Q:
Can a LA effectively ignore a SEN Tribunal Judgement ?
We have "won" at Tribunal and the Judge ordered that sections B and F be replaced by the amendments that the tribunal suppled. As well as taking nearly 8 weeks to issue their first attempt, the LA have decided to use the opportunity to edit the entire document including making numerous additions and deletions to sections B and F. In particular, they have taken key paragraphs written by the Tribunal and appended to them so as to change (no doubt they would say "clarify") their meaning. As I understand it they are allowed to edit the document whenever they like so doesn't this in effect override any power the Tribunal has?
I am part way to starting Judicial Review proceedings but I haven't yet had any advice about whether I have a leg to stand on or not because initially at least I'm going with sossen and no professional reply as of yet. Any thoughts on this very gratefully received.
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 14 Jul 2024
-
Yes
Other
Michael,
These situations can be very stressful for parents.
As you have approached an excellent charity that will undoubtedly be able to assist you, I will provide a general overview that may offer some relevant background.
Before deciding how to proceed, it is important to consider what 'variations' the Local Authority (LA) has decided to make and determine whether they are substantial, i.e., materially affecting sections B and/or F. If they are, clearly this is significant.
The LA is required to comply with the Tribunal's decision, as addressed in the Noddy Guide:
12.24 Does the LA have to comply with an FTT decision?
In other words, if additional amendments are made, the authors of the Noddy Guide say that these should be interpreted as a review of the EHC plan, offering the parents or young person an additional right of appeal.
Hypothetically speaking, if the variations on what was ordered are material and appear to circumvent the Tribunal’s decision, Judicial Review may be a consideration. Indeed, one could argue that if an LA disagrees with a decision, they should challenge it by appealing to the Upper Tribunal, not just attempt to circumvent its implementation.
If the decision received lacks clarity—which can occasionally happen—and there is ambiguity over how the document should be interpreted, the Judge can be asked for additional clarification.
I hope this general summary is helpful. Best wishes in seeking to resolve the issue, and I look forward to hearing any other views people may wish to share.
Regards,
Sean Kennedy.
Sean Kennedy
Talem Law
|
Comment