I have this client who was initially given the child care disregard for after school care provided by her children's school. The initial decision was revised later, the costs were disallowed and an overpayment raised.
The LA considers that the costs they initially allowed were really tuition fees and therefore excluded under reg 28(7)(a). The school has provided a breakdown splitting the overall fee between tuition and child care, which the LA has not accepted, because childcare part makes up the majority of the total fee paid to the school.
I just wondered whether the LA has the power to decide what element of a total fee paid is for education and which part is paid for child care? If a claimant cannot rely on the figures they were given by the school and the LA can change them as they want, there will be a great deal of uncertainty.
There are no comments I could find in the CPAG legislation book, and I don't know whether there is any case law on it.
I would be grateful for any ideas on that.

This seems a simple case of the LA not accepting / believing the evidence it has been provided with.

Where a LA does not accept evidence that has been provided, it is entitled to draw an inference. In this case, it seems the LA doesn't accept the evidence is credible and has assumed there is, in reality, no charge related to child care costs.

Your only recourse is to ask for the LA to revise its decision and/or appeal. If it goes to Tribunal, it will be up to the Judge to determine the credibility of the claimant's evidence.

Does it not make any difference that it is not the claimant's evidence, but the school's evidence that the LA does not accept? The claimant only passed on the evidence in the form of the breakdown of costs provided by the school. I think she will find it difficult to get any further evidence going beyond that, unless she can get the school's accounts.

The principle of drawing inferences applies to any evidence, whomever provides it and in whatever form. Usually, the more formal the evidence, the more likely a Tribunal is likely to accept it.

But, albeit in a completely different context, I have seen formally compiled documentation completely rejected by Tribunals on the grounds that the documentation did not reflect the reality of the situation. That is obviously unusual, but it does happen.

Based on the info given, it *appears* the LA intend to stand their ground in your client's case. If so, an appeal is probably the only way to move forward.