Paul Rimmer v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction:

1. This is an appeal by Mr Paul Rimmer (“the appellant”) against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) dated 3 December 2025, refusing his application for a third trainee driving instructor licence under section 129(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 .

2. The appeal is brought pursuant to Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Background:

3. The appellant has never been entered on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

4. He previously held two trainee licences under section 129 of the Act , valid from 18 November 2024 to 17 November 2025 , enabling him to gain practical experience while attempting the ADI qualifying examinations.

5. On 6 November 2025 , the appellant applied for a third trainee licence .

6. On 11 November 2025 , the Registrar invited representations indicating that refusal was being considered, and the appellant provided representations on 13 November 2025 , explaining difficulties in securing a Part 3 test date and time lost due to bereavement and caring responsibilities.

7. The Registrar refused the application on 3 December 2025 , giving reasons including the limited statutory purpose of trainee licences, the appellant’s two prior licences totalling 12 months, his two failures of the Part 3 test, and the availability of alternative training routes without holding a licence. Chronology: • 18 Nov 2024 – 17 Nov 2025: Two trainee licences held. • 6 Nov 2025: Application for third licence submitted. • 11 Nov 2025 : Registrar invites representations. • 13 Nov 2025: Appellant submits representations. • 12 Nov 2025 & 9 May 2025: Part 3 tests failed. • 11 Feb 2026: DVSA-cancelled Part 3 test. • 6 May 2026: Final attempt at Part 3 test booked. • 3 Dec 2025: Licence refusal issued. • Appeal lodged: Date not in bundle but accepted as in time. The Issues:

8. The Tribunal is required to determine: (a) Whether the Registrar was wrong in refusing to grant a third trainee licence to the appellant; (b) Whether the appellant has discharged the burden of showing that refusal was unjustified or inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Law:

9. Section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the giving of paid driving instruction unless the instructor is registered or holds a trainee licence.

10. Section 129(1) empowers the Registrar to issue trainee licences to allow an applicant a limited period of practical experience while progressing through the ADI qualification process. The Registrar’s policy approach reflects that such licences are intended to provide up to six months of practical experience, not to operate as an alternative route to qualification.

11. On an appeal of this nature, the burden of proof lies on the appellant to show that the Registrar’s decision was wrong. Discussion and Findings:

12. The Tribunal accepts the appellant’s explanation for delays in his training, including difficulties with test availability, bereavement and caring responsibilities. These matters are sympathetically noted. However, as the Registrar observed, the evidence provided did not quantify the actual extent of training time lost during the two trainee-licence periods already granted.

13. The statutory framework envisages trainee licences as temporary and limited mechanisms. The appellant has already benefitted from 12 months of such licensing , exceeding the six-month period ordinarily required to secure the experience necessary to take the Part 3 test.

14. The appellant has failed the Part 3 test twice , and although a further test was cancelled by DVSA through no fault of his own, that cancellation does not alter the purpose or limits of the trainee-licence regime.

15. Refusal of a further trainee licence does not prevent the appellant from taking the Part 3 test on 6 May 2026 or obtaining unpaid practice or further training from an ADI. The Registrar was entitled to take this into account.

16. Having considered all the available evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the appellant has discharged the burden upon him to show that the Registrar was wrong in her findings.

17. While the Tribunal has sympathy for the appellant’s circumstances, sympathy cannot override the statutory purpose of trainee licensing or expand its scope beyond that intended by Parliament.

18. For these reasons, the appeal cannot succeed. Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The Registrar’s decision dated 3 December 2025 is upheld .