Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Nursery refused place aibu

252 replies

Honeyplease · 05/02/2024 14:45

Saw a lovely nursery 2 weeks ago. Looking to start my 2yo son who is currently with a childminder. I mentioned that he had tried preschool but didnt get on with it too well (he is only just 2 and the preschool had mostly 3/4 year olds) I also mentioned that I suspect him to be neurodiverse but I wasn’t sure (no diagnosis or anything) he is developmentally on track he just has odd quips.

Was given a reg form, sent it back same day. Waited.. nothing. sent another email, and another.. tried calling. Left a voicemail. Basically 2 weeks of chasing. Nothing.

Today I finally received an email back from the owner.

“The problem I have in securing the place is we already have children coming through with significant needs and I'm concerned having spoken to our special educational needs coordinator that we won't have the capacity to give your son the the quality of care he deserves just like any other child.”

I am stunned! Aibu? surely they cannot do this.

OP posts:
perfectstorm · 15/02/2024 07:36

BonnyBo · 14/02/2024 23:56

The Equality Act means that providers should see how they can make accommodations to accept any child that walks in the door. If the nursery haven’t asked for more information about what specifically the child might need and refused a place then yes, they’d be in breach.

Once they’d gathered that information, seen if it was feasible to make the reasonable accommodations, and then come to a conclusion that they wouldn’t be able to support the child, they would not be in breach to refuse the child. It couldn’t be because of a blanket “no child with autism” or “no child with hearing difficulties” approach but would have to take into consideration the children’s specific needs and the provider’s current set up/cohort etc.

Absolutely. This is fair, reasonable and complies with the law.

It's unfair on the child in question to place where needs can't be met, too. What isn't okay is a refusal to even look at what that child's needs are, and whether they can be met.

Sadly, plenty of places will do as the OP's nursery have, and discriminate instantly as soon as any SEND at all are mentioned. Or, of course, be savvy enough to pretend to consider it, while applying a blanket ban, anyway.

perfectstorm · 15/02/2024 07:54

Christmasnutcracker · 15/02/2024 02:51

I think this makes sense.

I know somebody who wanted a particular school. She went to the (over subscribed) school and asked for a place for her daughter and immediately told them the child had a mild learning difficulty. I know that they are waiting for a diagnosis and as yet have not received one. In an instance like that, the school should not be obliged to allocate a space for fear of inequality surely?

No, there's no duty to admit a disabled child if a school is full unless they have an EHCP (and that only applies to state mainstreams, and most special schools - a private mainstream can't be made to take any child at all, but must give reasons if the child is disabled and they say no). That's not unfair discrimination, because they're not treating that child any worse than any other kid. If a school is full, then they say no to everyone.

I think there's a misunderstanding on what the Equality Act can do. It doesn't say you have to treat a person with a protected characteristic better than anyone else, just that you can't treat them worse. So a school can't refuse to admit a disabled child on the grounds of disability unless they can clearly reason that there are no adjustments they could make - but they can truthfully refuse to accept any more children if they're full, and then the disability isn't an issue because they would say no to any new applicants.

The issue with the OP is that they don't want her child because she mentioned that there may be a neurodiversity, when they would have accepted a child who didn't. There was no attempt to establish what additional support that child may or may not need, and if they could meet the needs really easily, which would often be the case given most disabled kids never come close to needing an EHCP. That's unlawful. But if they had no spaces for any kids, and just said so and put the child on a waiting list like anyone else, that would be fine, because that's not worse treatment due to disability.

@NewName24 same issue with 1:1 in schools, agreed. I was pretty startled that my friend's child had that level of support at pre-school, no EHCP, as once in school, it would be (and was) a lot harder.

EHCPs offer protection in funding terms, if the parents are aware of the legal position, because if LAs don't adequately fund provision in an EHCP for a school, then the parent can take action against the LA, to force them to do so. It's going to be a lot trickier if the funding isn't adequate and it's via an EYFS support pot as nobody has the power to make the LA compensate properly. I was very surprised that this child's nursery were able to sort it for him in the years before he had an EHCP (that came once in school), but clearly they did.

None of the above, though, changes the law, which is that no business may discriminate against a disabled person, unless they can demonstrate that they can't make reasonable adjustments that would enable a disabled person to access the provision or service. Banning disabled people full stop, as this nursery is apparently doing, is not lawful.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread