[2023] UKUT 177 (AAC)

Ground 1 challenged the legality of the Tribunal’s second decision that the mentoring input (which it concluded that A required) was Special Educational Provision rather than merely being social care provision (as the Council asserted it to be).

Ground 2 challenged the legality of the Tribunal’s second decision that A required that special educational provision beyond term time.

To be clear: the complaint related to the Tribunal’s second consideration of the extent and classification of the mentoring provision, not to the conclusion that A properly required it, which was undisputed (see the February decision at [24]). Indeed, in its 22 August 2022 submission, the Council accepted at [18] that – at the very least – 5 hours per day mentoring during term time (with additional support out of term) was properly Section F provision. Its argument before the Upper Tribunal expanded even on the arguments it made before, and quite impermissibly.