[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

In view of my conclusion on Grounds 2 and 3, I can deal with this issue briefly. The appellants’ complaint is that the Tribunal placed significant reliance on the evidence of the local authority’s educational psychologist Ms Burns’ when she had not in fact had any personal involvement in Ali’s case since he was at nursery in 2019. In particular, they complain that the Tribunal at [6] apparently accepted Ms Burns’ opinion that Ali’s regression during school holidays was within the normal range and that“His gains are not negated by the length of time he is out of school”, and also Ms Burns’ opinion that “there was a social care need for the family and school to work together”. I am sympathetic to the appellants’ concerns about the Tribunal’s reliance on the evidence of Ms Burns, but I consider that the Tribunal’s error in this respect is one of inadequate reasoning rather than an error in the assessment of the evidence. Although Ms Burns had not personally observed Ali since 2019, she had reviewed the more recent reports, and spoken to Ms J. She was therefore able to give her professional opinion on the matters that she did, and it was open to the Tribunal to accept that evidence. Given the strikingly long time since her personal involvement with Ali, however, and the lack of recent involvement by anyone else in the local authority’s educational psychology service (as described in her witness statement: FTT Bundle, p 546), I would have expected this to be mentioned in the Tribunal’s reasons. The Tribunal’s failure to address this issue is part of why I have concluded that its reasons in this case are inadequate. The failure in reasoning is, however, covered in part by grounds 2 and 3 above and also by ground 5 below. Ground 4 as a free-standing ground does not succeed.