Sort

• 01 Nov 2024

• Other

  Complex

  Can't answer yes or no.:

  This is a question of judgment for the LA and on appeal the ETW. There are no hard and fast rules about how much extra expenditure counts as “unreasonable” EA1996 s9. 

  • A difference of £7,000 was not necessarily unreasonable: Wardle-Heron v Newham [2002] EWHC 2806 (Admin)
  • In Ealing v SENDIST & K [2008] EWHC 193 (Admin) a difference of £4,000 was not necessarily unreasonable given the benefit that arose.
  •  In MM & DM v Harrow [2010] UKUT 395 (AAC) para 35 the UT declined to decide whether £17,000 (an extra 60%) would inevitably be unreasonable public expenditure
  • Even a £71,000 difference was still analysed on the facts and not dismissed as inevitably unreasonable KE v Lancashire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC) para 22-29.
  • In LB Croydon v K-A [2022] UKUT 106 (AAC) para 54-55 the UT found an extra £70,000 in the context of two placements costing over £200,000 might be expected to require “quite exceptional circumstances” to justify, but the FTT had not erred in finding advantages in health provision justified the extra expenditure 

  Conversely: 

  • In JI and SP v Hertfordshire CC (SEN) [2020] UKUT 200 (AAC) para 48, the UT considered a cost difference of £2,661 compared to £19,000 would have constituted unreasonable public expenditure.

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post