School brings landmark judicial review against Medway Council
We have recently acted for a school that was forced to bring a Judicial Review of its own local authority, Medway.
This case was brought by the school purely because it had clear, evidenced, concerns that it was not able to support a young person’s education or welfare.
The young person had moved to Medway in spring 2018 and had brought with him an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) that had been prepared by Greenwich Council. The Greenwich EHCP detailed a high level of specialist intervention for the young person, including access to sensory room and an appropriate peer group. The school were clear that they could not deliver the support detailed in the Greenwich EHCP.
The school in question, that cannot be named, approached us after months of discussions with Medway Council about the possibility of admitting the young person who has severe ASD, associated sensory difficulties and social communication needs.
The school in question, who were acting in the best interests of the young person, had explained to Medway Council that they had serious concerns about their ability to provide the young person with a suitable curriculum and to even keep him safe.
Of particular importance, the young person required peers who were able to communicate with him at his level and could use Picture Exchange System (PECS) and British Sign Language (BSL). The young person also required access to a sensory room and to teaching staff who are able to deliver a P-level curriculum.
The school, having read the Greenwich EHCP, informed Medway that it was unable to provide the young person with the support that he required. Six reasons were given:
- No staff were trained or experienced in the use of BSL, PECS or catering for pupils with severe autism.
- The relevant young person was functioning at a very low level in terms of his communication skills and Medway did not seem to have provided any provision for that.
- The young person needed, and previously had access to, a sensory room. The school in Medway did not have a sensory room and could not build one as there was no space to do so.
- The school had never catered for a pupil at the P-level scale. Further, the school was a junior school and, therefore, had a starting age of 7. The P-level curriculum would be considerably below that followed by every other pupil at the school.
- The young person would not have access to an appropriate peer group at the school.
- The school had genuine concerns for the personal safety of the young person given that it was noted that he had a propensity to have meltdowns and staff at the school were neither trained nor experienced in catering for such need.
In response to the concerns raised by the school, Medway Council took the extraordinary decision to edit the Greenwich EHCP to effectively remove all specified provision. Further, during a telephone conversation with the SENCO at the school, an SEN Officer made clear that the Local Authority could simply “make” the EHCP fit a mainstream school.
It is unclear what the young person’s parents’ views were during this process. Of course, the school engaged with the parents and explained the serious concerns for his welfare. Despite this, it appears that communications between the Local Authority and the parent may have happened separately and, as a result, the Local Authority maintained a stance that the school had to admit the young person. It is not clear what the Local Authority were telling the parents.
The school, during summer 2018, sought to involve the Secretary of State for Education. The Secretary of State has a general power further to the Education Act 1996 to intervene in a situation where a school has concerns about a Local Authority’s decision. In this instance, the Secretary of State, via the ESFA, refused to intervene.
Despite discussions taking place over a period of several months, Medway Council did not get around to issuing a Final EHCP until 5 September 2018. That EHCP catered for practically no special educational provision for the young person and named the school. This was despite all of the abundant information that the school had provided in respect of its suitability. Medway had further ignored the request for any funding that the school had made.
In respect of funding, the school had provided a detailed breakdown of around £40,000 worth of support that it felt was needed. This was purely to keep the young man safe at the school. This support was calculated on the basis of the Greenwich EHCP, because the Medway EHCP catered for practically nothing. Rather cynically, Medway later sought to criticise the school for the lack of clarity in respect of the calculation of its costs. This point is particularly criticised by the Judge in the High Court Judgment.
Having been left with no option, the school instructed HCB Solicitors.
On instruction, HCB Solicitors wrote to the young person’s parents, Medway Council and the Secretary of State to highlight that it seemed that the EHCP had been rewritten without any adequate reassessment. Further, it seemed that the Local Authority had misunderstood its duties to name a mainstream school in the young person’s EHCP.
The young person’s parents did not respond at any point. The Secretary of State took a neutral position.
Medway replied in a remarkably dismissive fashion, indicating that the school should simply comply with what it had been told to do. In terms of the changes to the EHCP, Medway claimed that it was entitled to make changes that it saw fit notwithstanding the lack of any expert advice. Indeed, Medway went on to argue that the Greenwich EHCP was written without any evidence and, therefore, Medway was at complete liberty to strip out any provision that it felt lacked evidence.
Despite months of ongoing negotiation, requests for additional funding and extensive explanation from the school that it was not suitable for the young person, Medway bizarrely continued to oppose the position. As a result, the school was left with no option but to make an application for judicial review. That application was made on 5 December 2018, with a rolled up hearing taking place on 23 and 24 January 2019.
The Judgment from the High Court was released on 4 February 2019. It can be found here.
The Judgment is remarkably critical of Medway Council. Two major points were made by the Court:
- That Medway had unlawfully “eviscerated” the special educational provision set out within the Greenwich plans;
- The lack of a properly constructed Section F of the EHCP meant that it was impossible to engage in any proper consultation with the school to enable a decision as regards suitability.
What this Judgment means
The Judgment makes clear that the Local Authority in this case, Medway, entirely misled itself in respect of its duties to provide a mainstream education and its powers to amend an EHCP.
