EHCP Challenges
Hello,
I've just joined the forum and would appreciate guidance on the legality of my child's situation and the best next steps to secure a suitable placement.
Child Details:
Age: 5 and in Year 1 (Key Stage 1) mainstream school.
Needs: Complex ASD, significant anxiety, and acute sensory regulation needs documented by an Educational Psychologist (EP) and Occupational Therapist (OT).
Academic: Academically able, working at or above age-related expectations (ARE) in core subjects.
AR just concluded request for specialist placement was rejected
My child's school is in another Borough.
The Crisis: Unlawful Provision (Section 19 Breach)
My child has been on a severely reduced, non-statutory timetable (part-time attendance) at their current mainstream school for over eight months due to their needs exceeding the school's capacity to keep them regulated and safe for a full day.
The Local Authority (LA) recently claimed in a formal response that they were "unaware" of this reduced timetable prior to the recent Annual Review (AR).
Crucially, this claim is refuted by their own file:
A Multi-Agency Referral Form (MARF), referenced the crisis meeting regarding the child's "provision/timetable.", the file was sent to the LA.
The LA-commissioned EP Report, which was distributed by the LA caseworker as part of the AR pack, explicitly documented the part-time hours.
The LA's failure to act on this known breach for months constitutes an ongoing failure to secure full-time suitable education (a breach of Section 19 of the Education Act 1996).
Procedural Maladministration
A comprehensive private Occupational Therapy (OT) Report detailing essential sensory and physical adaptions was submitted to the LA for the AR.
This OT Report was omitted from the formal evidence presented to the decision-making panel when the EHCP amendments were decided.
Questions and Strategic Concerns
Legal Impact: Do the documented S19 breach (ongoing reduced timetable, effectively an exclusion without process) and the clear procedural error (omission of the OT Report) provide sufficient legal grounds to successfully argue at Tribunal that the current mainstream placement is unsuitable?
Next Steps: I have formally escalated these issues to the Head of Children's Services, demanding an urgent re-paneling and a written action plan. What further legal steps (e.g., a threat of Judicial Review, specific naming of potential placements) should I take now?
Future Suitability Dilemma: I need to find a placement that meets two essential requirements at Key Stage 1/2:
Therapeutic Structure: Requires a small group setting (e.g., max 10 students) with a high adult-to-child ratio (e.g., 1:5) and guaranteed, non-conditional access to low-stimulus, therapeutic spaces (Specialist Provision).
Academic Rigour: Must provide the full Key Stage 1/2 National Curriculum and be able to differentiate provision upwards to prevent academic stagnation and ensure he reaches his full potential, rather than being limited to a foundation curriculum.
How can I ensure the Final EHCP (specifically Sections E, F, and I) is written to legally mandate a placement that provides this therapeutic structure without forcing integration into a failed mainstream setting, yet also guarantees the necessary academic pathway?
Thank you in advance for any insights on navigating this critical stage.
A: SenseCheck
- 0 Yes
- 0 No
- 1 Other
- 05 Oct 2025
-
Other
|
Simple
Can't answer yes or no.:
Dear Mr Thorpe,
This is clearly a very difficult situation, and it is entirely understandable that you wish to clarify your position and the practical steps available to you. Nothing in this answer should be taken as legal advice.
1. Failure to Provide Full-Time Education
A prolonged reduced timetable without proper authorisation or review may raise issues under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which requires local authorities to ensure that every child of compulsory school age receives suitable full-time education, either in school or otherwise (Noddy Guide, paras 03.01–03.04). The Guide explains that this duty acts as a safety net when a child is unable to attend school, and that local authorities must take active steps to secure education even where attendance is reduced because of unmet needs.The Section 19 duty is distinct from, but complementary to, the duties under the Children and Families Act 2014 (Noddy Guide, paras 08.22, 09.339–09.340). Section 19 secures education generally, while the CFA 2014 imposes an absolute duty on local authorities to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHCP under Section 42. Together, these duties ensure that both a child’s general and special educational entitlements are protected. Where concerns persist, parents sometimes request an urgent review or, in more serious cases, seek legal advice from an expert in administrative law about the possibility of a Judicial Review, though each case depends on its own facts.
2. Disputes About the EHCP
Disagreements about the content or adequacy of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)—for example, whether needs and provision are fully specified, or whether a mainstream placement remains suitable—are usually matters for the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) if they cannot be resolved with the local authority (Noddy Guide, Ch. 12, para 12.010). The omission of a professional report, such as an Occupational Therapy assessment, from the decision-making process could raise procedural concerns, as the local authority must consider all relevant evidence during a review of an EHCP (Noddy Guide, para 05.05).It is generally appropriate to ask the authority to reconvene or reconsider the review, ensuring that all relevant evidence is properly included. If the dispute continues, parents may, after first considering or participating in mediation, appeal to the Tribunal to seek amendments to Sections B (needs), F (provision) and I (placement). The Tribunal procedure, including appeal rights, mediation requirements, timescales, and extended jurisdiction over health and social care, is explained comprehensively in Chapter 12 of the Noddy Guide.
The Noddy Guide also makes clear that these sections operate sequentially:
a) Section B identifies the child’s special educational needs, based on professional evidence (Noddy Guide, Ch. 7).
b) Section F sets out the special educational provision required to meet each of those needs (Noddy Guide, Ch. 8).
c) Section I names the placement capable of delivering that provision (Noddy Guide, Ch. 9).In essence, Section B informs Section F, which informs Section I, ensuring that the EHCP is coherent, evidence-based, and legally enforceable.
I hope this answer helps you to understand the general position and the procedural options available, though it should not be relied upon as legal advice in your particular circumstances. This summary is drawn directly from the legal duties and principles explained throughout the Noddy No-Nonsense Guide to SEN Law (2025). I look forward to reading any other contributions that may add further insights or experiences.
Regards,
Sean Kennedy
05 Oct 2025
|
Comment