The Driving Instructors Association’s ‘The Real Driving Test Hustle?‘ is an uncomfortable read for anyone involved in driver training.

Its central argument is not simply that the DVSA has a driving-test backlog, but that the headline figures surrounding the recovery do not necessarily tell the full story.

Drawing on evidence from instructors, learners and examiner candidates, the report questions whether increased test numbers, examiner recruitment and the crackdown on booking bots are translating into a properly functioning service.

It challenges the DVSA’s narrative of recovery, and, for instructors, raises important questions about whether the current system is sustainable.

Where are the examiners?

One of the report’s most striking criticisms concerns examiner recruitment and deployment.

The DVSA has said that recruiting additional examiners has helped provide around 10,000 extra tests a month.

The DIA, however, argues that recruitment figures are only meaningful if those examiners actually reach test centres and deliver tests.

It reports cases of newly trained examiners waiting months before being deployed, including some who are apparently close to centres where learners are facing lengthy waits.

Despite the association repeatedly asking the DVSA for answers, it was still waiting for a substantive response at the time of publication.

For instructors, this is perhaps the report’s most important point.

Capacity sitting in the recruitment or deployment pipeline is of little benefit to a pupil who cannot obtain a test.

While more examiners are being recruited, if slowly, the churn means many examiners are exiting.

At the same time, low morale, pay, and working conditions are often cited as the reasons for leaving or early retirement.

 

Still waiting

DVSA’s latest figures provide ammunition for the DIA’s argument.

The national average waiting time remains around 20–21 weeks, while the newly highlighted median has risen to 11.1 weeks.

In July, 197,295 practical tests were conducted, with a 52.1% pass rate.

The DIA also challenges the idea that long waits are somehow beneficial because they give learners more time to prepare.

It argues that delaying the promotion of competent candidates is not an acceptable substitute for better training.

That is an important distinction for the profession.

Instructors should certainly ensure pupils are genuinely test-ready rather than teaching towards a date, but competence should determine when someone progresses, not administrative failure.

Anti-bot or anti-learners

Another concern is the DVSA’s attempts to prevent bots and resellers from exploiting the booking system.

The intention is understandable.

The problem, according to the DIA, is that legitimate learners can also be caught by security measures, including having online booking access suspended for extended periods.

However, the report questions whether the crackdown has created unintended consequences for the very learners it is supposed to protect.

The association also challenges the decision to prevent ADIs from managing tests on behalf of pupils.

While removing third parties from the booking process may reduce opportunities for abuse, instructors would argue that there is a considerable difference between a regulated professional helping a pupil and an unregulated cancellation trader exploiting scarcity.

A wider regulatory problem

Part Two of the report broadens the argument beyond Category B tests.

The DIA highlights pressure on Part 2 and Part 3 qualifying tests, as well as a dramatic reduction in ADI Standards Checks.

It points out that there are around 44,000 ADIs and 20,000 PDIs, while only 44 examiners are responsible for Part 2, Part 3 and Standards Checks.

The report also reveals that DVSA income from ADI and PDI fees rose from £7.67 million in 2021/22 to more than £10.15 million in 2025/26.

That raises a legitimate professional question: if trainers are paying substantially more into the system, are they receiving an equivalent level of regulatory and assessment services?

 

 

The bigger issue

Perhaps the report’s greatest value is that it brings together and connects problems that are often discussed separately: test availability, examiner recruitment, deployment, booking technology, ADI regulation, and communication.

The DIA is clearly an interested party, and its criticism should therefore be considered in that context.

But that does not make the underlying questions irrelevant – the testing system is obviously failing, and has been doing so for over four years at least.

For driving instructors and road safety professionals, the important conclusion is that driving test recovery cannot be measured simply by counting appointments.

A genuinely successful system needs enough examiners, effective deployment, reliable booking arrangements, accessible qualifying tests and meaningful continuing assessment of instructors.

The driving test is not merely a service to be delivered as quickly as possible; it is a safety-critical gateway into independent driving.

With this in mind, ‘The Real Driving Test Hustle?’ deserves attention and consideration and makes a valuable contribution to the conversation about ongoing driving test booking failures.

Its strongest message is not that the DVSA is failing at everything, but that the organisation needs to be considerably more transparent about what is happening behind the headline numbers and that it should be fit for purpose.

So the profession should continue asking whether the system is delivering what learners, instructors and road safety ultimately require.