Case overview

A local authority (LA) failed to put in place some of the special educational provision in a child’s education, health and care (EHC) plan, so his parents applied to judicially review the LA’s failure. This was not the first time their son had been without his required provision.

The parents wanted the High Court to order the LA to put in place the missing provision. The LA said the High Court should not do this, because it had not put the provision in place due to:

• the parents’ alleged “rude” behaviour to school staff, which the LA claimed led to tutors not wanting to continue working with the child (although this had no bearing on future applicants for the tutor role)
• a shortage of the required specialist tutors (the LA said that the school had tried to recruit a tutor), and
• a possibility the EHC plan may be amended at the next (already overdue) annual review, to remove or reduce the provision not being provided.

The High Court made an order giving the LA 5 weeks to put all the missing support in place

What does this mean?

This case confirms that LAs have an absolute obligation to make sure the special educational provision set out in an EHC plan is put in place, as set out in section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

LAs cannot pass the responsibility for securing provision in an EHC plan onto a school. The overall responsibility sits with the LA. This means that if efforts are made by a school to put provision in place, but these do not result in the provision being made for some reason, the LA must make sure the provision is made.

It is the right of the child or young person to receive the special educational provision specified in their EHC plan, not their parents. If there is an additional challenge, such as a breakdown of the relationship between a school and the parents, it is the duty of the LA to try to overcome that challenge.

The Judge in this case noted that the parents had, on occasion, behaved insensitively to school staff, and unreasonably, but recognised that this was likely due to their frustration, and maybe even trauma, caused by the amount they’d had to fight to have their son’s needs met. The Judge recognised that the responsibility for that frustration lay with the LA, which had not done what it could – and should – have done to provide the provision set out in the EHC plan.

The full case report for HXN, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Redbridge [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin) is available online.

For more information see our pages on enforcing an EHC plan and judicial review.