London Borough of Redbridge v H O (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Lane |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs - special educational provision - other,Tribunal procedure,practice - statements of reasons,Lane,S |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 18 January 2021 |
London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN)
[2020] UKUT 323 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/217/2020
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judge S M Lane
DECISION
The appeal is allowed.
This decision is made under section 12(1) and (2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal heard on 5 November 2019 under reference
EH317/19/00011 involved the making of an error on a point of law.
The appeal is SET ASIDE and REMADE as follows
The First-tier Tribunal’s amendment made to the working document that
ordered:
‘AK (the pupil) requires extracurricular support for one hour a week
at home from a trusted and familiar psychologist’
is DELETED.
The remainder of the document is confirmed.
DIRECTIONS
I direct that there is to be no publication of any matter likely to lead members of
the public directly or indirectly to identify any person who has been involved in the
circumstances giving rise to this appeal, pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal
Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698).
London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC)
HS/217/2020 2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introductory matters
1. The Appellant, whom I shall refer to as the Local Authority brings this appeal
with my permission. It concerns a First-tier Tribunal’s decision regarding the
contents of an Education Health and Care Plan for AK, the Respondent’s son.
The Respondent is HO, the child’s mother.
2. The LA was represented by Mr Rhys Haddon and the Respondent parent by
Mr Lachland Wilson, both of Counsel. I shall refer to the Appellant as ‘the
mother’ or ‘the parent’. It was unnecessary for the LA or the mother to attend
the remote hearing and they did not do so.
3. As required, I record that:
(a) the form of remote hearing was V (video by Skype). A face to face
hearing was not held because it was not practicable in the light of
Government guidance on urgent matters of public health and the case
was also suitable for remote hearing. Further delay would not have
been in the interests of justice;
(b) the documents that I was referred to were contained in the Upper
Tribunal bundle. The documents of significance in that bundle included
the LA’s submission and HO’s response. I also had the First-tier
Tribunal paper file (and a batch of duplicates) containing 351 paginated
documents plus an additional 40 further pages mainly comprised of the
EHC plan working document, version 8 (22/10/2019). A signed-off
copy of the final EHC plan was before me.
4. I did not put the parties to the expense of providing a bundle of authorities.
They are generally familiar to those in the field. I did, however, bring the very
recent decision by Upper Tribunal Judge West in Worcestershire County
Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC) to the parties’ attention as it dealt with
the case law relating to specificity in EHC plans in depth.
5. Although the parties were, at the outset, significantly at odds in relation to a
number of areas in the EHC plan, by the time of the First-tier Tribunal (the
Tribunal) hearing, the sole question was whether AK required extracurricular
support at home for one hour a week from a trusted and familiar psychologist.
6. Suspension of the Tribunal’s Order: By previous directions, I suspended
the Tribunal’s order to provide an hour of a psychologist’s input at AK’s home.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
MS and NS v Hertfordshire County Council (HS)
...[2015] UKUT 648 (AAC), Worcestershire County Council v SE (SEN) [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC) and London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC) in support of their contention that the Tribunal’s specification of SALT provision is impermissibly vague. They point out that up until V5 o......
-
DM v Cornwall County Council (SEN)
...child or young person”. This is what, as I see it, informed the concern in paragraphs 23(b) and 27(iii) of LB Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC). 28. That uncertainty has in fact played out in this case. I take account of this not because I am exercising a fact-finding jurisdiction ......