Staffordshire County Council v JM (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Lane |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] UKUT 246 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Special educational needs - description of special educational needs,Special educational needs - other,Special educational needs - special educational provision - other,Lane,S |
| Date | 23 May 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
Staffordshire County Council v JM
[2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC)
HS/3252/2015 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/3252/2015
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judge S M Lane
This decision is made under section 12(1) and (2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
The appeal by the appellant Local Authority is allowed.
The decision of the SEND tribunal heard on 10 September 2015 under reference
EH860/15/00014 involves errors on points of law. The tribunal’s decision is SET
ASIDE and RE-MADE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007.
The EHC Plan shall be amended to exclude reference to H having a
special educational needs or requiring special educational provision for
transportation to and from the named educational institution. The EHC
Plan shall be amended to exclude any reference to the an obligation of
the Local Authority to arrange for the provision and cost of any transport
that H may need to get to and from the named educational institution.
Anonymity I direct that there is to be no publication of any matter likely to lead
members of the public directly or indirectly to identify any person who has been
involved in the circumstances giving rise to this appeal, pursuant to rule 14 of the
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698).
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 The parties were informed of my decision by a notice dated 22 April 2016. I
apologise for the delay in issuing these reasons.
2 The appellant Local Authority brings this appeal with the permission of the F-tT. I
heard the matter at Bennett House, Stoke on Trent, on 8th February 2016. The Local
Authority was represented by Mr James Goudie, QC. Their solicitor, Mr Darville,
attended the hearing as did Mr Marsden of the Local Authority. The respondents, Mr
and Mrs M (‘the parents) attended the hearing but their daughter H, who is the
subject of this appeal, was not present. Mr M represented the family. The parents’
MP, Mr Jeremy Lefroy, attended the morning session of the hearing.
3 The issues before the Upper Tribunal are (i) whether the cost of transport to and
from the place of education specified in an Education, Health and Care Plan (‘EHCP’)
is either a special educational need or special educational provision for the purposes
of the Children and Families Act 2014; (ii) whether a Local Authority has any duty
under section 508F of the Education Act 1996 to pay transportation costs to facilitate
attendance at further education of an adult learner over the age of 19 but under 25
years of age who has an EHC Plan; and (iii) whether the F-tT had any jurisdiction to
order a Local Authority to pay for transportation costs which it had refused, as a
matter of its discretion, to pay.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Birmingham City Council v KF (SEN)
...of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Purporting to rely on the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Staffordshire County Council v JM [2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC) the First-tier Tribunal stated that school transport was neither a special educational need, nor special hs 0150 2018 Birmingham City Co......
-
RB v Calderdale MBC (SEN)
...the CFA and EA respectively. 41. In the alternative, relying on Devon CC v OH (SEN) [2016] UKUT 0292 (AAC) and Staffordshire CC v JM [2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC), Mr Cullen argued that if paragraph 1.35 were to be read in the way proposed by Ms Waldron, then that paragraph would fly in the face o......
-
AA v London Borough of Haringey
...transport needs. 7. The tribunal took account of the most recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in Staffordshire County Council v JM [2016] UKUT 0246 (AAC), which confirms that school transport is neither a special educational need or special educational provision and, as such, the tribunal......