Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

Fecha: 09-May-2025

Appellant’s Submissions

Appellant’s Submissions

Ground 1 (1:1)

14.

It was submitted that the Tribunal’s decision resulted in an EHCP which lacked an adequate level of quantification and specificity with regard to the level of 1:1 support required by G. Oral submission was made in respect of the decision of Judge West in Worcestershire County Council v SE [202] UKUT 217 (AAC) which rehearses the applicable case law authorities from paragraph 56 onwards.

15.

Further it was submitted that the Tribunal fell into error in the following three ways:

(i)

The decision was based on a factual error; the finding that only one professional recommended the level of 1:1 support contended for. The evidence of the Appellants’ educational psychologist, Dr Kelly, was in fact supported by evidence from Ms Fern, SENDCo at G’s school;

(ii)

It was not reasonably open to the Tribunal to prefer evidence from historic reports of Ms McHugh, educational psychologist, dated September 2022, and Ms Sana, SLT, dated August 2022, over that of contemporary evidence from professionals working with G or who had assessed him more recently; and

(iii)

The decision impermissibly made reference to a setting-specific factor, class size, which was an irrelevant consideration.