Redbridge
Data availableLondon
41
appeals registered, 2024 (official DfE figure)
73
appeals registered, 2025 (official DfE figure)
Data available. At least one Freedom of Information response gives real, extractable figures on tribunal appeals or outcomes for this council.
Thinking about appealing, or partway through it? These are free, independent sources of advice — not run by this site, and not run by any council.
- RIASS (Redbridge Information, Advice and Support Service) — this council's own free SEND information, advice and support service. Every council is legally required to fund one, at arm's length from itself · 0208 708 8939.
- IPSEA — Free, independent legal advice on SEN law — including EHC plans and tribunal appeals.
- SOS!SEN — Free helpline and 1:1 advice specifically on preparing a SEND tribunal appeal.
- Coram Children's Legal Centre — Free education law advice line, including SEN appeals and EHC plan reviews.
- GOV.UK: appeal an EHC plan decision — The official government guide to the appeals process itself — who can appeal, mediation, costs.
Estimated outcome breakdown
Estimated, not reported
Resolved before hearing — 53 (72.6%)
Contested, council lost — 13 (17.8%)
Contested, council won — 4 (5.5%)
Partially split — 3 (4.1%)
This council's own answer doesn't give a usable outcome breakdown. This estimate applies the pooled England-wide outcome rate (no regional sample was large enough to trust on its own) to this council's own real, officially-published appeal volume for 2025 (73 appeals) — see how estimates work.
By decision type
By decision type — FY2019-20 to FY2023-24
| Category (council's own wording) | Appeals | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| Section B | 94 | — |
| Section F | 3 | — |
| Section I | 37 | — |
Freedom of Information responses
Awaiting classification
Response to 'Levels of demand, supply and parent challenge re: SEND provision in the borough' (ref 25472189), supplied as a data table (the second attachment was just a one-page cover letter pointing to the table; no separate text). By financial year: FY2019-20 - Appeals registered 38, of which Section B 22 (57.89%), Section F 1 (2.63%), Section I 3 (7.89%); cases defended 28; won 7 (18.42%). FY2020-21 - Appeals 37, Section B 12 (32.43%), Section F 2 (5.41%), Section I 12 (32.43%); cases defended 19; won 14 (37.84%). FY2021-22 - Appeals 29, Section B 18 (62.07%), Section F 0 (0.00%), Section I 6 (20.69%); cases defended 17; won 11 (37.93%). FY2022-23 - Appeals 37, Section B 26 (70.27%), Section F 0 (0.00%), Section I 1 (2.70%); cases defended 19; won 10 (27.03%). FY2023-24 - Appeals 44, Section B 16 (36.36%), Section F 0 (0.00%), Section I 15 (34.09%); cases defended 6; won 9 (20.45%). Q6 (internal legal hours): 'We do not hold that information in this particular way.' Q7 (external legal support 2019-2024): 'No'.
Caveat: Recomputing the percentages shows the 'won' % and each Section B/F/I % are all calculated as a share of that year's total appeals-registered figure (not of cases-defended) -- e.g. FY2019-20: 7 won / 38 appeals = 18.42%. The source spreadsheet-derived table has an oddly placed 'B, F & I' text label next to the Q3i (Section B) question that does not cleanly fit as a column or row header; the Section B/F/I attribution above follows the order of the three sub-questions as asked (3i=B, 3ii=F, 3iii=I) and is internally consistent (percentages sum correctly against the appeals total), but the underlying table layout has some ambiguity worth flagging.