GL v West Sussex County Council (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wikeley |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 414 (AAC),[2017] UKUT 414 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Special educational needs - description of special educational needs,Wikeley,N |
| Date | 13 October 2017 |
| Published date | 26 October 2017 |
GL v West Sussex CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 414 (AAC)
HS/2076/2017 1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
The DECISION of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal by the Appellant.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care
Chamber) issued on 11 May 2017, following the hearing on 4 May 2017, under
file reference EH938/16/00070, does not involve an error on a point of law.
There is to be no publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public
directly or indirectly to identify the child who is the subject of this appeal.
This decision and ruling are given under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules
2008.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This appeal turns on the meaning and proper application of the expression
“educates or trains” in the context of section 21(5) of the Children and Families Act
2014. This provides as follows:
“(5) Health care provision or social care provision which educates or trains a
child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision (instead
of health care provision or social care provision).”
The background
2. This appeal concerns the case of G, a young woman who was aged 17 at the
material time. She has a diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder along with
autistic spectrum condition and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She has a
range of needs, summarised by the First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in these terns:
“These include: being socially vulnerable; sometimes showing some risky
sexualised behaviours; having very little independence or daily living skills,
including managing money; needing reminders and prompting to manage her
personal care needs including bathing and brushing her hair; being unable to
prepare and cook a simple meal and being unable to go out on her own as she
is not safe to be independent” (reasons for decision at paragraph [13]).
3. G’s local authority (“the Council”) carried out an Education, Health and Care
(EHC) needs assessment for G and subsequently issued an EHC Plan (EHCP) for
her. G (or in practice her mother on her behalf) then appealed to the Tribunal against
Sections B, F and I of the EHCP, i.e. as regards the sections dealing with the
statement of G’s special educational needs and strengths, the special educational
provision required and the educational placement and type.
4. By the time the case got to the Tribunal hearing, the major issues in dispute
were whether G required a waking day curriculum (and, if so, with a number of
consequential amendments to the provision specified) and also whether G required a
residential placement at a special independent school (as G and her mother
contended) or whether her needs could be met through a day placement with extra
support at her local FE college (as the Council argued).
To continue reading
Request your trial