[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

Finally, as for whether the Tribunal’s wording was impacted by a lack of specificity. The wording inserted into the EHCP should be sufficiently specific so as to leave no room for doubt. This may be particularly so if the school is not a special school. G’s school is not a special school rather it is an independent school with a significant number of pupils with special educational needs. On the other hand, the SEND Code of Practice of January 2015 is not absolute on this point (page 166): ‘Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise’ (my emphasis). Further as stated in Worcestershire the tribunal is entitled to use its expertise to decide on the proper balance between precision and flexibility.

The Tribunal rejected the wording put forward by both parties (full time 1:1 versus a high level of 1:1) selecting ‘a level’ of 1:1 based on the provision in section F. Dependent on the case it is open to a Tribunal using its expertise to leave the level of support to be determined flexibly based on tasks. However, I consider that the wording selected lacked the appropriate degree of specificity required in the context of this EHCP. Further explanation was required in this case as the Tribunal relied on its own expertise to insert wording of their choosing and felt unable to quantify the level of 1:1 support required based on the provision specified in section F. This may have been a situation where the Tribunal could have laid down a minimum level of requirement in terms of 1:1 support, as anticipated by the Court of Appeal in Newham (paragraph64 ii). Although I stress that nothing said by me should constrain a future tribunal’s decision making.

For the reasons above and to the extent specified the appeal on Ground 1 is well made and is allowed.