The general presumption for mainstream education only arises once a Local Authority determines that the particular school the parents request is unsuitable. This is where Medway went into error because it felt that the mainstream presumption was an overriding duty rather than a backstop position.
What this Judgment very helpfully explains is that where parents express a preference for a particular mainstream school, the Local Authority must properly and carefully assess suitability. If that school is not suitable, the duty to provide a mainstream school then engages. However, the duty is not to provide the particular mainstream school the parents have requested, but rather to find an “appropriate” mainstream school.
The method by which Local Authorities need to find an “appropriate” mainstream school is suggested in the Judgment as being drawing together a pool of the mainstream schools and to consider the steps that would need to be made in order to facilitate those schools being “appropriate”.
In respect of the content of an EHCP, this Judgment very helpfully highlights that where a young person moves from one Local Authority to another, there is clearly a presumption that that EHCP, and the provision within it, should be upheld by the new Local Authority. Of course, the new Local Authority is perfectly at liberty to undertake a reassessment and, in light of that reassessment, rewrite the EHCP. What the new Local Authority is clearly not entitled to do, which Medway thought it was entitled to do, is to rewrite the EHCP in order to suit its own purposes. It sounds obvious that this is unlawful, however, that was clearly what Medway thought that it was entitled to do which is why it faced such difficulty in this decision.
This case should never have happened. It took the fortitude of the school and the intervention of the High Court to make Medway Council understand its legal duties.
Ultimately, this matter will have significant implications for Medway in particular because it will now have to pay its own costs and the school’s costs for bringing this judicial review.
Had Medway, at any point, properly considered this case it simply would not have got this far. The school, and HCB Solicitors, repeatedly highlighted to Medway that there was a young person at the centre of this issue that required suitable provision. That was the only reason this judicial review was brought; the placement was not suitable for the young person. Had Medway properly considered the evidence, the young person could have been given the provision he needed far sooner.
More broadly, this is a very important case for schools that consider the Local Authority are simply editing an EHCP in order to force a placement. For families, it helpfully explains the Local Authority’s duties in respect of the presumption for mainstream education, but also explains what a Local Authority can and cannot do on the adoption of an EHCP.
All that can be hoped is that Medway will now properly assess the young person, gather an accurate understanding of his needs and provision and make a suitable placement available for him. That is all the school, and HCB, ever wanted to achieve for the young person, and hopefully that will now happen.
If you are facing any issues similar to that contained within the Judgment or the above, please contact our specialist education solicitors on 0333 202 7175.
Education and support secured for young person with anxiety and ASD
J is now 18 years old and has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Condition, anxiety and depression. Cognitively J is above average and in relation to her attainment, she was considered to be achieving in line with her peers. J’s difficulties began to escalate in year 8; she could no longer cope in a maintained mainstream secondary school. She felt different from her peers and struggled to find her identity. She has sensory difficulties and a high level of anxiety which made her feel as if it was impossible for her to cope within a large mainstream secondary class.
Mrs A contacted HCB Solicitors in January 2018 when the Local Authority refused to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for J. At this time J was only receiving 3 hours of 1:1 tuition at a small centre attached to her mainstream secondary school. She had significant involvement from CAMHS and Autism Outreach. Sadly, she had attempted to take her own life and was rarely leaving the house.
We lodged an appeal immediately with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and the Local Authority quickly conceded this first appeal. An Education, Health and Care Needs assessment was carried out but failed to include contributions from the Speech and Language Therapy Service or the Occupational Therapy Service. Following this assessment, the Local Authority refused to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan.
A further appeal was lodged by us and despite strong evidence provided by J’s secondary school, an independent Educational Psychologist and CAMHS, the Local Authority proceeded all the way through the appeals process culminating in a Tribunal hearing. They lost. The Tribunal ordered that the Local Authority must issue J with an Education, Health and Care Plan.
The Local Authority failed to issue the draft EHCP within the required timeframe causing the family to instruct us once again to prepare a pre-action protocol letter threatening Judicial Review proceedings. On receipt of this letter, the Local Authority issued a draft EHCP.
J voiced that her preference was to attend an independent specialist college for young people with ASD. The college was based over 200 miles away from her home and therefore; she would have to stay there on a residential basis. Mrs A spoke of how J had voiced that they understood her at this school and she would be around other people who were similar to her making her feel accepted. She said that she was nervous about living away from home but had accepted that this was the only way for her to be able to achieve her dreams of attending university.
The final EHCP was issued, paying minimal attention to the parental or young person’s representations. The Local Authority refused to name the specialist college and named a mainstream further education provider in Section I of J’s EHCP. By this time J had been out of Education for almost a year.
This resulted in a third Tribunal appeal being lodged and further evidence obtained by the family in the form of an independent Occupational Therapy report and assessment information from the College, where J had completed a successful trial and been offered a place.
The Local Authority continued to oppose the appeal on the grounds that the placement was an unreasonable use of public expenditure and that their choice was more than capable of providing a suitable setting for J.
