[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

The respondent submits that the First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its approach to the question of whether Ali reasonably requires an extended day curriculum. The respondent submits that the First-tier Tribunal did follow the logical chain of analysis from needs to provision to placement as the law requires. The respondent submits that the Tribunal properly first determined the outstanding issues between the parties as to Section B, as a result of which it was determined, for example, that Ali is not resistant to and/or aggressive when support was provided in a school setting for personal care routines. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that he was not resistant/aggressive, so provision to address those needs was not required.

The respondent submits that it was legitimate in this case for the Tribunal to subsume consideration of all the elements of provision in Section F that were in issue between the parties under the one heading of whether an extended day was required because that question was capable of being properly answered by considering whether Ali was making reasonable progress while at School X where educational provision was only made during the normal school day. Having concluded that he did make reasonable progress at School X, it followed that he did not reasonably require extended day provision.

Further, the respondent submits that the Tribunal’s conclusion that Ali made reasonable progress at School X was one that was open to it and that its reasons are adequate. The Tribunal was entitled to take into account Ali’s age and stage of development. The Tribunal rightly noted that Dr Grace’s report did not adequately explain why the recommended provision could not be delivered during the school day, that she had conflated the question of an extended day curriculum with whether residential provision was reasonably required, that she did not attend the hearing to expand on her report, and that the witnesses from School Y were unable to explain why Ali reasonably required provision outside of school hours.

The respondent submits that it was relevant for the Tribunal to take into account that School Y was not providing structured programmes outside of school hours, and that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that, just because Ali was benefitting from the provision at School Y, it did not mean he reasonably required it.

Finally, the respondent submits that what the Tribunal meant by there being “no evidence” that Ali needed education beyond the school day was simply that it was not persuaded there was evidence.