Andrew

The statement must specify provision: an indication of funding alone is not enough.

 Andrew’s statement failed to specify an amount of speech therapy but referred to ‘extra funding at band Level 3 ... £6,000.’ Professional advice indicated that Andrew needed three hours of speech therapy a week and that £6,000 could not pay for this. Andrew’s father appealed to the High Court on the grounds that the statement limited the LEA’s ability to make the provision Andrew needed. The court ruled that although it was not illegal for an LEA to refer to a ‘funding band’ or an amount of money, this on its own did not fulfil their duty in law to “specify” the provision a child should receive in a statement. Cumbria was ordered by the court to rewrite Andrew’s statement to make it clear to his father “what the authority consider (his) son ought to receive.”

This judgement, known as R v Cumbria County Council ex parte P 1994, is now quoted by parents when LEAs refer to a band or level of support or a sum of money to be made available in a statement instead of specifying the actual provision a child should receive.

Parent’s comments:

“IPSEA was my only support as I battled to secure provision for Andrew, before and during the court action. I was delighted that the result of all our hard work was a ruling that benefits all children with statements.”

Back to top