Is there a law (for mediation appealing section I) which takes into account the student's views and preferences for attending a specific college?
Going to mediation to appeal decision for an independent college (not a section 41 setting). Refused based on resources, not good use of public money. It is about £6k per year extra (£12K as 2 year course). The college offers only supported internships - 1 year pre-internship and 1 year supported internship. Also appealing Section B, F & I of EHCP as additional recent diagnosis of autism.
I will be providing evidence on potential cost savings (transport) but I want to quote any legislation that relates to the students view of really wanting this college. They are age 19.
He has looked at other settings and couldn't get there as can't travel on the train, requires a change and he doesn't have the skill and too anxious to do that. The other colleges are also bigger and are overwhelming for him. the
The requested setting has specialist support that will develop him to achieve his personal best. He has spent the past year preparing for this transition by visiting the area and the requested college as he finds change and transition challenging. The current college doesn't offer a 2 year SI but we don't want the LA to suggest an alternative college as he has looked at other options and they aren't right for him.
Is there a legislation that LA's need to consider the view and choice of a student?
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 24 May 2025
-
Yes
|
Simple
Mr Stout
Yes.
The answer to this question is somewhat diffuse, but I will attempt to summarise, bearing in mind that we are discussing a young person and a placement that is not a Section 41 institution.
A helpful starting point is Section 19 the Children and Families Act 2014, which applies, among other things, to young people. It states:
“In exercising a function under this Part [i.e. Part 3: Children and young people in England with special educational needs or disabilities] in the case of a child or young person, a local authority in England must have regard to the following matters in particular—
(a) the views, wishes and feelings of the child and his or her parent, or the young person;
(b) the importance of the child and his or her parent, or the young person, participating as fully as possible in decisions relating to the exercise of the function concerned;
(c) the importance of the child and his or her parent, or the young person, being provided with the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions;
(d) the need to support the child and his or her parent, or the young person, in order to facilitate the development of the child or young person and to help him or her achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes.”This makes it clear that the views of the young person are highly relevant. A Tribunal—acting in place of the local authority—must not disregard those views. While the young person's views are not, in themselves, determinative, they carry persuasive weight.
This interpretation was confirmed in S v Worcestershire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0092 (AAC). The Upper Tribunal held that the duties in section 19 of the Children and Families Act 2014 do apply to the First-tier Tribunal. It noted that section 19 is intended to benefit individual children and young people [paragraph 70], and that the First-tier Tribunal must act in accordance with its underlying purpose [paragraph 73].
In M & M v West Sussex CC (SEN) [2018] UKUT 347 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal stated that although there is no express statutory requirement for the First-tier Tribunal to consider a child’s views, such a duty does exist [paragraph 55]. This obligation is supported by:
Section 19 the Children and Families Act 2014;
The judgment in S v Worcestershire CC [2017];
Regulations 7 and 11 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014; and
Rule 21(2)(e) of the tribunal’s procedural rules, which requires a local authority to include the child’s views in its response to an appeal. If the child’s (or young person’s) views are not available when the response is submitted, a practice direction requires those views to be provided before the final hearing.
Most recently, in TM and SM v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 201 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of the child’s—and by reasonable extension, the young person’s—views in decision-making
Best wishes
Sean Kennedy
24 May 2025
|
Comment