![[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
in relation to Ms Long’s documentary evidence, stated
in relation to Ms Long’s documentary evidence, stated:
“23. Section D (page 10) [of the WD] – the Tribunal found the Child in Need (9 February 2021) and Family Assessments by the LA, thorough, whereas that from the independent Social Worker, Ms C Long (16 April 2021), to have context around anticipated school attendance, which now has been superseded. We found and determined in consequence that the LA’s italicised wording accurate from the evidence, which should be included, and the bold wording from the Parents to be of opinion and therefore inappropriate as content for this EHCP.”
On 14 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal reviewed its decision and remitted “the decision to the same panel to correct the lack of specificity regarding the provision of occupational therapy”. The Tribunal judge remarked that the 15 June 2022 decision’s failure to specify whether occupational therapy provision was required for 38 or 52 weeks annually had caused ‘confusion’.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the Appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal
- Late agreement that D should be educated ‘otherwise than at school’
- The hearing on 1 April 2022
- Community access and restraint: arguments
- Ms Long’s reports
- Nutrition and sleep
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- stated as follows at paragraph 13
- made the following findings about D’s need to access the community, as part of his education, and related provision
- in relation to nutrition, stated
- in relation to assessment for sleep difficulties and ADHD stated
- in relation to Ms Long’s documentary evidence, stated
- Grounds of appeal
- Legislative framework
- As mentioned above, those matters are dealt with in sections B and F of an EHC Plan respectively
- Regulations
- Events following the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission to appeal
- Local authority’s arguments
- Ground 1
- the Appellant argues (which is not accepted) that she had no opportunity to make submissions on the qualifications and expertise of the additional supervising support worker. However, the Appellant pr
- Ground 2
- Ground 3 & Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Appellant’s response to the authority’s written submissions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 & 4
- Conclusions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 and 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Conclusions