[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

Mr Holland urged caution in my approach to disposal of the appeal and reminded me of the expert nature of the Tribunal and its inquisitorial function. It was submitted that, if I conclude the Tribunal erred on facts or the decision lacked rationality, I should not constrain any future First-tier Tribunal by considering specificity to the extent contended for by the Appellants.

It was submitted that the appeal primarily proceeds by criticising how the Tribunal approached the evidence and this, in effect, is a disagreement with the factual conclusions of the Tribunal. While it was accepted that the Tribunal could have expressed itself more clearly, the conclusion that 1:1 support was not necessary was a conclusion open to it. The appeal should not succeed on this basis because it effectively invites the Upper Tribunal to make a determination on the facts.

It was accepted that normally special educational provision would be specific and quantified. However, the context for this appeal is that the Tribunal determined that full time 1:1 support was not necessary. It would therefore not be appropriate, on these facts, to specify the precise circumstances when 1:1 support may be required. The Appellants’ suggestion is that for each and every element of provision in Section F, required support should be precisely specified. It is submitted that this would be both impractical and undesirable. If this level of specificity were written into the EHCP it would remove professional discretion.

The Tribunal made reference to the fact that G was already schooled in an environment with a high staff to student ratio. This comment was made in the context of an agreed Section I school placement. It does not follow that the Tribunal made its decision because of the level of support available at the school in question, it was simply giving additional factual context to its decision.

On the issue of specificity, professional discretion and flexibility the Respondent referred to the Court of Appeal decision in E v Newham [2003] EWCA Civ 9 and the Upper Tribunal in FC v Suffolk County Council (SEN) [2010] UKUT 368 (AAC).