VERY Dodgy tribunal ruling? A sign for the future for EHCP?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

www.scottishlegal.com/index.asp?cat=NEWS&Type=Civil#55057

It's Scottish Law btw, but CSPs are worryingly similar to the proposed EHCP model imo.

Sounds like the end of enforceable statements.

Is the implication that the provisions are at the discretion of the LA, or that there should be recent evidence of needs at the tribunal?

What was the argument of the parents exactly? Did they have independent evidence that their DC had SLT needs?

Not sure of the case to be honest. I know that their child has ASD, which usually means SALT needs. But obviously professionals believed it is what he needed as it was written into their plan.

The tribunal seemed to be about the fact that it wasn't delivered. The judge ruled that it didn't need to be despite what was written in the plan.

It isn't really the argument about whether or not the child NEEDED to provision that is the worry hear. It is the fact that the law has been made into a joke. It is the fact that the judge has the power to ignore the law. It is the fact that a parent has no power to ensure justice.

If the child didn't need the provision, then it should have either not been written into the plan, or removed from the plan. That would have been the lawful way of dealing with it.

I don't think you can extrapolate the end of enforceable provision from this.

Firstly, this is Scottish law and a Tribunal decision at that. I don't know anything about Scottish law but Tribunal decisions here are not binding and a case would be taken by way of judicial review to the High Court.

So I don't know what legal status this decision has and this does matter if you are worried that it is going to change the law on enforceability as may not set a legal precedent even in Scotland. If it has the status of a Tribunal decision here, it will have no legal application anywhere other than on the facts of its own case which is what precedent means. Presumably, in any event, it is appealable.

Secondly, the law on enforcing statements is well set out in cases like North Tyneside. I am not aware that the duty to arrange change has been changed by the CFB so the existing case law applies.

The point of a CSP (coordinated support plan) is that it's for when other services - like NHS etc - are involved, and that it's flexible as a person's condition changes. They can be quite short term.

There are other provisions for a child with ASN (additional support needs) whose needs can be met in school.

I don't know if that changes your opinion or not, OP - I just wanted to clarify how CSPs worked.

It's true I'm not clear on the law in Scotland, or even England tbh, but I suppose this case just said to me 'This is the path we are going as a society. This is our level of respect for agreed provision and the law. Let LA's do wtf they like without recourse'.

If the decision had gone the other way. I would have a lot more hope for the future or EHCPs.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to be arsey. I don't know much about the law here or in England, but I do (or did!) know about CSPs, and I've seen Scottish posters here thinking that they need one to get help if their child has ASN (SEN), but their purpose is quite specific.

It wasn't taken like that at all. It is important that misunderstandings are corrected and things are clarified.

But I read the case and fell into despair at just how things are going generally. This case might not be related at all to what is happening in England, but I find it hard to believe attitudes and cultures are completely untouched by each other.

I'm surprised that the child was so clearly identified in that report - name, age and school all given.