KE v Lancashire County Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Lane |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Special educational needs - special educational provision - other,Lane,S |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 12 December 2017 |
KE v Lancashire County Council (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC)
HS/1340/2017 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/1340/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judge S M Lane
This decision of the First-tier Judge IS NOT SET ASIDE. Although the decision of
the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, the Upper Tribunal
exercises its power NOT to remake the decision, under section 12(2)(a) of the
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The appellant parent appealed with my permission against the First-tier Tribunal’s
(‘F-tT’) decision of 17 March 2017, issued under reference no. EH888/16/00032.
2. I heard the appeal at the Rolls Building, London EC4A 1NL on 18 September
2017. The appellant was represented by Mr Jack Anderson, of counsel, instructed by
HCB Solicitors. He did not represent the appellant at the F-tT. The respondent was
represented by Mr Thomas Amraoui of counsel, instructed by the Lancashire County
Council (the ‘LA’). Mr Steven Martin, from the Local Authority was present during the
hearing, as was Mr Anderson’s pupil
3. Although the appellant sought permission to appeal on a number of grounds, I
granted permission to appeal on one issue which has two parts: whether the F-tT made
an error of law by failing to deal with section 9 of the Education Act 1996, and if so,
whether this was material. Mr Anderson confirmed that he was not pursuing the
remaining grounds except insofar as they impacted on section 9 issues.
The Background
4. The appeal concerns the appellant’s son, J, who is 12 years old. He has complex
special educational needs arising from autism, visual impairment, post traumatic stress
symptoms and had trouble with anxiety. J had been home schooled since mid-January
2016 when his placement at R School, a secondary school for pupils with global learning
difficulties, broke down.
5. There is no doubt that his special educational needs required special educational
provision. The LA prepared an EHC Plan for J. They considered that J’s needs would
be appropriately met by P School, a ‘generic’ special maintained school whose pupil
cohort included children with a variety of learning difficulties. Approximately 25% of its
students were autistic, with a further 25% exhibiting autistic traits. The evidence before
the F-tT, which it accepted, was that autism-awareness was pervasive at P School, (§
10). The F-tT was satisfied that P School’s was suitable for J.
6. The appellant expressed a preference for J to attend O School, an independent
special school for autistic pupils. All pupils attending O School are autistic but may, in
addition, have other kinds of learning difficulties. The appellant considered that an
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
London Borough of Croydon v K-A (SEN)
...in that case, arguably sits unhappily with what was subsequently stated to be the position in KE v Lancashire County Council (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC). The ground, as set out in the passage from paragraph 12-19 of the above document [i.e. the application for permission to appeal], is argu......
-
AJ v London Borough of Croydon
...[2020] UKUT 246 (AAC) decide whether £17,000 would inevitably be unreasonable public expenditure and to KE v Lancashire CC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 468 (AAC), where even a £71,000 difference was analysed on the facts and not dismissed as inevitably The Upper Tribunal here plainly could not reach s......