Case overview

A child’s (G) parents asked for permission to appeal the SEND Tribunal’s decision about section F of his EHC plan. Permission was refused by the SEND Tribunal, so the parents appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal decided the SEND Tribunal had failed to:

• adequately specify the level of 1:1 support required by G
• address disputed Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision, and
• properly explain the reasons for its decision

This case also identified some issues with how the SEND Tribunal weighed up competing evidence (evidence which disagrees with each other on the same point).

The case was sent back to the SEND Tribunal to be decided again by a different panel.

1:1 support

The SEND Tribunal had ordered for section F to state that G required “….a level of individualised appropriate support…..”, which was different to the wording which had been proposed by both G’s parents and the local authority (LA).

The Upper Tribunal decided this wording was not specific enough and reminded that “the wording of an EHC plan should be sufficiently specific so as to leave no room for doubt”.

SALT Provision

When reviewing the parents’ first application for permission to appeal, the SEND Tribunal accepted it had made a legal error because it didn’t explain its decision not to include wording (in section F) that G’s parents had asked for in respect of SALT. However, it refused permission because it thought the amendment G’s parents wanted related purely to SALT assessments, so was not special educational provision.

The Upper Tribunal disagreed because the wording in question did describe some elements of provision to G, so was not limited to assessment only.

Issues with the weighing of evidence and inadequate reasons for decision

The SEND Tribunal must follow certain rules, including rules about making clear the reasons for its decisions so they can be properly understood.

The SEND Tribunal appeared to have made mistakes when considering the evidence supplied for G’s appeal. Crucially, it appeared to have missed a provision map provided by G’s school, which had confirmed he was receiving “32.5 hours specialist support”.

It also did not properly explain why it had decided to:

• prefer evidence which was unclear over evidence which showed how much 1:1 support G required
• prefer older evidence over newer evidence, and
• reject the wording proposed by G’s parents and the LA on the 1:1 support, instead deciding on different wording of its own.

What does this mean?

This case helpfully reinforces that decisions made in the 2020 cases involving Worcestershire County Council and London Borough of Redbridge do not allow for the routine preparation of vague EHC plans.

Whilst the SEND Tribunal is allowed to use its expertise to decide matters such as how to balance precision and flexibility, the wording of an EHC plan still needs be sufficiently specific so as to leave no room for doubt, as set out in L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129.

You may find it helpful to use this case if your LA is relying on the Worcestershire and/or Redbridge cases to justify its use of vague wording, where the LA cannot show flexibility is required as a result of your child’s needs.

This case also confirms the SEND Tribunal is required to properly explain:

• the reasons for its decision
• how it has weighed competing evidence to reach a decision on which evidence to prefer, and
• decisions to ignore/ disagree with evidence submitted

The full decision for Mrs & Mr D v Cheshire East Council: [2025] UKUT 187 (AAC) is available online.

For more information, you can see our pages on what an EHC plan should contain