08.01 Does “provision” set out in an EHCP (section F) have to link to the “outcomes” set out in section E?
Noddy 'no-nonsense' Guide
Authors: David Wolfe QC, Leon Glenister
14 Feb 2022
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 14 Feb 2022
-
Yes
|
Simple
Yes. “It should be clear how the provision will support achievement of the outcomes”: COP2015 #9.69(F)
If the FTT allows an appeal and recasts SEP in the EHCP, then it may make consequential amendments to the outcomes to fit with the SEP – even though there is no specific appeal right in respect of Section E: S v Worcestershire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0092 (AAC) #84-85.
The principle under the EA1996 remains applicable, that where something is identified as an “objective” in Part 3A (predecessor to an outcome), Part 3B (provision) needs to specify the SEP intended to meet that objective: C v East Sussex CC [2004] EWHC 3122 (Admin)#17.
More: Why does the Noddy Guide refer to the EA1996 and cases related to it when SEN law is now in CFA2014?
14 Feb 2022
|