When an LA can refuse to name a school or college because it is incompatible with the efficient use of resources

Crane v Lancashire County Council [1997] ELR 377: A two-stage process is needed to reach a decision about whether naming a setting is incompatible with the efficient use of resources. First, an LA or SEND Tribunal must work out whether one suitable setting is more expensive than the other. If so, then they must work out whether the additional cost involved in meeting the parent’s choice is justified.

Essex CC v the SEND Tribunal [2006] EWHC 1105 (Admin): A parent or young person’s preference can only be displaced on the grounds of being ‘incompatible with the efficient use of resources’ where the extra cost is significant or disproportionate. A difference of between £2000-£4000 was not found to be ‘incompatible’.

LM v Birmingham City Council (SEN): [2026] UKUT 127 (AAC): The cost difference in this case was around £77,400 per year, and the SEND Tribunal said that could not be justified against the advantages to the young person if they attended their college of choice. That is a decision for the SEND Tribunal to make; it is a matter for the specialist tribunal to decide, and disagreement with it, while the tribunal may appreciate a parent or young person’s perspective, does not give rise to an arguable error of law.