Decision Report Case 9/2011-12
| Decision Number | 9/2011-12 |
| 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: 1998
Appeal of: The Parents
Type of Appeal: Against the contents of a statement of SEN
Against Decision of: The Local Authority
Date of Hearing: 2012
Persons Present: Parents Parent
The Parents
Representative NDCS Representative
Parent Witness Head Teacher
Parent Witness SALT
Local Authority
Representative Barrister
Local Authority
Witness Sensory Impairment Manager
Local Authority
Witness Teacher for Hearing Impaired
Appeal
1. The Parents appeal under Section 326 of the Education Act 1996 against the
contents of a Statement of Educational Needs (the Statement) written by the
Local Authority (the LA) in respect of the Child.
Facts
2. The Child was born in December 1998. The child lives at home with the
Parent 1. The Child has an older sister who has left home, and Parent 2
works away, but the family is together over some weekends. The Child
attended School A from September 2010 to December 2011. The Child then
transferred to School B a non-maintained specialist secondary school for deaf
children, from January 2012. The Child boards at School B during the week,
and comes home for most weekends and during the school holidays.
3. The Child has hearing loss in both ears to the extent that the Child is
profoundly deaf and needs to wear hearing aids in both ears to achieve any
functional hearing. The Child also relies upon lip-reading. The Child is of
average cognitive ability.
4. The LA issued a Statement in respect of the Child dated September 2011.
The Parents have appealed against that Statement as they disagree with
some of parts 2 and 3, and also disagree as to the school named in part 4.
The LA named School A in part 4, and it was their case that that school could
adequately meet the Child’s needs.
Preliminary Issues
5. We were asked by both parties to admit late evidence. In the case of the
To continue reading
Request your trial