VadeLab
Entrar
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)·

Appeal Struck Out: Trainee Driving Instructor No Longer Eligible for Licence

Processo nº

📌 Em resumo

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) decided to strike out an appeal brought by a person seeking a third trainee driving instructor licence. The Tribunal found that the appeal had no chance of succeeding because the person had already failed their third driving instructor test. Under the rules, failing this test means they are no longer allowed to hold a trainee licence, so the appeal couldn't go anywhere.

⚖️ Tese Jurídica

An appeal against a regulatory decision will be struck out if there is no reasonable prospect of success, particularly where the appellant no longer meets the eligibility criteria for the subject of the appeal.

Temas

regulatory appealsdriving instructor licensingtrainee licence eligibilitystriking out appeals

Dispositivos

Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

📖 O que diz a lei

Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025

This rule explains that a trainee driving instructor licence automatically ends if someone fails their third attempt at the special test needed to become an instructor. In this case, because the appellant failed their third test, their licence was no longer valid under this rule.

Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

This rule allows the Tribunal to stop an appeal early if it believes the appeal has no realistic chance of winning. The Tribunal used this power here because the appellant no longer met the basic requirements for the licence they were appealing about.

Explicação em linguagem simples — não substitui orientação de um advogado.

📖 Resumo técnico

An appeal against a regulatory decision was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) due to no reasonable prospect of success, as the appellant was no longer eligible to hold the relevant licence after failing a third instructional ability test.

📜 Ementa Documento oficial

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) struck out an appeal concerning an application for a third trainee driving instructor licence. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding because, under Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025, a trainee licence ceases to be in force after a third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test. The appellant had failed their third test and did not respond to a direction to provide submissions against the strike-out application. Judge Harris concluded that the appellant was no longer eligible to hold a trainee licence, making the appeal bound to fail.

📚 Inteiro teor Documento oficial

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00979 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0049 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 01 July 2026 Before JUDGE HARRIS Between [APPELLANT] Appellant and THE REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. REASONS 1. The appeal concerns the Appellant’s application for a third trainee licence.

2. Under Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025 a trainee licence remains in force until the day immediately following the trainee’s third unsuccessful attempt at the instructional ability test.

3. The Respondent informed the Tribunal by a form GRC5 dated 13 May 2026 that the Appellant failed their third attempt at the instructional ability test on 11 May 2026. Accordingly, the appeal must fail, because the Appellant is no longer eligible to hold a trainee licence. The Respondent applied for the appeal to be struck out.

4. The Tribunal directed the Appellant on 13 May 2026 to provide any submissions as to why the appeal should not be struck out. The Appellant did not respond.

5. I therefore strike the appeal out under Rule 8(3)(c) because I am satisfied there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. Signed: Judge Harris Date: 29 June 2026

📊 Como os tribunais decidem casos parecidos

Entre 12 decisões semelhantes neste acervo:

Struck Out10 casos
Dismissed2 casos

Panorama deste acervo — não é previsão do resultado do seu caso.

⚖️ O que costuma pesar em casos assim

❌ Costuma ser rejeitado

  • The appellant no longer meets the eligibility criteria for the subject of the appeal.
  • The appeal has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
  • The appellant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions, especially if this was repeated.
  • The appellant has failed the maximum permitted attempts for a required examination or test.
  • The purpose of the licence or provision sought is for a reasonable period, not for indefinite or repeated renewal.

Padrões observados nos casos semelhantes deste acervo — cada processo é único.

❓ Perguntas frequentes

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal decided to strike out an appeal concerning a trainee driving instructor licence, meaning the appeal was ended without a full hearing on its merits.

Who was involved?

The case involved an appellant (the person bringing the appeal) and the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided to strike out the appeal because it had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. This was because the appellant had failed their third instructional ability test, which, under the relevant regulations, meant they were no longer eligible to hold a trainee licence.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The key rules applied were Regulation 14(b) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2025 and Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important point was that the appellant was no longer legally eligible for the licence they were appealing about, having failed the third required test. This meant the appeal was pointless.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case (the appellant), as their appeal was struck out.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If you are appealing a regulatory decision, especially about a licence, you must ensure you still meet the basic eligibility criteria. If you don't, your appeal might be struck out without being fully heard.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The key document mentioned was a GRC5 form from the Registrar, confirming the appellant's third failed test. The appellant's lack of response to the Tribunal's direction also played a role.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Generally, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal, but usually only if there's a point of law involved, not just disagreement with the facts.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always advisable to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for your specific case, especially in regulatory matters, to understand your options and the likelihood of success.

Fonte oficial: First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) — ementa e inteiro teor reproduzidos das bases públicas do tribunal.Resumo, tese, resumo técnico e perguntas: elaborados por Inteligência Artificial com base na ementa e no acórdão oficiais.