Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Simple

  No. The LA is under a duty to secure the SEP which meets the CYP’s assessed SEN (and cannot use cost as a reason not to do so). But an LA is not “under an obligation to provide a child with the best possible education. There is no duty on the authority to provide such a Utopian system, or to educate him or her to his or her maximum potential. …”: R v Surrey CC ex p H (1984) 83 LGR 219 (not publicly accessible in full but referred to in Devon CC v OH [2016] UKUT 0292 (AAC)#34). 

  See also: S v SEN Tribunal [1995] 1 WLR 1627 at 1638; and Hammersmith & Fulham v Pivcevic & SENDIST [2006] EWHC 1709 (Admin) #51.

  When deciding on provision, the duty is to provide “what is reasonably required”. That calls for a decision on whether what was proposed for inclusion in a statement was reasonably required or whether it went beyond that, which is a judgment for the expert Tribunal: A v Hertfordshire CC [2006] EWHC 3428#25. 

  There is no legal duty ”to secure the best possible outcomes, nor to secure the provision that is most likely to result in such outcomes being obtained”, although regard should be had to them: Devon CC v OH [2016] UKUT 0292 (AAC)#21(a), #33. 

  Reference has been made to the Court as to what is “appropriate for a child”: C v Buckinghamshire CC [1999] ELR 179 at 189. Appropriate is not the same as adequate, and the assessment must be of what is appropriate, not just what is adequate”: NM v Lambeth [2011] UKUT 499 (AAC)#15. The term “appropriate” is used in COP2015#6.1.

  This means, when it comes to placement, the duty is to select “an appropriate school …. There is nothing in the statutory scheme which requires the local education authority to specify the optimum available provision….”: R v Cheshire CC ex P C (1996) 95 LGR 299. 

  The issue is whether the CYP’s needs can be appropriately met in a particular school, not whether they could be better met in another school: S v SENDIST [2005] EWHC 196 #13. Deciding what is “appropriate” does not engage the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: MS v Wakefield [2021] UKUT 316 (AAC) #86.

  Go to Glossary

  

  Noddy 'no-nonsense' Guide
  Authors: David Wolfe QC, Leon Glenister

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post