Upper Tribunal upholds decision by First Tier Tribunal to name communication and interaction hub in Section I of EHC Plan

In LL & Anor v Telford and Wrekin Council (Special Educational Needs) [2026] UKUT 128 (AAC) (18 March 2026), Upper Tribunal Judge Stout concluded that “provided the special school of which the hub is a part is named in Section I, it is lawful also to refer to the hub”.

The appellants' son, referred to in the judgment as "D", has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

He attended two different maintained mainstream schools before then being educated at home for a period. At the time of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, he was not attending an educational placement.

Following an EHC needs assessment, the respondent local authority issued an EHC plan for D in September 2023, against which the appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014).

By the time of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the matters that remained in dispute between the parties included the question of which school or other institution should be named in Section I.

The appellants wanted the First-tier Tribunal to name an independent special school approved under section 41 of the CFA 2014, but the council wanted to name a specialist communication and interaction hub operated by a maintained special school and based at the site of a maintained mainstream community primary school.

The First-tier Tribunal first considered whether each placement was suitable for D and concluded that they were both suitable.

Later in the decision, the Tribunal set out the evidence relating to the council's proposed placement, and its reasons for concluding that it was suitable.

The FTT considered the costs of the two placements and concluded that the additional cost to the council of D attending the parents' preferred school was £80,502.

The order at the end of its decision in relation to Section I was as follows:

“It is ordered that [the council] amend the Education, Health and Care Plan of [D] as follows: ...

3) In Section I, by replacing the existing wording with the following:

Name of Educational Placement: [X] School Specialist Hub at [Y] Primary School.

Type of Placement: Special school (with a specialist hub within a mainstream school).” 

The parents contended that it was unlawful to name the hub in Section I.

The Upper Tribunal Judge dismissed the appeal. The summary of the judgment says that the judge held:

1. The Tribunal was right to treat this specialist hub as part of the maintained special school that operated it, and not as a separate school or institution, consistently with the approach in TB v Essex County Council [2013] UKUT 534 (AAC), [2014] ELR 47 and MA v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2015] UKUT 186 (AAC);
2. Provided the special school of which the hub is a part is named in Section I, it is lawful also to refer to the hub. This is not prohibited by regulation 12(1)(i) of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1530) and the Tribunal has power to include such wording in appropriate cases where the parties agree (by virtue of regulation 43(1)) or by order as a "consequential amendment" under regulation 43(2)(f). (East Sussex County Council v TW [2016] UKUT 528 (AAC) and NN v Cheshire East Council [2021] UKUT 220 (AAC) distinguished);
3. The hub may also be referred to by description or by name in Section F where that is necessary to ensure that the provision reasonably required to meet the child's special educational needs is properly identified;
4. Even if the Upper Tribunal was wrong and inclusion of reference to the hub in Section I was an error of law, it was not a material one in this case.

Upper Tribunal Judge Stout said: “The First-tier Tribunal was satisfied that placement in the hub was suitable and appropriate for D, and that the provision to be made for D there was what was reasonably required to meet D's special educational needs. It was not in dispute that the special school of which the hub was a part....was not generally suitable for D, only placement in the hub was judged suitable by the Tribunal. Nor was it in dispute that placement in the mainstream primary.... was also unsuitable.

“In those circumstances, […] this was a case in which it was lawful and appropriate for the hub to be named in Section I in addition to [X] School, which would be the body responsible for admitting D to the hub and using its reasonable endeavours to meet his needs there. Reference to [Y] Primary School as a way of identifying the hub was also appropriate.”

She added: “If I am wrong about it not being an error of law, I am nonetheless satisfied that it was not a material error of law. This was information that could (or, perhaps, should) have been in Section F or, if not, it was simply identifying by name (and thus with greater clarity) the provision that the Tribunal had determined was reasonably required to meet D's special educational needs and the organisation (or part of a school) where it was to be provided.”

The Upper Tribunal judge was therefore satisfied the First-tier Tribunal did not materially err in law by referring to the hub in Section I in addition to the special school of which it was a part, and the mainstream primary school wherein it was located.

Making a closing observation, Upper Tribunal Judge Stout said: “Nothing in this decision should be taken as indicating that in every case involving a school hub it will be necessary or appropriate to name it in the EHC plan. There are many different models of hub provision. Each case must be dealt with on its own facts.”

Lottie Winson