If a child or young person with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is placed in accommodation in a different local authority's area, responsibility for that EHCP can shift to the receiving authority. 

A recent Upper Tribunal decision (Enfield London Borough Council v Edwards and another [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC)) confirms this and clarifies the “ordinary residence” test that applies.

For schools, academies and multi-academy trusts (MATs), this matters because the local authority responsible for maintaining a pupil's EHC plan could change when that pupil moves. That can directly affect the provision specified in the plan, the funding attached to that provision and the local authority that the school needs to engage with in relation to Annual Reviews, amendments and placements.

Knowing how these rules work will help you engage with the right authority and protect continuity of provision for the child.

Background

TE, a young person with complex special educational needs, had an EHCP. TE appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014), challenging both the educational provision and placement set out in the EHCP. 

TE was under the care of social care and TE’s mother lived in Haringey, and he stayed with her occasionally. Otherwise, TE was housed through social care, and he moved several times during the appeal. The first question for the FTT was which local authority should be the respondent to the appeal. By the time of the hearing, TE had accommodation in Enfield. The FTT found that TE was ordinarily resident in Enfield, making it the proper respondent.

Enfield appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT). 

The appeal had been stayed while the Court of Appeal decided Hampshire County Council v GC [2026] EWCA Civ 20. That decision confirmed that whether a child or young person is 'in' a local authority's area for the purposes of section 24 of the CFA 2014, and therefore that authority's responsibility under Part 3, is determined by “ordinary residence”. 

What did the Upper Tribunal decide?

The UT dismissed Enfield's appeal.

On ordinary residence, the UT held that the correct test is the “settled purpose” test considered in R v Barnet LBC, ex p Shah [1983], as developed in R (Worcestershire) v Secretary of State [2023]. 

Under the Shah test, a person is “ordinarily resident” in a place where they have voluntarily adopted that place as their residence and have done so for a settled purpose, whether for a short or long duration. The purpose must have a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as "settled", but it does not need to be permanent. 

The key elements of the test are:

1. Voluntary adoption: the person must have chosen to live in the place (though this does not require that the move was entirely self-initiated; it is enough that the person is not, for example, detained there unlawfully).
2. Settled purpose: there must be an identifiable reason for living there, as opposed to the residence being merely fleeting or purely transient.
3. A degree of continuity: the residence must not be temporary in the sense of being merely casual or for a passing visit.

Placing a child in local authority-arranged accommodation may therefore change that child's ordinary residence for SEN purposes, even where social care responsibility stays with the placing authority. This means a child can have different ordinary residences for SEN and social care purposes at the same time.

What does this mean for schools and local authorities?

This decision confirms that ordinary residence as considered in Shah is the correct test for determining which local authority is responsible under section 24 of the CFA 2014.

When a child or young person moves into accommodation in a new local authority's area, that authority needs to consider whether ordinary residence has shifted to it for CFA 2014 purposes. If it has, the EHCP should be transferred under regulation 15 of the SEND Regulations 2014. This may mean a fresh reassessment of the child and/or amendments to the EHCP, if the receiving local authority chooses not to adopt the existing EHCP.

“Local authorities need to coordinate closely”

Children and young people may now have different ordinary residences for SEN and social care purposes at the same time. This means placing and receiving authorities need to coordinate closely to avoid gaps in provision or disputes about funding.

Schools hosting annual reviews should ensure they are engaged with the correct responsible authority and that correspondence and documentation are directed accordingly. Engaging with the wrong authority could result in delays in decision-making and gaps in provision.

Key actions for academies and schools

• Review the responsible authority named on EHCP for pupils who have recently moved or been placed in new accommodation.
• Engage promptly with the receiving authority where ordinary residence may have shifted.
• Ensure annual review correspondence is directed to the correct responsible authority.
• Support families in understanding that SEN and social care responsibility may now rest with different authorities.

For more information about navigating EHCP responsibility when a pupil moves area, contact our specialist SEND team to discuss your circumstances.