Peterborough City Council

14 of 119 appeals were heard by Tribunal (7 largely in favour of Appellant = contested_and_council_lost, 7 largely in favour of the LA = contested_and_council_won). Council explicitly states it maps 'Appeal Allowed', 'Appeal partly allowed' and 'Appeal Dismissed' outcomes into this discretionary in-favour-of-LA/in-favour-of-Appellant binary based on 'the nuance of the decision' rather than reporting partly-allowed separately -- so the 7/7 split already absorbs any partial rulings and partially_split is not separately available. Remaining 105 of 119 not heard by tribunal presumably resolved another way (conceded/withdrawn/pending) but this is not stated explicitly, so resolved_before_hearing is left null rather than computed as 119 minus 14.

Caveat: IMPORTANT PROVENANCE NOTE: this response is filed on WhatDoTheyKnow under an unrelated request title, 'LBC FOI request - Youth Centres and Youth Services' (part of a separate, 175-authority Fraser Knight campaign about council youth centres). Peterborough's FOI team appears to have sent the SEND-provision answer to the wrong request/thread by administrative error — the response text itself opens 'Freedom of Information Act response – ref FOI-202411003814' and directly answers the standard 4-question 'LBC REQUEST - FOI SEND provision' template (matching the Bedford/Norfolk/Essex/Hertfordshire/Luton entries in this file), not the youth-centres questions actually asked in this thread. The correctly-titled 'LBC REQUEST - FOI SEND provision' thread sent to Peterborough on 1 Nov 2024 shows as 'Long overdue' on WhatDoTheyKnow, since the real answer was evidently misdirected here instead. Council's own explicit caveat on its 7/7 in-favour split: 'there is a discretionary element to this reporting, the Tribunal outcomes are recorded as "Appeal Allowed", "Appeal partly allowed" or "Appeal Dismissed." Where the nuance of the decision supports the Local Authority's position then this has been reported as in favour of the LA, where the nuance supports the Appellant preference, this has been reported as in favour of the Appellant.'