EHCP Appeals: Which Local Authority Is Responsible for a Young Person’s Provision?

The issue of which local authority is responsible for providing a young person’s special educational needs provision has again been considered by the courts, in London Borough of Enfield v (1) Teegan Edwards (2) London Borough of Haringey (SEN): [2026], giving families even more clarity on what can be a complicated legal question.

Why the responsible local authority matters

This question is relevant because it determines which local authority should be securing provision within an EHCP for a young person, or even which local authority should be responding to an appeal about that EHCP. It can become particularly difficult in situations where young people move between regions, often because of being in a residential school or college, or because of their social care provision.

Ordinarily resident and section 24 of the Children and Families Act 2014

Earlier this year in the Court of Appeal, as per the case of Hampshire County Council v GC and Anor [2026], it was found that whether a young person is ‘in’ a local authority as per s.24 Children and Families Act 2014 is determined by way of where that young person is ordinarily resident. This was a very important finding, as a local authority only has a duty to a child or young person in respect of their special educational needs when a young person is ‘in’ a local authority area.

The understanding of the application of s.24 Children and Families Act 2014 and what is meant by ‘ordinarily resident’ has been further expanded by the Upper Tribunal in London Borough of Enfield v (1) Teegan Edwards (2) London Borough of Haringey (SEN): [2026].

What the Upper Tribunal decided in Enfield v Edwards

This new judgment, which has recently been released, tells us that the correct legal test to apply in respect of where a young person is ordinarily resident is the ‘Shah’ test, which derives from the House of Lords in R v Barnet LBC, ex p Shah [1983], and which was further explained by the Supreme Court in R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023].

How ordinarily resident is assessed in practice

These cases tell us that ‘where’ a young person is ordinarily resident refers to a person’s abode in a particular place or country which they have adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, whether short or long in duration. There are a number of practical factors that should be considered when deciding where a young person is ordinarily resident, for example, where they are physically living for the majority of their time, where they may have registered with a GP and the social connections that a young person has to a particular area.

Social care duties and EHCP duties can sit with different local authorities

The approach to ordinarily resident, for the purposes of a local authority’s social care functions, does not also apply to the special educational needs context. This means that, where a young person is placed in a local authority (“local authority B”), by a decision of another local authority (“local authority A”), it is that local authority A that maintains a social care duty to the young person. It is likely that local authority B, however, would now be responsible for the young person’s special educational needs provision, such as carrying out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment or maintaining an EHCP.

As such, a young person may have more than one local authority responsible for meeting their needs, one which may be responsible for meeting their social care needs and one which may be responsible for meeting their special educational needs.

Substituting the respondent in a SEN tribunal appeal

The Upper Tribunal also further highlighted that the First Tier Tribunal has the power to substitute a respondent in an appeal if it considers that the incorrect respondent is currently recorded. The First Tier Tribunal has this power as part of their case management powers under Rule 9 of The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Rules 2008).

How we can help

Whilst recent decisions from the courts help to clarify the legal test that should be applied when deciding where a young person is ordinarily resident, and therefore which local authority has responsibility to them, it is still a complicated legal issue. You can read more about how our education law team supports families with EHCPs, needs assessments and tribunal appeals.

If you feel that your local authority might have misapplied the law, or a local authority is refusing to support a young person, then you may wish to seek legal advice from the expert SEN solicitors at HCB Widdows Mason, who can be reached on 0333 202 7175 or education@hcbgroup.com.