Home › East Midlands › Rutland County Council
Rutland County Council
Data availableEast Midlands
8
appeals registered, 2024 (official DfE figure)
9
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.
Estimated outcome breakdown
Estimated, not reported
Resolved before hearing — 7 (77.8%)
Contested, council lost — 2 (22.2%)
Contested, council won — 0 (0%)
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 (9 appeals) — see how estimates work.
By decision type
By decision type — 2023
| Category (council's own wording) | Appeals | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| challenged through First-tier Tribunal [Q2(b)] | 0 | 0 |
By decision type — 2024
| Category (council's own wording) | Appeals | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| challenged through First-tier Tribunal [Q2(b)] | 0 | 0 |
By decision type — 2025
| Category (council's own wording) | Appeals | Overturned |
|---|---|---|
| challenged through First-tier Tribunal [Q2(b)] | 2 | — |
Freedom of Information responses
Awaiting classification
Q2 Outcomes of challenges to refusal-to-assess decisions - (a) challenged through statutory mediation: 2023 - 0, 2024 - 2, 2025 - 3; (b) challenged through First-tier Tribunal: 2023 - 0, 2024 - 0, 2025 - 2. Q8 SEND Tribunal appeals and concessions - (a) total appeals registered: 'Answer: 2023 - 0, 2024 - 2, 2025 - 5.' (b) number conceded by the authority before final hearing: 'Answer: 2023 - 10, 2024 - 6, 2025 - 7.'
Caveat: The Q8(b) 'conceded' figures (10, 6, 7) are internally inconsistent with the Q8(a) 'registered' figures (0, 2, 5) for the same years -- conceded exceeds registered in every year, which is not logically possible if concessions are a subset of that year's registered appeals. This is transcribed exactly as the council reported it; the likely explanation is a definitional or year-period mismatch in the council's own answer rather than a transcription error here. Treat these particular figures with caution and verify against the source PDF before use.