Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Simple

  No. The law here was established from the EA1996 era: “.... part 4 cannot influence part 3. It is not a matter of fitting part 3 to part 4, but of considering the fitness of part 4 to meet the provision in part 3”: R v Kingston upon Thames and Hunter [1997] ELR 223 at 233C (More: Why does the Noddy Guide refer to the EA1996 and cases related to it when SEN law is now in CFA2014?)

  Accordingly, SEP (Section F) is a prior consideration to placement (Section I). Where the draft EHCP is sent to the child’s parent or young person, it must not name the school or institution, or specify a type of school or institution: CFA2014 s38(5).

  However, factors other than the specification in Section F may be relevant to placement, such as whether a particular course may be too demanding: S v Worcestershire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0092 (AAC) #75. 

  In an appeal made only in respect of Section I, the FTT will look at placement more rigorously than the LA, and this may highlight a need to alter SEP in Section F: S v Worcestershire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0092 (AAC) #83.

  Go to Glossary

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post