[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

In accordance with Judge McCarthy’s conclusion, and as conceded by the Respondent, the Tribunal was in error of law because it did not explain its determination of the disputed SLT provision. On review it was determined that the amendment sought was not of provision as it related purely to assessment. This decision on review was made without the benefit of submissions.

I consider it is arguable that elements of the amendment sought may be determined to be provision within the meaning of section 21(1) Children and Families Act 2014. This is because the text in question was arguably not limited to ‘pure’ assessment and described some elements of provision to G. The parties should have the opportunity to address a tribunal on this at a hearing.

For these reasons Ground 2 of the appeal is well made and the appeal is allowed.