We're responsible for handling appeals against
local authority decisions regarding special educational needs, including a refusal to:
Not exact matches
The Minutes confirming this
decision will be required by the DfE • Outline plans to the DfE for supporting or partnering with another school, if applicable • Appoint a specialist law firm to advise on the legal aspects of your conversion • The Secretary of State will need to approve your proposal • The process of transferring staff (the Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE) will be commenced by the
local authority and the governing body that currently employs school staff • Activate the consultation process with interested parties • Consult with your Local Authority regarding a possible share of the LGPS def
local authority and the governing body that currently employs school staff • Activate the consultation process with interested parties • Consult with your Local Authority regarding a possible share of the LGPS
authority and the governing body that currently employs school staff • Activate the consultation process with interested parties • Consult with your
Local Authority regarding a possible share of the LGPS def
Local Authority regarding a possible share of the LGPS
Authority regarding a possible share of the LGPS deficit.
Of 40,952
decisions made across 109
local authorities regarding requests for EHC needs assessments, 7 % of refused requests resulted in an appeal; 12 % of assessments that resulted in a refusal to issue an EHC plan were appealed; and in 6 % of EHC plans one or more aspect of the content was appealed.
The
decision in KM therefore confirms the
decision of the majority in the House of Lords ruling in R v Gloucestershire County Council, Ex Parte Barry [1997] AC 584, that a
local authority can have
regard to resources when deciding whether or not it is necessary to provide community care services.
In reaching this
decision the following were considered to be decisive factors: (i) LQHT was permeated with state control and influence with a view to meeting the government's aims for aff ordable housing; (ii) the nature and extent of the public subsidy of LQHT's activities; (iii) 10 % of LQHT's stock had been transferred to it from the public sector; (iv) that LQHT, as a registered social landlord, was obliged to cooperate with the
local authority, if requested, in offering accommodation to people with priority under the
authority's allocation scheme; (v) the termination of a tenancy could not be
regarded as separate from housing management so as to be considered an act of a private nature.