P v Worcestershire County Council (SEN) (Special educational needs : Special educational provision - naming school)

Under section 12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal decides that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal taken on 8 th April 2015 involved an error on a point of law (First-tier reference: SE 885/14/00024 ). The decision is set aside. The Upper Tribunal remits the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing. Any further case management directions are to be given by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal.

This case was about comparing the respective costs of schools in deciding which one to specify in a child�s statement of Special Education Needs (SEN). That topic was recently considered in some depth by the Upper Tribunal in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v. L [2015] UKUT 523 (AAC) .

The statutory background to Hammersmith included the requirements of the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/3104). Those regulations applied to the school funding period between 31 st March 2014 and 1 st April 2015. Different regulations apply to the funding periods for 2015/16 and 2016/17.

In this decision, which concerned the expenditure involved in educating a child at a maintained mainstream school, guidance is given as to whether that change in the funding regulations calls for a different approach to that outlined in Hammersmith . That guidance, given for the benefit of the First-tier Tribunal that is to re-hear this appeal, is that the change to the regulations makes no material difference and the assessment of respective costs should be as outlined in Hammersmith .

This appeal concerns a boy whom I shall refer to as Andrew (not his real name) who was aged 11 when the First-tier Tribunal gave its decision on the appeal. The Tribunal made its decision in April 2015 and Andrew was due to start his secondary education in September 2015. The appeal was brought by his mother Mrs P.