[2025] UKUT 239 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2025-000869-HS

RULE 14 Order:

THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, save with the permission of this Tribunal:

No one shall publish or reveal the name or address of D, who is the child involved in these proceedings, or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings (including the name of the school).

Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Between:

PS

Appellant

- v -

LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Hearing date(s): 11 July 2025

Mode of hearing: By video

Representation:

Appellants: In person

Respondent: Anna Staines (Solicitor)

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care) (Special Educational Needs and Disability)

First-Tier Tribunal No: EH212/24/00035

Tribunal Venue: By video

Hearing Date: 3 March 2025

SUMMARY OF DECISION

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (85)

The appellants’ child (D) attended X School (a special school). Following a breakdown in relations between the appellants and X School, the appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal seeking to have Y School named. D continued attending X School in the meantime. The First-tier Tribunal found Y School to be unsuitable. Neither party invited the Tribunal at the hearing to consider another school, although they were in the process of identifying alternatives. The Tribunal accordingly named ‘special school’ as a type in Section I. The local authority subsequently consented to D being removed from the roll of X School, without consulting with the appellants. The local authority acted on the understanding that removing D from the roll of X School was a consequence of the Tribunal’s decision.

The appellants sought permission to appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had failed sufficiently to safeguard D’s rights to prevent him being ‘off-rolled’ without the appellants’ consent. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal.

The Tribunal’s decision to name a type of school was not arguably erroneous given the circumstances as they were at the time of the Tribunal hearing. The removal of X School’s name from Section I of D’s EHC Plan did not of itself arguably cause, require or even permit the local authority to remove D from X School without consultation with the parents either by way of considering, in accordance with the statutory framework: (i) parental preferences for alternative schools; or (ii) making provision of education otherwise than at school. Further, although X School ceased to be under a duty to admit D as a result of the Tribunal’s decision, D was already a pupil at the school and could not be excluded from school otherwise than in accordance with normal procedures. Neither the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal on appeal have any powers of enforcement. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that the local authority would comply with its statutory duties. There was no arguable error of law in its decision.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION