Tribunal upholds appeal for driving instructor licence

Introduction

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently ruled in favour of Mark Anthony Day in his appeal against the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors. The case, heard via Cloud Video Platform on 14 January 2025, centred around the refusal of a third trainee licence for Day, a prospective driving instructor.

Background

Mark Anthony Day, the appellant, was not listed on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors, which prohibited him from providing paid driving instruction without a licence. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a licence is required for such activities, and applicants must pass a three-part Qualifying Examination.

Day had previously been granted two trainee licences, which allowed him to instruct from May 2023 to June 2024. However, his application for a third licence was refused by the Registrar on 17 July 2024, prompting this appeal.

Legal Framework

The case was governed by the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically sections 123, 129, and 131. These sections outline the requirements for becoming an Approved Driving Instructor and the process for appealing decisions made by the Registrar.

Section 129(3) allows the Registrar to refuse a licence if the applicant has previously been issued one. The Registrar must consider any representations made by the applicant before deciding, as stipulated in section 129(8)(c).

Tribunal's Role

Under section 131 of the Act, the Tribunal has the authority to review the Registrar's decision and make an independent judgment. It can grant or refuse the application or remit the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration.

The Appeal

Day represented himself at the hearing, while the Registrar did not attend. He argued that inadequate training from previous sponsors and systemic issues within the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) contributed to his failure to pass the final part of the Qualifying Examination.

Day also highlighted the financial burden and lack of available tests as significant barriers to his progress. His trainer, Mr. Lee Curtis, provided evidence supporting these claims, noting that Day's initial training had been detrimental to his development.

Tribunal's Findings

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had not adequately considered all of Day's representations, particularly regarding lost training time. The Tribunal noted that while the Registrar's decision referenced some of Day's points, it failed to address others, such as the systemic issues and their specific impact on Day.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar's decision did not fully comply with the requirements of the Act, which mandates consideration of all representations made by the applicant.

Decision

The Tribunal allowed Day's appeal and remitted the application back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all representations are properly considered. This decision underscores the importance of thorough and fair consideration in regulatory decisions.

Learn More

For more information on contractor law, see BeCivil's guide to Contractor Law.