Decision Report Case 10/2011-12
| Decision Number | 10/2011-12 |
| Year | 2012 |
| Court | Special Education Needs Tribunal for Wales |
Disclaimer: This document is an anonymised version of the specific decision. Each case is
considered by SENTW on its individual merits, reflects the law as at the time the decision was
made, does not create precedent and should not be relied on as such.
DECISION
Date of Birth: 1994
Appeal of: The Parents
Type of Appeal: Against the contents of a statement of SEN
Against Decision: The Local Authority
Date of hearing: 2011
Persons Present: The Parent Parent
The Parent Parent
The Parent’s
Representative Counsel
The Parent’s
Witness Principal MSI consultant
The Parent’s
Witness Deputy Head School C
The Local Authority
Representative Counsel
The Local Authority
Witness Deputy Head School B
The Local Authority
Witness Advisory Teacher
Appeal
1. The Parents appeal under section 326 of the Education Act 1996
against the contents of a statement of special educational needs made
by The Local Authority (LA) for their Child.
Preliminary Issues
2. The LA made two preliminary applications. The first was to allow the
LA’s statementing officer, to attend the hearing as an observer. As the
parents did not object, the application was allowed pursuant to rule
30(3). The second application was for permission to allow the
attendance of an Educational Psychologist as a third witness. The
Educational Psychologist had originally been named as a witness by
the LA but was subsequently replaced by the Advisory Teacher who
was present at the hearing. This application was made on the basis
that the parents had filed late evidence from an educational
psychologist, and that the LA Educational Psychologist could be of
assistance to the tribunal in interpreting this report. This application
was refused. Permission to allow a third witness is only normally given
in exceptional circumstances. In this case there was written evidence
from an educational psychologist for both parties and the tribunal is
well placed to interpret and evaluate such evidence.
3. The parents applied to admit a report dated November 2011 by an
Educational Psychologist. This report was served upon the tribunal
and the LA in November 2011. The criteria in regulation 33(2) were
satisfied and the LA did not oppose the application. The tribunal was
satisfied that the admission of the report in evidence would not be
contrary to the interests of justice and accordingly allowed the
application.
4. The hearing of the evidence in this appeal took a full day. It was agreed
that each party should provide written closing submissions. The LA
had not provided comprehensive details of costs at the hearing and
although costs information had been provided to the parents a few
days before the hearing, the Parent Representative requested and was
granted the opportunity to raise questions of the LA in relation to the
costs quoted. A direction was made for the parents to send to the LA
within two days of the hearing a request for further information on the
issue of costs. The LA was directed to respond by mid December and
also to file closing submissions by the same date. The parents were
directed to file and serve a closing submission on or before the end of
December 2011. These directions were complied with by the parties
and the tribunal panel reconvened in early January 2012 to consider
the evidence and to formulate this decision.
Facts
5. The Child was born in October 1994 and is now seventeen years and
three months of age. The appellants are the Parents. The Child has
complex health and other needs. The Child has a diagnosis of CINCA
syndrome (chronic infantile neurological cutaneous and articular
syndrome), which affects the Child’s skin, joints and central nervous
system. The Child also has hydrocephalus which is treated with a
shunt; the Child has visual impairment and profound hearing loss. The
Child has been fitted with a cochlear implant on one side which has
greatly improved her hearing and speech.
6. The Child has always attended a mainstream school. Until July 2011
the Child attended School A.
7. The Child first had the benefit of a statement end of October 1998. The
statement has been amended periodically since then leading to the
issue of the statement under appeal in June 2011. In that statement
the local authority names School B as a placement from September
2011.
8. The Parents issued their appeal against parts 2, 3 and 4 of the
statement in August 2011.
9. School B is a local authority maintained special school. The school
caters for pupils aged between three and nineteen years with a wide
To continue reading
Request your trial