![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Slough Borough Council v Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal & Ors [2009] EWHC 1091 (QB) (08 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1091.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 1091 (QB) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Slough Borough Council |
Appellants |
|
- and - |
||
(1) Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal; and (2) Mr S (3) Mrs S |
Respondents |
____________________
Mr John Friel (instructed by SEN Legal, Solicitors) for the Second and Third Defendants
Hearing dates: 12 May, 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Plender:
The Facts
"In exercising and performing all their respective powers and duties under the Education Acts the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure."
"the continuation of S's placement at the PACE Centre for a time limited period of two years until transfer to secondary education, subject to Mr and Mrs S undertaking the cost of transport".
The Council submits that the appropriate school to be specified in S's statement is a publicly-maintained school called the Arbour Vale School.
"The Panel made a mistake in the tribunal procedure in that it did not take into account any willingness on behalf of the PACE Centre Trust to contribute towards the costs involved for a placement either in the form of a charitable bursary or a reduction of the placement rate. The Director of the school was present at the tribunal but was not asked the question. Had they been asked we would advise that the Trust would be contributing an amount of £9000 towards the placement cost in the form of a reduction in the placement rate to Slough LEA in this specific circumstance".
The Fees Payable in Respect of S's Education
"the local education authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the education of the child".
"What sums have already been paid to date to The PACE Centre towards S's placement at the Centre via fundraising efforts by the parents? Are any other fundraising monies on deposit ready to be paid to The PACE Centre at some future date over the next two years?"
The PACE Centre declined to disclose "confidential information regarding fundraising" but confirmed that
"a substantial amount has been raised and this, along with the limited time frame, is the reason the Trust made the decision to support S".
"You have not answered my questions; you have merely restated what we already know .... On the face of it, the arrangement for funding S's placement is looking increasingly like a joint funding arrangement. We must put you on notice that the correspondence between us is likely to be placed before the court if we were to decide to appeal".
"Effectively what happened at the review hearing was that the PACE Centre agreed to accept £10,000 a year from Slough on a part-funding basis. The remainder of the £36,000 annual fee would, if that were lawful, be paid out of the charitable donations collected following a very successful public charitable appeal by the parents through the local press and other fund-raising events".
"Further to negotiations with Mr and Mrs S (S's parents) The PACE Centre has agreed to an EXCEPTIONAL funding arrangement for a limited two year period.
In the light of the famil[y']s commitment to fundraising and their success to date we have considered a reduction in the amount we would charge Slough Borough Council for the next two years (2008-9, 2009-2010). This would allow S to complete her primary education at The PACE Centre and have the intensive sensory and motor education she has been accessing since her early years. It would allow time to transfer S and her family for transfer to Secondary and therefore establish programmes which would enable continuity and consistency of learning.
This is a one-off arrangement between The PACE Centre and the Family in recognition of their commitment to fundraising for The PACE Centre over a number of years and their current success in raising a substantial amount towards S's fees. Not all families have this capability and I must therefore emphasise that this is an exceptional offer to Slough Borough Council. We can therefore offer the placement from September 2008 - August 2010 at a cost of £10,000 per annum. We hope this will enable S's Parents to continue educating S at the school of their choice until the end of her primary education".
"the local authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the education provided for the child at the school".
Section 9 of the same Act is not to be construed as requiring the education in accordance with the wishes of their parents when the latter are able to make such a contribution to the fees as to avoid unreasonable public expenditure. The "general principle" set out in Section 9 does not detract from the specific rule laid down in section 348(2).
"If the total cost of a placement at Arbour Vale School is calculated at £32,490 based on the cost of therapies, the PMLD4a banding and the 0.5[%] of a specialist teaching assistant, compared to the normal total cost of £36,000, at the PACE Centre, the difference in cost between the two placements is not overly significant for the next 2 years in any event".
So even if the "substantial amount towards S's fees" that had been raised by Mr and Mrs S were as great as £3510, this would have been regarded by SENDIST as not overly significant for the next two years. Although the question I would have to ask is whether any error by SENDIST could have affected its decision at the time when that decision was made, I also draw attention to the fact that that time has not stood still. If a third hearing by SENDIST is to take place, it is likely to do so at a stage when S has only one year of her primary education left.
The Figure of £32,490
"must contain an outline of the story which has given rise to the complaint and a summary of the tribunal' basic factual conclusions and a statement of the reasons which have led them to reach the conclusion which they do on those bare facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost. There should be sufficient account of the facts and of the reasoning to enable [the appellate body] or, on further appeal, the court, to see whether any question of law arises".
Although that was a decision made in relation to industrial tribunals it has been applied to Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals on several occasions and it sets out a standard which was met in this case. It is true that we are not told how SENDIST arrived at the figure of £32,490. We are however told that SENDIST considered that a difference in cost of £3510 was "not overly significant" in the context of the two years' education. That is what matters.