P, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead & Anor

Section 139A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 requires a local education authority’s assessment and written report to address actual educational and training needs and the provision realistically available to meet them. The report must identify, or at least recommend, the likely provider. A theoretical description of provision is insufficient. The report must state the principal conclusions clearly enough to inform the Learning and Skills Council’s functions. The assessment is judged by the report itself, not by separate later decision-making records. Care needs are not invariably part of the assessment, but may be relevant where educational and training needs cannot sensibly be assessed without them.

P, a young person with significant learning and communication difficulties, required post-16 educational provision. His family sought a residential Steiner placement at The Mount. The local authority considered that local special schools, including Holyport Manor School, could meet his needs.

The authority prepared an assessment and report under section 139A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, but the report did not identify a provider or compare the proposed placements. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the assessment was unlawful and that the local authority’s decision about suitable provision was unreasonable. The central issue was whether the assessment and report complied with the statutory requirements.

1. The claim succeeded in part. The assessment and written report of 16 July 2009 did not comply with section 139B(3) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The court could not grant the requested declaration concerning the proposed placement, and the separate challenge to the authority’s earlier resolutions was not determined.
2. The assessment and report had to be considered separately from the later decisions made by senior officers. Their lawfulness had to be judged by the written report itself. The officer meeting could not cure defects in the statutory assessment.
3. The court approved and applied the principles in R (Alloway) v Bromley LBC [2008] EWHC 2449 (Admin). Section 139B(3) requires an assessment of the person’s educational and training needs and of the provision required to meet them, followed by a written report. Provision must be assessed in the real world. It must be actually and realistically available, rather than merely theoretical.
4. A compliant report must reasonably and intelligibly reflect the assessment’s principal conclusions. In the ordinary case it must identify or recommend the likely educational provider, because the Learning and Skills Council must have regard to the report and cannot properly perform its functions without knowing how and where the identified needs can be met.
5. The authority’s report identified P’s needs and general forms of provision but did not recommend a provider, identify realistically available provision, or address whether his needs should be met at a school or college of further education. It therefore failed to state the principal important conclusions of the assessment.
6. The exclusion of care needs was not determinative. Section 139B(3) focuses on educational and training needs, but care needs may sometimes be relevant where those needs and the provision required to meet them cannot sensibly be assessed without regard to care circumstances. The court left that issue open on the facts.
7. The assessment had also to take account of any Secretary of State guidance under section 139A(7). No statutory guidance was in force, and the draft guidance did not itself create the duty relied upon; the relevant obligation arose from the statute as interpreted in Alloway.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision.