My son has a terrible EHCP in place (current review at draft stage), but he’s been rejected from a Sen school by LA, and mainstream nursery won’t have him as his EHCP doesn’t reflect his needs - what options do I have?

My son will be 3 in July. His current EHCP reflects very little needs, which is very inaccurate (his paediatrician has written that he needs 1:1 in mainstream, just for context). The LA rejected his school place request at early review quoting the child and families act, but didn’t actually give a reason why. The school we applied for takes from age 3. The LA have said they will consult with the school about looking into the school place April 2025. The mainstream nursery have said they can’t secure extra funding needed to support my son at nursery with his current EHCP as it is, so what options do I have?
I’m very confused if a school take from 3, why we would be rejected now but put forward for consideration next April instead as surely this is based on his current needs?

What is the cost of moving an EHCP from one local authority to another?

Our son has an excellent and up to date EHCP and is extremely happy at a specialist school. How we the school is an hour in a taxi from our home. We would like to reduce his journey and move closer to the school. However we are concerned the new local authority would name a new school within the 15 day window they have to review his EHCP. We are concerned the cost to fight this could escalate.

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

We are in the final stages of EHCP. We have requested EOTAS (to pay for online school) and a personal budget. The LA have said "County Independent panel have reviewed your request for EOTAS and personal budget to fund Kings Inter High, further information is required before EOTAS can be considered. We will be contacting F...... high school to establish if they are able to support funding Kings Inter High as E. remains on their school roll. We will also be issuing consultations to independent settings to establish suitability; these consultations will be shared with you before they are issued." My question is does the LA pay for EOTAS - why are they asking the school? The LA tried to unroll her from mainstream but we said they could not do this until they have provided alternative provision - and we request EOTAS - were we wrong to do so?

My daughter is happy at online school. She has tried two mainstream schools and cannot manage. She will not attend school in person and the EP report is fairly conclusive with this regard.

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?

Can council name an out of area mainstream school instead of a local school if both can meet need?

We visited a large number of local mainstream schools (including some suggested by SEN case worker) but didn't think any of them could meet the needs in the EHCP. Therefore we named a specialist school, and an out of area mainstream more experienced in supporting children with similar needs to our daughter. The LA consulted with an additional 4 schools which we / SEN case worker did not consider. We had been clear to our SEN Caseworker that our preference was for a mainstream school if they could meet all of the needs in the EHCP, but that we had not found one locally.

LA named the out of area mainstream due to 'parental preference', and are therefore saying they won't provide transport as they could have named a local school.

What are the scenarios where LA can name a school that was not listed in parental preference? Can LA account for broader information by provided by the parents, not just the actual listed schools?

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

Is there a legal list of what can and cannot be included in an EOTAS package? The LA want to include maths and English tutors which my son can’t engage with due to school trauma. The LA’s EP has said maths and English needs to be embedded within activities.

I am suggesting activities such as building a remote control vehicle, theatre and museum visits and learning about tractors from an agricultural engineer (rather than a tutor). The EP said subjects should help his future career. He wants to be a farmer. The last time my son accessed a tutor he ripped up the exercise book and ate the pages. It was not because of the tutor (who was patient and listened) but because of the school trauma and the trigger of work he was being asked to do. They are also looking at science tutors. It’s appears to be their section 19 offer rather than based on the EP’s report.