Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Simple

  No. Even if the FTT considers that the school proposed by the LA is not suitable, it does not follow that it should automatically name the school requested by parents if that latter school costs a lot more because it makes provision (for example residential provision) which the child does not need. The FTT should specify a type or consider adjourning if there may be other, less costly, options Richardson v Solihull [1998] EWCA Civ 3535 #51, LB Hackney v Silaydin [1999] ELR 571.

  However, this does not mean in every hearing where the school named in Section I is inappropriate a LA should be given an opportunity to suggest alternatives that are less expensive than the parental school – where there is a risk the LA school will be found unsuitable the LA can suggest a fall-back: Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council v SENDIST [2001] EWHC Admin 823 #14. 

  A need for consistency of approach beyond the school day does not mean this is necessarily an educational need or that it can only be met by way of residential provision: TA v Bowen & Solihull [2009] EWHC 5 #39. Such provision must obviously be taken into account in considering costs and it should also be specified to some extent in section F rather than simply stating “an extended day” or similar. The decision should make clear the extent of extended day that is being approved as suitable provision for the child. 

  Go to Glossary

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post