Can the LA refuse to attend a dissagreement resolution meeting and / or mediation prior to Tribunal?

I'm working with a family who were thinking of cancelling their Tribunal (luckily they haven't). They have been offered a Disagreement Resolution meeting by the mediation service. I am unsure if this is the same as formal mediation? Having waited 4 weeks for a meeting date the mediation service has responded as per below. I am at a loss as to what to advise further to the family now. Is there no statutory duty for the LA to attend either disagreement resolution and / or mediation?

After contacting your Local Authority, we have now received a response from them to your voluntary Disagreement Resolution request. On this occasion, your LA has, unfortunately, declined to participate in this meeting.

We are therefore closing this case. This does not preclude the possibility of the LA contacting you directly to attempt to resolve the problem. If we subsequently receive a response from your Local Authority, we will contact you to discuss further.

You may wish to consult your SEND Tribunal about your alternative options for proceeding with your Disagreement Resolution request.

Does anyone know what the legal position is in relation to costs in the SEND Tribunal?

Just spoken to the officer at the LGO who made the decision referred to in this question: https://supportsendkids.org/question/1681234603118

He said one of the reasons the LGO doesn't have jurisdiction is because the SEND Tribunal has the power to award costs. He said he doesn't recognise my assertion that the general rule in the SEND Tribunal is not to award costs. He said this would surprise him if it was indeed the case.

Does anyone know what the legal position is in relation to costs in the SEND Tribunal? Has the SEND Tribunal issued any guidance on this point? I was advised by our solicitors when appealing our child's EHCP that the general rule in the SEND Tribunal is that there should be no order for costs. We therefore made no such application. The officer from the LGO said he believed the SEND Tribunal did make orders for costs and that therefore the LGO couldn't look into recompense of legal fees because it would involve stepping on the toes of another body. My point is that if the other body - i.e. the SEND Tribunal - isn't using its powers and is in fact actively encouraging claimants not to - then where does that leave claimants - other than in debt if they've had to instruct a solicitor to try and obtain justice?

I asked the LGO officer if he knew what proportion of cases that came before the SEND Tribunal resulted in a costs order being made. He said he had no idea. Obviously, it his not for him to know this but I just left wondering if this information is readily available or if it's worth me making a FOI request? The officer did say there is lacuna in the law in relation the LGO's jurisdiction ending when appeal rights become available, but he assured me the LGO had fully and properly considered R (ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 1407 (Hillingdon) and applied it correctly in my case. Have I reached a dead end with this or are there cases pending that might make me making an application for judical review (to be put on hold pending such a decision) worth while? Many thanks.

EHCP was issued with no school named. Initially mainstream but now agreed mainstream is not appropriate. The LA have consulted for a school place with incorrect diagnosis, stating that my daughter has MLD social and behavioural needs when she is SpLD, intelligent and has no social or behavioural needs. Are they breaking the law in doing this?

Interim Provision

The YP has been out of school for two years and the LA have not provided any educational provision. The Tribunal has been adjourned for the third time and the LA are supposed to provide suitable interim provision in the meantime. The YP has ADHD and the LA are proposing online learning which he cannot engage in. His assessments and EHCP note he struggles to remain seated for longer than 10 minutes and cannot concentrate for more than 2-3 minutes. A practical course that allows for movement is recommended. The YP wants a construction course (14-16 years) with functional skills maths and English. A local learning provider have offered a place using their own funding for the YP up to the date of the Tribunal providing an interim measure for the YP. The parent would like to accept this but the LA have cited section 42 (5)
The parent is not however suggesting that they wish to electively home educate at any point - in fact quite the opposite. They want to use this as an interim measure up to Tribunal where the placement is to be defined as sections B F and I are disputed and under appeal. The LA proposal for online learning does not meet need or provide the current provision listed in the EHCP and to date the LA have failed to provide any provision at all since June 2022. If the parent sends the child to the construction course in the interim given that there is no provision in place from the LA making it clear that this is simply an interim arrangement just until Tribunal and not elective home education can the LA cute section 42(5). Please consider that they are failing under section 42(2)

We have EOTAS following tribunal, with provision specified in section F. It is now five weeks since we received the tribunal order and the provision ...

