Sort

• 01 Nov 2024

• Other

  Complex

  Can't answer yes or no.:

  Nodi thinks that it is likely that the source of funding for transport would be a material consideration. 

  The body responsible for preparing and maintaining the IDP can consider the efficient use of resources when deciding between different options for the ALP or different ways of delivering it: para 2.40 ALN Code 2021. 

  The approach to the issue in England has identified 3 distinct stages: (1) the parental/young person preferred placement should be named alone (pursuant to CFA2014 section 39) if the additional cost is not incompatible with the provision of efficient resources or such inefficiency is outweighed by educational benefit, (2) if there is no duty to name the requested placement, the FTT should determine whether the extra transport costs are unreasonable public expenditure (EA1996 section 9) – if not the requested placement should be named alone, (3) if the costs are unreasonable, is it still incompatible if the parents/young person pay for transport – if not, then both placements can be named subject to parents/young person paying travel costs to their preferred school: Dudley MBC v S [2012] EWCA Civ 346 para 27. 

  Nodi thinks that a similar approach is likely to be correct in Wales. Where parents propose to arrange transport to a school, thus removing the transport cost from their proposed placement, the UT concluded that the Tribunal erred because it had not considered (under the old law in Wales) (1) naming more than one school in Section I or (2) naming one school in Section I, subject to a condition that the parents arrange transport at their own expense: S-MR v Carmarthenshire CC [2021] UKUT 294 (AAC) para 7.

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post