TC09528 - [2025] UKFTT 00564 (TC)

HMRC, in their submissions, drew particular attention to the previous decision of this Tribunal in The Young Driver Training Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 271 (TC) (“Young Driver”).

In that case, the appellant business provided driving experiences for 4 to 17 year olds at a number of peripatetic venues within the UK, including various car parks and show grounds. The majority of experiences were pre-booked and almost half were bought as presents as a “one-off” treat for a child. The experiences took place within an area that was fenced off for safety, with only the child and the persons accompanying the child being granted access.

Experiences for 4 to 10 year olds took place in specially built two-seater miniature electric cars, on a special course that replicated a realistic road system. Participants received a five-minute briefing/demonstration before taking part in the experience. The child was unaccompanied during the experience, but supervised by the appellant business. These experiences (for 4 to 10 year olds) were available at nine of the appellant’s 75 venues.

Experiences for 10 to 17 year olds mostly took place in conventional cars fitted with dual controls, identical to those used for driving lessons on the public highway, though some took place in classic cars, a fire engine or a Bentley Continental. The 10 to 17 year old would always be accompanied by a qualified adult driving instructor.

The appellant’s website described its experiences as “driving lessons” and the appellant as a “driving school”. The website referred to encouraging “teens to become safer drivers, giving them a head start when it comes to learning to drive… On their very first lesson, teens will be starting the car, moving off, changing gears and steering…All lessons are geared towards the child, so if they've already done a Young Driver lesson, they'll move on to more advanced skills such as junctions, turning, parking and driving in two-way traffic.”

Available experiences included a “mock practical driving test” and “driving lesson bundles” (comprised of six “driving lessons”).

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not supplying a “right of admission”, stating at [48]:

“We accept that the Appellant's supply includes admission to the fenced off area where the particular Experience takes place; however, it is our view that the supply comprises considerably more than a “right of admission” when one looks to the plain and ordinary meaning of the wording. The supply (the Experience) includes not only a “right of admission” to the fenced off area but also the use of a vehicle, driving tuition and supervision. What is being supplied is a package of benefits over and above a right of admission to the fenced off area. Without the use of a vehicle, driving tuition and supervision there would be no driving Experience.”

At [50], the Tribunal said:

“…We accept that the Appellant has designed the Experiences to be enjoyable and a “fun” driving experience for under 17 year olds but the “fun” objective of driving a vehicle can only be achieved if the tuition and supervision are supplied, especially when the vehicle has a manual gearbox and clutch. The accepted evidence before the Tribunal was that nothing that the child was taught during the Experience was detrimental to good driving practice or would hinder the child's progress when having driving lessons on the public highway. If that were not the case then there would be no point in the Appellant offering a block of driving lessons and a mock driving test. Whilst what is supplied by the Appellant is not a driving lesson with the objective of passing the driving practical test, the main supply is plainly a supply of driving tuition over and beyond the physical admission to the fenced off area.”

The Tribunal further held that even if they were wrong that the supply was not a right of admission, the appellant’s supplies were not the type of attraction described in Group 16. The Tribunal rejected a submission by the appellant that the supplies were similar to a circus or fair, observing in [55] that both a circus and a fair offer a range of attractions and amusements, and a customer who has purchased an entrance ticket is able to freely wander around to view all the available attractions. This could be contrasted with the appellant’s business, where there were no other available amenities or attractions within the fenced off area to view or enjoy.

At [56], the Tribunal also rejected a submission that the appellant’s driving experiences were comparable to a dodgem car ride, as with dodgem cars bad driving is embraced as part of the enjoyment, whereas the driving experiences involved a child being instructed and supervised on a one-to-one basis to drive in a safe and controlled manner.

Having rejected some further submissions by the appellant concerning the EU principle of fiscal neutrality, the Tribunal went on to dismiss the appeal in the Young Driver case.