Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Complex

  No. Section I must set out the “type of school” which is considered appropriate (e.g. mainstream, special, residential, MLD, EBD, etc.). 

  But, unless CFA2014 s39 compels the naming of a particular placement (because there is no basis to displace the placement requested by the parent or young person), there is no absolute legal obligation to name a particular placement: Richardson v Solihull [1998] EWCA Civ 3535 #49.

  Where, however, the LA/FTT has identified “mainstream” as the “type”, then it should normally name a particular school: MH v Hounslow [2004] EWCA 770 #76.

  Type includes “primary” or “secondary” which must be specified: R(M) v East Sussex [2009] EWHC 1651#12, rejecting the LA’s argument that it did not need to amend an EHCP to anticipate secondary transfer where the EHCP did not specify “primary school” and where the school named made provision for ages 5-16 such that (on its case) no amendment was needed, and thus no right of appeal would be triggered. The LA could not be permitted to rely on its own failure to properly specify the type of school in section I of an EHCP.

  For an EHCP: Regs2014 r12(i): The EHCP must set out “the name of the school, maintained nursery school, post-16 institution or other institution to be attended by the child or young person and the type of that institution or, where the name of a school or other institution is not specified in the EHC plan, the type of school or other institution to be attended by the child or young person (section I)”.

  More: Why does the Noddy Guide refer to the EA1996 and cases related to it when SEN law is now in CFA2014?

  Go to Glossary

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post