I received my son's EHCP complete with an EOTAS package yesterday from our borough. They are now working on the DP part of it as we have a personal budget. However (now that I've got this legal document in place) we are moving our son to another borough (we already have a residence here there). Should I tell the issuing borough this already, before they set up all the PB details or inform my new borough straight away?

We were in the middle of an EHCP application when we had to move boroughs for my other child (child A) to attend a SEN school. Rather than stop the process (we were due to go to tribunal but thankfully the LA asked us to reconsider and we were able to work out a great eotas package), we maintained our property in the old borough and essentially split the family so that one parent was with child A in the new borough for his school and one parent was with child B in the old borough whilst we worked on finalising his EHCP.
Yesterday we finally received the completed EHCP with advise that the DP team will be in touch so we can start putting section F into effect.
My question is - Do I tell the issuing borough not to go ahead with setting up the DP as we are moving child B to be with the rest of the family in the new borough?
Or does that look suspicious; should I let them go ahead and set it up and then inform our new borough of the move?
Also, I am aware it will take time to get the DP set up in the new borough and that they might even choose to question the EOTAS package. I would ideally like to start using some of the location non-specific funds e.g. resources and subscriptions asap as opposed to tutors and clubs. I have already spent two years fighting for this and time is of the essence now to get my son the support he needs.
Any advice or input would be much appreciated.
Many thanks for your support.

Is it true that ADHD is not considered a disability as far as The Equality Act 2010 is concerned?

This question relates to a case we were told about recently: my 8 year old son was recently given a fixed term exclusion for ‘non-complaint behaviour’, the worst of which seems to have been using the calming fiddle toy we had given him during lessons. He does not have an EHCp but we are looking at that. He has been diagnosed with ADHD but we believe he also has a number of difficulties outside the ADHD diagnostic criteria.  We believe this exclusion amounts to disability discrimination. Our first response was to complain to the Academy and eventually a meeting was held which was chaired by the Chair of Governors who claims to have decades of SEND experience. At the start of the meeting, she questioned the legitimacy of our concerns as, as far as she was aware, ADHD was now not considered a disability as far as The Equality Act 2010 is concerned as this is what she had read in a local newspaper.

Timing of annual reviews (s44 CFA2014). Is it correct that an annual review should be 12 months after the date an amended EHCP was issued (following a tribunal appeal)?

s44 CFA2014 requires an EHCp to be reviewed within 12 months of being issued and then within 12 months of the date the EHCp was last reviewed.

The last review of my 9 yo daughters EHCp was/was completed on the 1st July 2022. We appealed to the FTT who ordered amendments to the EHCp, and the amended document was issued on 30th April 2023. The LA now claims that the next s44 review must be completed by 30th April 2024 and not 1st July 2023 as s44 requires.

Do hours need to be specified

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

EOTAS on health grounds - CVI & epilepsy

My child has an EHCP in place. He understands alot but has huge barriers in communication so cannot tell me how he is feeling.

His vision fluctuates from being not great to being completely blind depending on how cluttered the environment is and how much visual or auditory clutter there is(clutter includes humans of course). He is in an SEN provision, class of 10 and each school evening he gets home and has a huge meltdown due to the stress on his vision and each school night he is having an average of 5 epileptic seizures as a result of this same stress.

We are in between a 2 day tribunal and a further 1 day adjournment hearing. I obviously dont want to get in trouble with LA but i cant watch my child health being continually impacted upon as a result of complying with sending him to school. If i take my child out of school for a month or so prior to the next hearing for these health reasons what, if any bearing will it, or is it likely to have on EOTAS and being able to implement provision at home in a distraction free environment?

Thank you in advance

Can you pass on any advice to parents who are attending Tribunal to make it less stressful and help them be prepared?

Does disability living allowance automatically transfer to PIP benefit?

When children turn 16 there can be changes to their support.

Please explain public task as lawfulness for data processing in context of EHCPs that a ) LAs and b) Schools rely upon? I believe the public task ...

... of the LA is to have processes in place for dealing with EHCPs i.e. NHS commissioning agreements, assessment processes etc. But PUBLIC TASK does not mean that sensitive specific individual data can openly/ without parental or child consent be processed with whom the LA deems appropriate ie. school consultations or third parties.This would need to be agreed. PUBLIC TASK in terms of EHCP/SENDIST means that processes are in place.

LAs quote public task as lawfulness to share and obtain your individual data with third parties without your knowledge in EHCPNA and SENDIST. I don't agree and no one can explain this to me in simple SENDIST/ Education terms. Please can some one explain this as I believe LAs and schools are misquoting to obtain and share data strategically in sendist to blindsight parents

Can Section A only be amended at annual review? I have just successfully appealed Sections B, F and I of my child’s EHCP at Tribunal. The Tribunal ...

... has ordered the LA to amend Sections B and F. The LA is in the process of doing so. My question is whether the LA is precluded in law from making the amendments I have requested to Section A at the same time?

The LA has said it can only do what the Tribunal has ordered it do it and that I will have to wait a year for an annual review to ask for amendments to Section A. My understanding is that as Section A can’t be appealed and does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, there is nothing in law to preclude the LA from making amendments to Section A now - when they are working on the EHCP to amend Sections B and F. Is this right?

I know I may be wasting my time arguing a point of principle here, but it feels an important one as the Draft EHCP was very poorly drafted and didn’t even include the full views my daughter had written out herself nor the full information she had given to the LA’s Ed Psych as part of a sentence completion activity. I therefore felt that in not including them in Section A her voice had been ignored, which was contrary to the whole principle of the Code of Practice. I have been asking for these amendments since the poorly written Draft was issued.

The LA ignored my requests to make the amendments during the exchange of working documents and has now come back with a ‘No’ and an email saying, ‘This can be amended following a future annual review. Legally [we] must stick to the working document and what the Tribunal have ordered us to amend.’ This feels unnecessarily unreasonable but is there anything in law to support their point?

Any advice gratefully received. Thank you.