[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)

The local authority argue that a typographical error cannot amount to an error of law. In the context of EHC Plans, I doubt that is correct as a general proposition. If, however, the First-tier Tribunal’s intended meaning is clear, despite the error, I would agree with the authority. In such cases, an authority’s implementation of the EHC Plan would not be obstructed by a defect in the way that a Plan describes the required provision.

In this case, the provision ordered by the Tribunal included:

“Half termly multi-agency meetings with BCBA A combination of PEAK, supervisor/lead tutor attendance to ensure multi-disciplinary team working to support [D’s] needs”.

That made no sense because PEAK is a type of curriculum, and it is obviously impossible for an abstract concept to attend a meeting. The local authority argue that the provision should be read so as to ignore the reference to attendance by PEAK at half-termly meetings. I agree that that is the only sensible way in which to read the provision ordered by the Tribunal. I therefore accept the authority’s argument that the Tribunal’s mistake in ordering attendance by ‘PEAK’ at half-termly meetings was not an error on a point of law.