![[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Late agreement that D should be educated ‘otherwise than at school’
Late agreement that D should be educated ‘otherwise than at school’
As issued by the local authority, the EHC Plan provided for D to be educated at a school and his required special educational provision was framed accordingly.
On 30 March 2022, which was two working days before the date listed for a final hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the local authority prepared an updated ‘position statement’. The statement explained why the authority now considered that D’s EHC Plan should provide for ‘EOTAS’ provision (education otherwise than at school), in this case at home, rather than a school placement at V Academy. The statement reported V Academy’s view that, while in principle they thought that they could meet D’s needs, “it would not be able to do so successfully without the full support of the parents who have expressed the clear view that the school is not suitable for their son”. That reflected the contents of a letter written by V Academy dated 23 March 2022. This was a fundamental re-orientation of the case but, surprisingly, was barely mentioned in the Tribunal’s subsequent statement of reasons for its decision.
- 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