BZP & BZQ v Warwickshire County Council (2026) UKUT 113 (AAC)

Case overview 

The parents of a child with an education, health and care (EHC) plan appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) about a decision made by the SEND Tribunal on whether: 

• a specific adult-to-pupil ratio in the classroom, and 

• psychotherapy 

should be specified in section F of the EHC plan. They did this because they felt the SEND Tribunal had made an “error of law” (a mistake), however the UT decided this was not the case.  

Adult to pupil ratio (and small class size) 

The parents and the local authority (LA) had agreed the child needed to be educated in a small class which could offer a low arousal environment, and the parents’ expert witness had suggested an adult-to-pupil ratio of 1:5 was reasonable to achieve this. However, the SEND Tribunal decided that ordering a specific ratio was unnecessary. 

The UT agreed the SEND Tribunal had been entitled to leave out the specific ratio. One important reason for this was that the expert evidence only suggested the 1:5 ratio was “reasonable” rather than “essential” for this child. 

The parents argued the term “small class” was not specific enough, but the UT said based on the evidence, any further specification beyond “small class” would be “arbitrary” (meaning based on a random choice or preference rather than for a logical reason), and because there are various factors which influence the arousal levels of a class and not simply the number of pupils.  

Crucially, the UT said, “a Tribunal cannot make more specific findings of fact than the evidence allows”. In this case, the evidence for a specific ratio was not strong enough. The UT referenced Worcestershire County Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC), which tells us how specific an EHC plan needs to be will depend on all the individual facts in a case.  

Psychotherapy  

The UT agreed with the SEND Tribunal’s decision not to order this provision, because the parents had not produced the right evidence for it during their SEND Tribunal appeal.  

The full decision for BZP & BZQ v Warwickshire County Council (2026) UKUT 113 (AAC) is available online. 

What does this mean? 

This case reminds us that in a SEND Tribunal appeal, it will be crucial for you to: 

• provide evidence to show the provision you are seeking is necessary (evidencing something is “reasonable” or “beneficial” is not the same) 

• show the level of detail you are asking for is necessary. For example, if you are seeking a specific adult-to-pupil ratio in the classroom, you will need expert evidence which clearly explains why such a ratio is necessary to meet your child or young person’s needs, and 

• provide evidence from a qualified professional where therapeutic provision is being sought, to enable the SEND Tribunal to decide what therapy (if any) is required, how many sessions will be needed and whether the therapy is special educational provision or health provision. 

It also reminds us that brand new evidence cannot be taken into account in an UT appeal, because the UT has to decide whether the SEND Tribunal made an error using the evidence available to it at the time.