LL & Anor v Telford and Wrekin Council

In an EHC plan, a specialist hub operated by a maintained special school may be identified in Section I in addition to naming the school of which it forms part. Regulation 12(1)(i) of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 prescribes information that must be included, but does not prohibit additional information that clarifies the placement. The hub may also be described, and in an appropriate case named, in Section F where that is necessary to identify the provision reasonably required to meet the child’s special educational needs. A tribunal may include agreed wording under regulation 43(1), or make consequential amendments under regulation 43(2)(f). The legality and materiality of naming a hub depend on the circumstances. Any error in additionally naming the hub will not be material where the school is named and the required provision is clear.

The appellants appealed under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014 against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision concerning their child’s EHC plan. The First-tier Tribunal declined to name the parents’ preferred independent special school and instead named Haughton School, a maintained special school, with reference to its specialist communication and interaction hub located at Hollinswood Primary School, a maintained mainstream school.

The appellants argued that the hub could not lawfully be named in Section I because it was not a separate school or institution. The central issues were whether the hub was part of Haughton School, whether additional reference to it could lawfully appear in Section I, and whether it could be identified in Section F as part of the required special educational provision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal had not materially erred in law. Haughton School was the established school responsible for the hub, including admissions and management, and the hub was not required to be treated as a separate school.
2. Whether an organisation is a school for section 4 of the Education Act 1996 and Section I is ordinarily a question of fact. A tribunal should, however, be slow to conclude that a hub is a separate school where that would imply that it had not been lawfully established under the statutory framework. The presumption of legality should be respected where an alternative analysis is reasonably open.
3. Once the tribunal had determined that the hub was the appropriate placement, sections 39(5) and 40(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 and regulation 12(1)(i) required Haughton School to be named in Section I. They did not prohibit additional wording identifying the particular hub. Regulation 12 prescribed required contents but did not establish an exhaustive list.
4. The hub could be described in Section F where the provision made there was reasonably required to meet the child’s special educational needs. In an appropriate case, provision specific to a placement or provider, including a named hub, could be included where necessary to achieve sufficient certainty. The usual preference for transferable wording in Section F was an important consideration, not an absolute rule.
5. Additional reference to the hub could be included by agreement under regulation 43(1). It could also be ordered as a consequential amendment under regulation 43(2)(f) where it followed from findings about the school named in Section I or the provision in Section F. The right of appeal remained limited to the statutory matters and was not expanded by additional wording.
6. In this case, identifying the hub in Section I was lawful and appropriate because the main site of Haughton School and Hollinswood Primary School itself were unsuitable, while placement in the hub was suitable. Alternatively, any error was immaterial because the school was named and the provision was properly identified.
7. The decision did not establish that every hub must be named in an EHC plan. Different models of hub provision require case-specific consideration.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care) (Special Educational Needs and Disability), whose decision dated 20 December 2024 was upheld. The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law.