A report for the Local Government Association (LGA) blaming the increase in special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) tribunal cases on an ‘unbalanced’ statutory framework and ‘affluent’ families using lawyers has been heavily criticised by legal charities and campaigners.

The number of appeals to tribunals over educational needs disagreements has more than doubled in the past decade. According to the report, ‘Agreeing to disagree?’, by consultancy Isos Partnership, councils reported that 'tribunal appeals were more likely to come from more affluent families and less likely to come from families from more deprived backgrounds. highlighting a potential lack of equity of access to dispute resolution’.

Local authorities lose 96% of SEND tribunal cases, which disability website Special Needs Jungle says councils spend £40m a year in legal fees contesting. Almost of a third of cases relate to a local authority’s failure to assess a child. 

The Isos report argues the case to ‘revisit the statutory framework’. It calls on the government to use a review announced in 2019 to reduce the need for tribunal cases. Reform should ‘balance the needs of the individual young person with the need to provide for all in a local area’. 

IPSEA, a charity that provides free legal advice to children and families with special educational needs, contributed evidence to the report, but rejected its findings. Its chief executive, solicitor Ali Fiddy, said: ‘This report completely misses the point that parents wouldn’t succeed at tribunal unless the evidence supported their case. The tribunal doesn’t uphold parents’ appeals because they engage persuasive advocates or because the judge gives in to demanding families – decisions are made on the basis of law and evidence.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.