London Borough Of Enfield v (1) Teegan Edwards (2) London Borough of Haringey (SEN): [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC)
Summary
The Upper Tribunal has clarified how 'ordinary residence' should be determined for special educational needs responsibilities under the Children and Families Act 2014. It held that the test in Barnet v Shah, as explained in later Supreme Court authority, applies in the SEN context rather than the social care approach used for local authority social services functions. The decision also confirms that the First-tier Tribunal can and should resolve disputes over which local authority is responsible during section 51 appeals.
Why it matters
This is directly relevant to cases where a child’s placement or living arrangements raise questions about which local authority must meet SEN duties. Surveyors involved in supported accommodation, residential placements or local authority commissioning may encounter these jurisdictional issues in reports, evidence or dispute contexts.
Key points
- Ordinary residence for CFA 2014 purposes follows the Barnet v Shah test.
- The social care ordinary residence approach does not apply to SEN responsibility.
- A placement arranged by a local authority may change ordinary residence for SEN purposes.
- The First-tier Tribunal can determine the responsible local authority in section 51 appeals.
- The ruling aims to ensure the correct authority is the respondent throughout proceedings.
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
