Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Simple

  No. The term “public expenditure” within EA1996 s9 is concerned with the impact of the parent’s choice on the public purse generally (not just the education department or even just the LA’s costs). 

  It requires the LA (and on appeal the FTT) to take into account (for example) the cost of social services respite provision which would be saved by placing the child in a residential rather than day school: WH v Warrington BC [2014] EWCA Civ 398#27; O v Lewisham [2007] EWHC 2130 #17. See also EH v KCC [2010] UKUT 376 (AAC) #21 and KE v Lancashire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC) #15-16.

  It also involves taking into account the (positive) financial impact on an another LA where the child being placed in a school maintained by another LA would lead to an inter-authority payment by the ‘home’ LA; it is not referring only to the resources of the home LA: CM v Bexley [2011] UKUT 215 (AAC).

  If money is delegated to a school by the LA, that remains expenditure of the LA and should be taken into account for the purposes of EA1996 s9: X City Council v SENDIST, AB, MB & GB [2007] EWHC 2278 #12-13.

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post