The final hearing was postponed, due to a lack of tribunal time and resources. The appeal was finally heard in July 2019. J was successful and a fully funded 38 week residential placement at the independent specialist college was ordered by the Tribunal, with a finding that the further education provider suggested by the Local Authority was unsuitable for the following reasons:
- No information regarding peer group or cognitive ability of pupils within the further education setting put forward by the Local Authority
- Only access to English and Math GCSE, no option to complete additional GCSE and A – Level qualifications. J is capable of far more and wants to study a range of GCSE subjects.
- J required specialist highly qualified teachers with experience in teaching those with ASD, the further education setting could not provide this
- A 4 day week was being offered, this was not suitable. J required a full time education
Mrs A contacted HCB Solicitors shortly after the successful result and stated:
“it was a wonderful result and I just wish you could see the effect that this has had on her. She is suddenly able to move forward with her life and can see that her dreams are attainable” “J, having lived mainly in pyjamas, decided a shopping expedition was indicated to get nice jeans and tops ready for starting in September and we had a lovely time wandering around the shops. I know and so does she, that she will face some challenges but at last she is going to get the help she needs in order to cope”.
University – Academic Misconduct (Cheating)
Our higher education solicitor recently represented a client who was accused of cheating during an examination. The student was witnessed writing on his hand during an examination and formal charges were brought against him which could have jeopardised their degree entirely.
HCB Solicitors were instructed to advise and draft full submissions on behalf of the student in question. On review of the paperwork, HCB Solicitors identified that there were mitigating circumstances that explained why the student wrote on their hand. The student in question would normally not write on their hand during an exam, but was unable to control their actions due to medical reasons. HCB Solicitors therefore advised the student to obtain a report from a medical expert to comment on the student’s condition and comment on whether they were able to control their actions as a result of that medical condition.
In the course of correspondence with the university, our higher education lawyer also identified that the university failed to comply with their own regulations. HCB Solicitors noted that the university did not provide the student with appropriate time to gather evidence in support of their case. HCB Solicitors informed the university of this failure and the student’s case was relisted in line with the appropriate timeframes.
HCB Solicitors subsequently drafted a detailed statement in response to the allegations making reference to the university’s own regulations, consideration of applicable case law and reference to the medical report. Following a review of the detailed submissions and response drafted by our higher education solicitor, the university agreed that the student was not guilty of cheating during the examination. Furthermore, the university agreed that all references to the allegation would be expunged form their student record.
It was integral in this case that a full explanation to the allegations were provided in line with the university’s own policies and regulations. Furthermore, this case was supported with comments from a medical expert to explain the actions of the student on the day of the examination.
Higher education law can be complex; particularly as each university has their own extensive rules and regulations. The deadline for appeals are often very tight and it is advisable to contact a specialist higher education solicitor for advice as soon as possible. Our university solicitors are passionate and experienced in assisting students through this process. Students pay significant fees to universities and it is important to instruct an experienced professional to help you obtain the best possible prospects of success.
For further advice, please contact our university solicitors on 0333 202 7175.
HCB Solicitors were instructed on behalf of the parent whose child was not permitted to attend an educational school trip.
The school had raised issues regarding student’s past behaviour and claimed that they were a risk. However, the student has made clear attempts to improve their behaviour and also participate in voluntary activities. The school made various comments to the student asking for their opinion on the trip and also commented that the educational trip would be good for educational purposes. The student in question also participated in a group practice and they were praised for doing well. Despite the significant improvements made by the student in question, the school decided to uphold the decision to ban the student from the trip.
HCB Solicitors were subsequently instructed to advise and draft a detailed letter asking the school to reconsider their decision. Following a review of the school’s policy and documentation, it was apparent that there was correspondence noting that student would be permitted to attend the educational trip if he maintained good conduct.
HCB Solicitors therefore addressed the fact that the student in question did make great improvements in their behaviour and that there is no evidence to indicate that the student would be a risk to others on the trip. HCB Solicitors therefore submitted that the decision to ban the student from the trip was neither reasonable nor proportionate. Furthermore, given the importance of the trip to the student, HCB Solicitors submitted that it was likely to have a significant adverse impact on the student’s educational and mental health wellbeing. HCB Solicitors also addressed the fact that there appeared to be a failure to provide support to the students in addressing any alleged misbehaviour.
Following a consideration of HCB’s detailed letter, the school agreed that the student should be permitted to attend the trip. HCB Solicitors were subsequently informed that the student and his group were one of the best performers; finishing in first place. The student was praised by all teachers and that he would be assisted in selecting his A-Levels. The student has subsequently made significant strides in their academic achievements and the school have noted that their behaviour has also improved.
This case therefore provides a prime example that students who are given a second chance can progress with appropriate support from the school.
Our client subsequently left the following review:
“I would like to mention how professional and extremely efficient and effective Mr Rhys Palmer was in my case. He is very professional and knowledgeable. I would highly recommend him. Thank you, once again for all your support.”
HCB Solicitors understand that it is often the case that schools may not review every case on the basis of its merits. It is important in many cases for there to be an independent, impartial and legal perspective so that they may change their mind on any decision that is made. For further advice, please contact HCB solicitors on 0333 202 7175.