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

Driving Instructor Qualification Appeal Struck Out by Tribunal Over Expired Time Limits

Processo nº

📌 Em resumo

A person appealing a decision about their Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) qualification had their case thrown out by the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal, led by Judge Findlay, decided there was no chance of the appeal succeeding because the person had not finished all parts of the ADI exam within the two-year time limit set by law. Even though a test was cancelled, the deadline had passed, making them ineligible to continue.

⚖️ Tese Jurídica

An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) may be struck out if there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding, particularly where statutory time limits for qualification have expired and no representations are made against the strike-out application.

Temas

Approved Driving Instructor qualificationTribunal procedureStrike-out applicationStatutory time limits

Dispositivos

Rule 8(3)(c) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009Regulation 3(4)(c) Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005

📖 O que diz a lei

Regulation 3(4)(c) Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005

This regulation sets a time limit for people trying to become Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs). It states that all parts of the ADI qualifying examination must be completed within two years of passing the first part of the test. If this two-year period passes, a person becomes ineligible to continue with the tests.

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

This rule gives the First-tier Tribunal the power to stop an appeal from going ahead if it believes the appeal has no real chance of succeeding. In this case, it was used because the appellant had missed a key deadline, making their appeal unlikely to win.

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

📖 Resumo técnico

The First-tier Tribunal struck out an appeal against the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, finding no reasonable prospect of success. The appellant failed to complete the ADI qualifying examination within the two-year statutory period after passing Part 1, rendering them ineligible for further tests.

📜 Ementa Documento oficial

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) struck out an appeal brought by an appellant against the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors. The Registrar had applied to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding. The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to complete all parts of the Approved Driving Instructor qualifying examination within the two-year period stipulated by Regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, following the passing of Part 1. Despite a cancelled and rescheduled Part 3 test, the statutory time limit had expired, rendering the appellant ineligible. The Tribunal, presided over by Judge Findlay, concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, especially as the appellant failed to make representations against the strike-out application.

📚 Inteiro teor Documento oficial

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00928 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/D/2026/0138 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Transport Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 24 June 2026 Before JUDGE FINDLAY Between [APPELLANT] Appellant and REGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORS Respondent Decision: The application is granted and the appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”) as the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding. REASONS 1. The Tribunal has considered Rules 2 and 32 of the Rules.

2. On 8 April 2026 the Respondent made an application to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of the matter succeeding.

3. The Respondent stated: “Regulation 3 (4) (C) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 stipulates that within 2 years after passing the written examination and having passed all of the elements of the driving ability and fitness test he/she made an application to take the instructional ability and fitness test. As the appellant passed the part 1 test on 06/12/2023, this has now expired; they will not be able to book any further part 3 tests as they are no longer eligible.” 4. In order to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination ('Part 1'); the driving ability and fitness test ('Part 2'); and the instructional ability and fitness test ('Part 3').

5. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1 (unless the Part 3 test has been booked before the expiry of 2 years) failing which the whole examination has to be retaken. Three attempts are permitted at each part.

6. The Appellant passed the Part 1 test on 6 December 2023 and the time has now expired and she is no longer eligible to take the Part 3 test.

7. The Appellant submits that the second attempt at her Part 3 test booked on 7 January 2026 was cancelled and the rescheduled date was made after her second licence expired. These matters do not assist the Appellant.

8. Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules provides that "The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—(c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding." Rule 8(4) provides that "(4) The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraph (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out."

9. On 8 May 2026 the Appellant was invited to respond to the application to strike out the proceedings by no later than 22 May 2026. The Appellant has not responded and has made no representations.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is struck out because the appeal has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. Signed Date: 18 June 2026 Judge J Findlay

📊 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 appeal has no reasonable chance of succeeding.
  • The person appealing no longer meets the legal or eligibility requirements for what they are seeking.
  • The person appealing has failed a required test the maximum number of times allowed.
  • The person appealing has not followed the tribunal's instructions or deadlines, or has not responded to a strike-out request.

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' (throw out) an appeal concerning a person's qualification as an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI).

Who was involved?

The case involved a person appealing a decision and the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors, who was the respondent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided to strike out the appeal because it believed there was no reasonable chance of it succeeding. This was because the appellant had not completed all parts of the ADI examination within the two-year time limit after passing the first part, as required by law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Tribunal applied Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, which allows cases to be struck out if they have no reasonable prospect of success. It also referred to Regulation 3(4)(c) of the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005, which sets the two-year time limit for completing the ADI exam.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important argument was that the person appealing had passed the first part of the ADI exam more than two years ago, and therefore, the time limit to complete the other parts had expired, making them ineligible to continue the qualification process.

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?

This means that if you are trying to qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor, you must be very careful to complete all parts of the examination within the two-year deadline after passing Part 1, or your application may be rejected, and any appeal could be struck out.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The key information that mattered was the date the appellant passed Part 1 of the exam (6 December 2023) and the fact that the two-year period had expired, making them ineligible for further tests. The lack of a response from the appellant to the strike-out application also played a role.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can sometimes be appealed to the Upper Tribunal, but usually only if there's a point of law that needs to be clarified or if the Tribunal made a legal mistake. You would typically need permission to appeal.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for your specific case, especially when dealing with tribunal procedures and regulatory requirements, as they can help you understand the rules and your options.

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.