Case summary

A child with special educational needs (SEN) had their needs assessed under the Education Act 1996. This is now an EHC needs assessment under the Children and Families Act 2014.

After the needs assessment, the child was issued with a Statement of SEN (now known as an EHC plan).

Part 3 of the Statement (now Section F of an EHC plan) did not specify the nature of the support and the number of hours required, instead saying the contents of the child’s individual educational plan should be negotiated with the child. Part 4 of the Statement (now Section I of an EHC plan) named a previous school, not the one the child was attending.

The parents successfully appealed the contents of the Statement on the basis that it was not specific enough.

What does this mean?

This confirmed that, whilst some flexibility was allowed in Statements in an appropriate case, a high degree of specificity was nevertheless required. The Statement was legally required to give details of the child's SEN and to specify the provision to be made.

The Judge said the Statement (now an EHC plan) should be:

“So specific and so clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided is necessary in the individual case. Very often specification of hour per week will no doubt be necessary and there will be a need for that to be done.”

This case was confirmed as good law for those with EHC plans in East Sussex County Council v TW [2016] UKUT 528. Therefore the principles established in this case apply to EHC plans.

No case report is available online.

For more information, see the section on what an EHC plan should contain.