Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Complex

  No. The mere fact that the parentally/young person-preferred placement is a bit more expensive is not an automatic barrier under CFA2014 s39(2) to placement in respect of efficient use of resources. The LA/FTT must balance the statutory weight given to the parental/young person preference against the extra cost in deciding whether the extra cost is “inefficient”, and even if it is found to be “inefficient” the FTT must still then, as a second stage, balance the extra cost against any extra benefit it is claimed to bring for the child/young person: Essex CC v SENDIST [2006] EWHC 1105 (Admin) #24-32 (upholding a decision in which the FTT had held that £4,000 extra was not inefficient, and thus did not even need to go on to consider whether that extra cost was justified by extra benefits to the child). 

  It is only if the extra cost is “significant” that the parentally/young person preferred placement is displaced Surrey CC v P [1997] ELR 516. See also C v Lancashire [1997] ELR 377.

  [November 2022 -  content has been divided between two questions. See new question: Are the resources taken into account in s39(4) only those of the LA?]

  More: 
  Are the resources taken into account in s39(4) only those of the LA?
  Can parents/young person request a particular placement? 
  Must the LA consult with a candidate placement before naming it in section I?

  Go to Glossary

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post