... is not in place - ie we haven't received the personal budget. We have received a pb contract, but it doesn't include all the provision in section F. Some of which is really clear (eg 38 weeks instead of 39) and some I think the LA would consider open to interpretation, though seems pretty clear to me. I don't want to sign a contract that isn't correct, but I do need the money ASAP to pay the providers. Is my best option just an official complaint? Is there any wording to quote to potentially speed things up? Thank you

Phase transfer - negative consultation mainstream

Our preferred mainstream has responded to say unsuitable due to aptitude, ability. The reasons they have provided are nothing that can’t be overcome and would be applicable to the school the LA have named too although their school responded to say “may” be able to meet need. What I’m struggling to understand looking at sections 33 & 39 is how parental preference & mainstream school being made suitable doesn’t support our choice for a particular mainstream.

Is it legal for the LA to enrol my child in a school without my knowledge ?

I am going to tribunal to appeal most of my son’s EHCP including the school named by the LA in section I.

He was on roll at a primary school till the end of year six but hasn’t attended for four years.

I’ve just found out by chance (I wasn’t notified of this by the school or the LA), that my son has been put on roll at the school named by the LA.

My son and I have been very clear that there is no intention or expectation from us that he would be able to attend this school as it can’t meet his needs and is completely unsuitable.

I’m concerned that the school may be receiving funding whilst my son is receiving no education from the LA.

Also, I’ve been told that if a child is on roll at a special school (which this school is), the parent had to ask permission if they wish to deregister to EHE.


Thank you

If YP is in specialist residential placement and is looking to stay there at post-16 transfer but the LA name the local FE college instead, can the YP continue attending the existing specialist placement until the Appeal process completed or do they have to attend the provision named by the LA in the interim?

Post-16 transfer wish to have continuing placement in specialist residential

Can I ask questions about the LA's response to our EHCP appeal without being in contempt of court?

I wasn't sure if it is legally permitted to ask a question on here that reveals the LAs position.

If an error in law is made, can social care decisions be challenged at UTT? Would this be considered an error?

LA have an autism plus policy to access the Children with Disabilities team (Level 3). Although the published policy states that children at Level 2 can receive direct payments/short breaks in practice, they can't.

We submitted as evidence the LA response to stage one complaint, which specifically states, "Direct payments is a specialist service that are only available to children who meet the criteria for the children with disabilities team. This is also true of other specialist short break services". In that letter, it also sets out the reason the threshold for CWD is not met as he doesn't have a severe learning disability + Autism. The LA offered an Early Help Assessment. and referred to the Local Offer and the HAF programme as the recommended provision.

This was written by the manager of the CWD team who was the LA witness at the hearing. The appeal was BFI + Social Care but section I was already conceded and he attends a s41 specialist. The LA did not submit any information regarding the social care element of the appeal until five days before when they added this witness and her statement.

I presumed that the purpose of including social care as an extended appeal was so needs and provisions would go into the EHCP, and if LA and I disagreed, the tribunal would make recommendations. Once it became clear that the LA was not responding to that element, I wasn't sure what recommendations the Judge could make.

During the hearing, my position was that the outcome of the Early Help Assessment was already pre-determined. That provision must be based on needs and not which team the child is with. I referenced the Liverpool LGO decision regarding what seems to be an identical practice. I wanted a recommendation for a children's and families assessment.

The Judge said that he would be recommending an Early Help Assessment because the LA is within its rights to apply a policy that children work through the stages starting at level 1. He said that the practice of short breaks/direct payments only being available to children with CWD was a 'miscommunication' even though the witness did not say at any point that children at stage 2 could also be eligible for short breaks.

Would this be classed as an error? Or have I misunderstood? I am thinking now the LGO would have been a better route, but I am presuming that will not be possible now as it's been to SENDIST.