Removing references to evidence in the working document

Hello, we have our Tribunal hearing in a few weeks for our appeal of Section B and F and an extended appeal for Section C and G. We have managed to agree a large amount of the working document with the LA and they have asked me to now remove the references to professional reports against each statement that has been agreed.

I'm not keen to do this in case they change their mind about what has been agreed and adjust the working document before the hearing and my references then wont be included.

Is it standard practice to remove references from the working document before a hearing on agreed statements?

Thanks, Verity

Can I deregister child from school whilst awaiting an EOTAS package at tribunal?

Child has mainstream school named on EHCP. She is struggling attend due to high anxiety. We dont believe any school is appropriate currently and are hoping for EOTAS to be awarded. Can we deregister her from school whilst waiting for tribunal? Or would that make appeal at tribunal void and mean the LA would no longer be responsible for sourcing provision?

Taking children out of school during term time

I will be taking my children out of school next month for our family holiday. 2 of my children have additional needs, one is diagnosed combined adhd and one awaiting assessment for adhd/asd. Neither of them cope well in overcrowded situations with one having social anxiety and the other being liable to wonder off etc. this is the main reason for going out of term time so it will not be as busy. Is there anything I can do in order to not receive an fine from my local authorities for doing this.

Final EHCP issued with nothing named in I nor 'type' of placement nor provision set out in F ( EOTAS ). Appeal hearing 5/11/25 ( in 2 days time! )

Am I right in saying the LA have acted unlawfully by issuing a final without a placement/type/eotas? This is the very simple reason I have lodged the appeal which has taken 11 months - during which time my now 19 year old young person is highly unlikely to engage in anything whatsoever and are NEET.

If a decision is made to electively home educate a child who previously had a school-based IDP, does the school-based IDP automatically cease upon deregistration from the school? Is the LA then required to determine whether it will maintain the IDP?

If a request is made for the LA to review and revise a school-based IDP with the view it becomes an LA-maintained IDP, and the LA panel decides that additional evidence and assessments from the school are needed before reaching a decision, what happens if the child is removed from the school roll during this process? Does the panel need to reconsider the request and decide whether to maintain the IDP, given that there is no longer a school to provide the requested evidence or implement recommendations? Or should a new request be made for the LA to determine whether the child has ALN?

If we register our child through the standard secondary school admission process, will their EHCP automatically cease?

Our adopted, Year 6, daughter has an EHCP with VI as the main need. We chose a secondary school for her with a specialist VI unit, in a different county. They can definitely meet needs but have yet to agree to the placement. If we went through the standard admissions, she would be given a place in our chosen school as she is a previously looked-after child. But we have been told by our Local Authority that if we do that, the EHCP will cease. Is that correct, would that be a legal move?

Need SENDIST Appeal advice

Hello,

I’m seeking advice from SEND professionals and tribunal specialists about expediting a SENDIST appeal and securing interim educational provision.

Background
Child: 6-year-old autistic child with high support needs.

Appeal lodged: Sections B, F and I of the EHCP.

Tribunal date received: December 2026 (over 12 months away).

Current status:

Child is out of full-time education. Still on school roll.
Named mainstream school has confirmed in writing and verbally to LA that it cannot meet need.

Attempts at attendance result in distress and school refusal behaviours.

Local Authority position:

LA still asserts the named school is “suitable”.
LA arranged 4–9 hrs/week AP through a provider.
However, the provider has been told by the LA that they may “shape and increase” the AP package themselves, despite the LA retaining the legal duty under Section 19 and Section 42.

No reintegration plan, no criteria for progression, and no oversight mechanism has been provided by the LA despite repeated requests.

Key Concerns
Child has effectively no education beyond a few hours per week.
EHCP Section F is not being delivered.
Section 19 duty is not being met in any meaningful way.
LA appears to have no coherent plan, and responsibility for the child’s education has been passed informally to an AP provider.

Waiting until late 2026 risks severe emotional, behavioural and developmental regression.

What we need expert guidance on
Could anyone advise on the following, based on your experience?
1. Best way to successfully request expedition of a SENDIST appeal

Especially when:
The child is out of school
The school says they cannot meet need
AP is inadequate
The LA has no plan
The delay will cause significant harm
Any examples of grounds that have worked, or phrasing the Tribunal responds to, would be very helpful.

2. Whether the above circumstances meet the threshold for expedited listing

Does prolonged absence from education + lack of Section 19 fulfilment typically lead to expedition?

3. Whether this case meets the criteria for a Case Management Hearing (CMH)

Particularly to:

Challenge the LA’s assertion that the existing placement is suitable
Secure directions for interim provision
Clarify the LA’s responsibilities
Ensure evidence and consultations are completed

4. Whether a Judicial Alternative Dispute Resolution (JADR) is possible
We understand JADR is usually for Section I appeals only, but would tribunal specialists confirm this?

5. Whether a separate Judicial Review (pre-action) should be considered
Specifically around:
Failure to provide Section 19 suitable education
Failure to deliver Section F
Failure to make lawful decisions
Delay and lack of planning

6. Practical steps the parent should take.

Whether a parental impact statement strengthens the expedition request

Whether clinical reports supporting “harm to the child” help secure expedition


We are simply trying to understand:

What procedural routes exist
What has worked for other families
How to get the Tribunal to recognise the urgency

Any input from SEND lawyers, tribunal reps, ex-LA officers, SENCOs, or parents who have navigated similar situations would be gratefully received.
Thank you.

If a Tribunal rules for SALT provision, would LA use a private SALT already commissioned?

I am currently mid EHCP tribunal appeal over the addition of SALT and OT provision to section F. During this time, we have been privately funding a SALT ourselves who met our child and wrote a good report which became the foundation for the appeal.

Since then, there have been a couple of issues between the SALT and the school that have caused a bit of friction. We didn’t think this was too much of a problem, and just required a bit of meeting in the middle for both parties. However, the SALT has informed us that she doesn’t feel that she is a good fit and is politely withdrawing. Considering how difficult it was to get a private SALT in the first place, I’m not confident that we would be able to get another or if we even should.

Now I believe that if we win the appeal and a SALT provision is added to the EHCP, the LA would be entirely responsible for providing the specialist?

If we had a private SALT on board, would the LA take our SALT on board (which would require us to find a new one before the end of the appeal), or would they have to either provide their own (ignoring ours), or provide a personal allowance to us to cover the continuation of the privately funded SALT (if we can find a new one)?

My expected outcome is that we win the appeal, the LA then would be required to provide a SALT for the school, but the LA will not have one to provide (even if we do). They will sit on the tribunal ruling while we write letters of complaint that they are not providing the tribunal-specified support. Is there a clause or an act I should refer to when writing to the LA when this inevitably happens? What do you do when the LA just ignore the Tribunal’s ruling on the provision, to who do you go to next?

Many thanks for all your help.

Denied authorised absence, does it fall under equality act

My daughter has an EHCP detailing she is dyslexic & had ADHD. I take her to a registered charity specialising in teaching kids with dyslexia that I pay privately for. Last year the school authorised this under code b and now they are refusing to. Is there anything I can do or would this come under the equality act to make reasonable adjustments?