufficient information before me on this issue but I concluded that this was not a material factor in the appeal, in light of my other reasons set out above.

36. I just make one final observation. The Registrar also submitted that (as at the date of the Registrar’s response to the appeal) the Appellant’s first attempt at the ‘Part 3’ test booked for 24 September 2025. There was no information before me as to whether that test proceeded and this may have been relevant to a potential dismissal of the appeal, because if the Appellant passed it then (as referred to in paragraph 17) he would not be entitled to a Licence in any event (as passing the test would make him a qualified ADI). However, as I have concluded that the appeal be dismissed anyway, that is not a relevant issue.

37. For the reasons I have given, I am not persuaded that the Registrar’s Decision was wrong. I therefore dismiss the appeal and I order that the Application is refused. Signed: Judge Roper Date: 5 February 2026 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal