Legal challenge over council failure to secure child’s special educational needs and EOTIS in interim succeeds

A family’s claim for judicial review challenging the London Borough of Hounslow over its failure to secure their teenage son’s special educational needs, and its failure to secure education other than in school (EOTIS) in the interim, has succeeded.

The claim concerned ADN, a 15-year-old disabled child with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). His special educational needs are such that he requires a special school.

In December 2022, his family were told that he would not have a school place from September 2023. The local authority, the London Borough of Hounslow, agreed to find a new place.

Representing the family, Gráinne Mellon of Garden Court Chambers noted: “Despite being of statutory school age and despite criticism and intervention, including from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, ADN remained without a school place from September 2023 onwards - a period of over 19 months, and from the ages of 13-15 years old. He missed two full academic years at school.”

In addition to the absence of a school place, ADN also received “limited education” outside of school during this time.

The claimants noted that their son received some “limited and sporadic” tutoring at home, however, due to delays by the council - including in sourcing provision, pausing provision for assessment and annual reviews, and providing direct payments - ADN received no tuition at all for six months in 2024.

Education outside the home was secured only after proceedings were issued in February 2025, however, this was on a limited and part-time basis only.

ADN’s family brought a claim for judicial review challenging Hounslow’s failure to secure ADN’s special educational needs, contrary to s. 42 Children and Families Act 204, and its failure to secure EOTIS in the interim, contrary to s. 19 Education Act 1996.

ADN’s father additionally claimed that the local authority breached his right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The case was heard on 3 April. According to Mellon, the council “at the door of the court” consented to the court making three declarations of illegality and two mandatory orders.

The London Borough of Hounslow agreed to secure a school for ADN within five weeks, and secure education outside of the school pending ADN commencing his new school.

It also consented to the court ordering that it had “acted in violation of the claimant’s right to education” under article 2, protocol 1 of the ECHR, by denying him the right to education from September 2023.

ADN was represented by Gráinne Mellon, leading Alex Temple of Garden Court Chambers’ Education Law Team. They were instructed by Dominic Pellew of SinclairsLaw.

Dominic Pellew, Solicitor at SinclairsLaw, stated: “The local authority’s repeated failures to find a suitable school or provide alternative education were damaging to my client. It is a significant outcome that the local authority has now acknowledged their actions as a breach of this child’s human rights.”

A spokesperson for the London Borough of Hounslow said: “We regret that our efforts to find a suitable placement for ADN have been frustrated, and that this has caused him and his family distress. But we’re glad to have reached a positive agreement with his parents, identifying a local school where ADN can start in September. 

“As the judge noted, both ourselves and the family have been working in ADN’s best interests. We worked diligently to identify a suitable and sustainable school for him. Consulting with more than 40 schools, including local independent schools and exploring residential school placements as well.

“We also allocated a personal budget to support his interim education and worked to find an appropriate tutor to support ADN’s learning. 

“We wish him every success in his new placement.”

Lottie Winson