[2023] UKUT 177 (AAC)

A wrongly proceed on the assumption that the Tribunal found that the provision was s.21(1) special educational provision. But, for reasons already set out, the Council did not accept that that was a reasonable interpretation of what the Tribunal found, or that that was sufficiently clear from the post-Review Decision read alone or properly in the context of the Decision. A essentially argued that the references to education and training in the Decision (incorporated into the post-Review Decision) were otiose. The Council disagreed. A also overlooked the fact that the mentoring provision was included in Section H of the EHCP, giving a strong prima facie indication that it was social care provision, to which the Tribunal then applied s.21(5).

the post-Review decision, like the Decision, did not refer to either s.21(1) or s.21(5), which meant it was necessary to look back to the Decision to give context.

the Council relied on the same failure by the Tribunal advanced in Ground 1, save that Ground 2 was focussed on the issue of non-term time provision. It was also argued that a need for consistency was insufficient to justify special educational provision (on whichever basis) for 365 days per year.