Q:

09.14 When will having regard to the wishes of the parents under s.9 EA 1996 be “incompatible with the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure”?

Nodi No-nonsense Guide Wales

Nodi No-nonsense Guide Wales
Authors: Civitas Law education team
01 Nov 2024

A: SenseCheck

  • 0 Yes
  • 0 No
  • 1 Other

Sort

  • 01 Nov 2024
  • Other

    Complex

    Can't answer yes or no.:

    The following questions need to be considered:

    1. Is the parent’s requested placement suitable for the pupil, in particular will the pupil’s needs (including ALN) be adequately met? If the parent’s choice of placement is not suitable, this will be a good reason to depart from the principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents whether it is incompatible with unreasonable public expenditure or not. A failure to decide this issue is likely to be an error of law (EC v North East Lincolnshire [2015] UKUT 0648 (AAC) paras 18–21).
    2. Will the parent’s requested provision/placement result in greater public expenditure?
      • What needs to be considered is the actual difference in cost to the public purse over the likely duration of the choice of placement. This will require evidence.
      • In order to assess the difference in public expenditure, there needs to be evidence of an appropriate alternative to the parent’s proposals that will be able to meet the pupil’s ALN. 
      • If there is an appropriate alternative, what would be the additional cost to the public purse of making the provision requested by the parents?
    3. Is the difference in cost unreasonable when weighing up the advantages of the parental choice against the extra cost to the public purse? Oxfordshire County Council v GB and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1358 para 16. All benefits (including thus health, social, etc.), and not just educational benefits arising from the extra cost must be taken into account: SK v Hillingdon [2011] UKUT 71 (AAC)para 29, LB Croydon v K-A (SEN) [2022] UKUT 135 (AAC) para 51 (note in this case, the UT doubted comments to the contrary in KE v Lancashire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC) para 20-21, see K-A para 40-45). Where there is a significant cost difference a clear explanation as to the additional benefit would likely be required. 
    Nodi No-nonsense Guide Wales

    Nodi No-nonsense Guide Wales
    Authors: Civitas Law education team