[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

The omission to engage with the provision map, appears to have led the Tribunal into further error in that they state that ‘Dr Kelly is the only expert who contends that 1:1 support from a TA for 32.5 hours in required’. It appears based on the provision map that Ms Fern’s evidence was supportive of Dr Kelly as outlined above. This error of fact is material to the Tribunal’s reasoning.

The Tribunal notes that the evidence on the question of the appropriate level of 1:1 support ‘is not straightforward or one way’. I consider that it is not possible to understand from the decision how the competing evidence has been comparatively weighed for the Tribunal to reach its conclusion.

The Tribunal refers to the written reports of Ms McHugh, educational psychologist, and Ms Sana, speech and language therapist both dating from 2022. In noting that Ms McHugh does not mention a high level of or 1:1 support no reference is made by the Tribunal to the comparative age of the report with that of Dr Kelly. The Tribunal does not explain why the absence of specific reference to the level of 1:1 support by Ms McHugh is weighed as being more significant than more recent evidence suggesting 32.5 hours of 1:1 support is required. The Tribunal does not explain what significance is placed on the content of Ms Sana’s report in the context of 1:1 support.

The requirement for the Tribunal to articulate its reasoning clearly when departing from the wording proposed by both parties must also be considered in its particular context: that the Respondent accepted that G required a ‘high’ level of 1:1 support and evidence that, in 2023, G accessed 1:1 support from a TA available 80% of the time.

I was unable to understand the Tribunal’s thought process in the making of material findings on the question of 1:1 support. I consider that the Tribunal fell into error of law arising from a lack of adequate reasoning. That is sufficient to uphold this ground of appeal. I do not need to consider whether the decision is irrational in the sense that no tribunal, properly instructed on the law, could have arrived at this decision (if using their own expertise and based on all the available evidence they had properly explained their conclusion).