Can a council move an EHCP (to a 'receiving authority') while the EHCP is going through appeal?
This is a complex situation explained to me by one of our members. The mother, while resident in Camden, applied for an EHCP and requested 3 secondary schools to consider her child (early 2025). The EHCP was so inaccurate (and included out of date information) that she believes this caused all 3 schools to say they can't meet need. She then appealed to have the EHCP updated but the appeal has been pushed back over and over again.
In the mean time, the parents divorced/separated. The Dad remains resident in Camden but due to cost of living, the Mother (around 18 months ago) moved to Hertfordshire, temporarily. The child was fully resident in Camden when the original EHCP application was made (and attended Primary school in borough). The child had to start secondary school (sept 2025) in Hertfordshire.
The EHCP appeal is ongoing. The Mother wants the outcome of appeal to name one of the 3 schools in Camden, then she can move back in Borough (can't move now as has to get child to school each day in Herts). Camden have just sent a letter asking for proof of residence in Camden by 10 April. If they don't get proof of residence they will pass the EHCP onto 'the receiving authority'. Is this allowed? (Note: Mother is a fire fighter, does this give her any special consideration as a key worker?) Thank you so much to anyone who can advise.
Support SEND Kids
Support SEND Kids
01 Apr 2026
A: SenseCheck
- 0 Yes
- 0 No
- 1 Other
- 01 Apr 2026
-
Other
|
Other
Too fact specific, I can't generalise.:
On the facts as described, Camden may be able to transfer the EHCP to Hertfordshire even though the appeal is ongoing, but only if Hertfordshire has become the responsible authority in law.
The starting point is that only one local authority can be responsible for maintaining an EHCP and securing the provision in it (Children and Families Act 2014, s.24(1); JG v Kent CC [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin), at [121]). If a child moves from one local authority area to another, the former authority must transfer the EHCP to the new authority (Special Educational Needs Regulations 2014, reg. 15).
So the key issue does not appear to be the existence of the appeal itself. Rather, it is whether Camden remains the responsible authority, or whether responsibility has passed to Hertfordshire.
The authorities suggest that a temporary or transitory move does not ordinarily change responsibility (JG v Kent CC [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin), at [133]; Hampshire CC v GC [2024] UKUT 128 (AAC), at [225]–[226]). On that basis, it may be open to say that the move to Hertfordshire was temporary, driven by financial and family circumstances, and that there remained an intention to return to Camden.
At the same time, Camden may point to the length of time involved and the child’s attendance at a Hertfordshire secondary school since September 2025 as matters suggesting that Hertfordshire has become the child’s settled base. The cases indicate that this is a fact-sensitive question, turning on where the child is living as part of the regular order of life (JG v Kent CC [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin), at [134]; Hampshire CC v GC [2024] UKUT 128 (AAC), at [206]; R v Brent LBC ex p Shah [1983] 2 AC 309).
So, the position appears to be that an ongoing appeal does not, by itself, prevent a transfer. Equally, Camden cannot lawfully transfer the EHCP simply because it wishes to do so, or because the appeal has been delayed. The transfer would still need to be justified by the facts and by the legal test for responsibility.
It is also relevant that the SEND Tribunal does not usually determine disputes between local authorities about which authority is responsible for an EHCP. The authorities suggest that such a dispute would ordinarily fall to be challenged by judicial review rather than within the EHCP appeal itself (JG v Kent CC [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin), at [143]).
So far as the mother’s role as a firefighter is concerned, I am not aware of any principle in this area that gives special status or priority on the question of which authority is legally responsible for the EHCP.
In short, Camden may be entitled to transfer the EHCP during the appeal, but only if Hertfordshire has genuinely become the responsible authority in law. If the move to Hertfordshire was only temporary, Camden may remain responsible. That appears to be the central issue on the facts as described. For a more definitive answer on the particular facts, it may be sensible to obtain specific legal advice.
01 Apr 2026
|
2 Comments