London Borough of Hillingdon v SS and TS and ES (SEN): [2017] UKUT 250 (AAC) ; [2019] AACR 9

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Ward on 12 June 2017.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 4 July 2017
• Last updated: 24 September 2020 — See all updates

• Categories: Special educational needs
• Sub-categories: Special educational needs - special educational provision - naming school or other institution in EHC plan
• Judges: Ward, C
• Decision date: 12 June 2017

Read the full decision in [2019] AACR 9ws

Judicial Summary

Reported as [2019] AACR 9

The Children and Families Act 2014 − Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 − Education Health and Care (‘EHC’) plan – Naming school or other institution in EHC Plan – Education Act 1996 – Powers of the First-tier Tribunal

The appeal concerned the education of E, aged 19 at the date of the First-tier Tribunal’s (F-tT) decision. It concerned sections B, F and I of E’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The local authority had decided that a particular school (O School), an independent school which had not been approved under section 41(g)of the 2014 Act, could not be named in the EHC plan. On 12 January 2017 the F-tT decided that section I of the plan should be amended so as to read ‘Full time placement at an education setting offering a personalised curriculum, namely O School’ and (b) that 4 identified bullet points from the working document should be moved from section B to section A of the plan. The appellant local authority appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The issues before the UT were, whether the F-tT had power to name O School and power to make the amendment to the working document it did which touched upon section A of the EHC Plan, a matter over which the FtT has no jurisdiction.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that:

1. section 38 of the 2014 Act concerns the process under which a preference for a particular school or institution maybe expressed and receive a degree of statutory support. Section 38 does not limit the range of schools and institutions which maybe named in an EHC plan albeit a preference for those not within section 38(3) will not receive that statutory support. Consequently, an independent school such as School O could be named under section 40 (2)

2. the amendments made were “consequential amendments” permitted by regulation 43(2) (f) of the 2014 regulations.

Published 4 July 2017
Last updated 24 September 2020 + show all updates

1. 24 September 2020

   Decision selected for reporting as [2019] AACR 9

2. 4 July 2017

   First published.