The LA responsible for an EHCP does not have to be the same local authority responsible for social care

An Upper Tribunal judgment has clarified that the local authority responsible for a child or young person’s EHCP does not have to be the same authority responsible for their social care. The case confirms that ordinary residence for SEND purposes must be considered separately from the rules governing social care responsibility, meaning two different councils can have legal responsibility for different aspects of the same young person’s support.

The movement between local authority areas is important because it is how the ordinary-residence question arises, but it is not the central legal point. The significant ruling is that SEND ordinary residence and social-care ordinary residence are separate legal questions and can result in different councils being responsible.

The case information

Upper Tribunal, [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC), decided 14 July 2026

London Borough Of Enfield v (1) Teegan Edwards (2) London Borough of Haringey (SEN): [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC)

Lay summary

This case is about a fairly basic but very important question: when a child or young person with SEND moves between local authority areas, which council becomes legally responsible for their special educational needs and EHCP?

The Upper Tribunal decided that the answer depends on where the child or young person is “ordinarily resident” for SEND purposes. Importantly, the council responsible for the EHCP does not necessarily have to be the same council that is responsible for the person’s social care. GOV.UK

What happened in this case

The young person, TE, was 19 and had an EHCP. He had complex needs and had lived in a number of different placements. His mother lived in Haringey, but Haringey placed him in supported accommodation in Enfield.

There had already been considerable movement of responsibility between councils. At different stages Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham, Enfield and Haringey had all been involved in the SEND Tribunal proceedings. The First-tier Tribunal eventually decided that, at that time, TE was ordinarily resident in Enfield, because the supported accommodation there was his home and was not intended to be merely temporary. Enfield appealed. GOV.UK

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Enfield’s appeal. It agreed that the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to find that TE was ordinarily resident in Enfield at the relevant time. GOV.UK

The most important ruling

The judgment makes clear that “ordinary residence” for SEND is not necessarily the same as ordinary residence for social care.

This is important because social care legislation contains special rules which can mean that the council which arranges a person’s accommodation remains responsible for their social care even after placing them in another council’s area.

The Upper Tribunal said those special social-care rules do not simply carry across into the Children and Families Act 2014.

So, for example, Council A could place a young person in long-term supported accommodation in Council B’s area. Council A might remain responsible for some social-care functions, but Council B could become responsible for the young person’s SEND and EHCP if the young person has become ordinarily resident there. GOV.UK

What does “ordinarily resident” mean?

The judge adopted the established Shah test, as later explained by the Supreme Court in Worcestershire.

In ordinary language, the question is essentially:

Has this place become somewhere the child or young person is living, as part of the settled pattern of their life for the time being?

It does not have to be their permanent home. A person can be ordinarily resident somewhere for a limited period. The court said that the assessment should be largely objective rather than an attempt to identify someone’s “real home”. GOV.UK

Paragraph 106 of the judgment is particularly important because the judge sets out practical principles. In simplified form:

• If a child or young person is in England, one local authority will be responsible for their SEND under Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014. It may be a different authority from the one responsible for social care.
• A person will normally be ordinarily resident somewhere if they have adopted that place as part of the settled pattern of their life, even if only for a limited time.
• If the child or young person lacks capacity to decide where to live, the relevant intentions of the person or body making that decision for them are considered instead.
• A young person who has capacity may still be treated as having adopted accommodation voluntarily even where, in practical terms, they had little alternative but to accept the accommodation offered.
• Detention, secure accommodation and some deprivation-of-liberty situations may be different because the residence may not be voluntary.
• A move does not have to be permanent before ordinary residence can change.
• Temporary absences or genuinely temporary placements will not normally change ordinary residence. GOV.UK

The judge added a particularly significant warning: where a move is intended from the outset to last more than a whole school year, it will be unusual for it still to count merely as a temporary arrangement rather than ordinary residence in the new area. GOV.UK

What about residential schools?

The judgment does not say that attending a residential school automatically makes the child ordinarily resident in the council area where the school is located.

The judge said the basic principle remains that ordinary residence concerns where the child or young person lives, rather than simply where they are educated.

However, the precise facts matter. For example, a 52-week placement jointly arranged by education and social care might in reality be somewhere the young person is living, rather than merely somewhere they attend for education. GOV.UK

Can the SEND Tribunal decide which council is responsible?

Yes.

This is another important part of the judgment.

There is no free-standing right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal simply because someone disagrees with a council’s decision about which authority is responsible.

However, where that question arises during an existing SEND appeal, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to decide which local authority ought to be the respondent. It needs to do so because it must have the legally responsible authority before it if its eventual orders are to work properly. GOV.UK

The Upper Tribunal stressed that having the correct authority involved is not just an administrative technicality. Different councils may have different local provision, different placement options and different transport arrangements. GOV.UK

If responsibility changes during an appeal, the Tribunal can substitute one council for another. The new council generally steps into the previous authority’s shoes rather than being able to undo everything that has already happened in the proceedings. GOV.UK

What did this mean for TE?

The First-tier Tribunal had found that TE’s supported accommodation in Enfield was not temporary or transitory.

The Upper Tribunal said that, on that factual finding, the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to decide that TE was ordinarily resident in Enfield for SEND purposes. The fact that Haringey had arranged the accommodation and remained involved in his social care did not prevent that conclusion. GOV.UK

The judge acknowledged that this approach can produce an uncomfortable result. Where a young person experiences repeated placement breakdowns, responsibility for the EHCP could potentially move repeatedly between councils.

The judge expressly recognised that rapid changes of this kind are unlikely to be in a child or young person’s interests, but said that if Parliament wishes to change that consequence, it is for Parliament rather than the Tribunal to do so. GOV.UK

Why this judgment matters for families

The practical effect is that a council cannot necessarily say:

“We are not responsible for the EHCP because another council placed the child here and remains responsible for their social care.”

SEND responsibility has to be considered separately.

The crucial factual question will usually be where the child or young person is actually living as part of the settled pattern of their life, and whether their stay there is genuinely temporary.

Equally, merely crossing a council boundary does not automatically transfer responsibility. Emergency placements, short-term moves and other genuinely temporary arrangements may leave ordinary residence unchanged. GOV.UK

The decision in one sentence

For EHCP purposes, responsibility normally follows the child or young person’s ordinary residence – meaning where they have actually settled to live for the time being – and that can be different from the council responsible for their social care.

Paragraph 106 on pages 37-39 of the PDF is the key section, because it contains the Upper Tribunal’s practical test for determining ordinary residence. GOV.UK

Please note, this lay summary is generated by AI for speed. It is accurate in its summary, but for your own purposes please read the entire judgement, which you can find here: https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/london-borough-of-enfield-v-1-teegan-edwards-2-london-borough-of-haringey-sen-2026-ukut-268-aac