-
Naming a CIC in Section I
My daughter has severe SEMH needs and we’ve identified a CIC which delivers alternative provision for children with SEMH, however they only offer part time hours 15 hours over 2.5 days. The LA are saying as the organisation is not a school, they cannot name it. The organisation have said that they have other kids who attend with EHCPs and this is funded through a personal budget. The other 10 hours to make up full time provision we are considering another provider which isn’t a school but an alternative provision provider. We’re anxious to know whether we can have named in section I of my daughter’s EHCP the CIC and also if we can also have named the other provider for the other 10 hours?
-
Can I request the EP as an expert witness in my EHCP appeal, or could this backfire?
Our Educational Psychologist (a 2nd-year trainee) wrote a vague Section F provision with many examples rather than specific, quantified provisions. I have emailed three times requesting that it be made legally compliant, but the response I received stated:
"EP reports are written with the intention of enabling education staff to plan and deliver a personalised curriculum within a school or other educational setting. The additional examples that are included within advice help educators to incorporate recommendations/approaches into their lesson planning without limiting their creativity and flexibility, allowing staff to interpret the essence of the recommendation and plan to best effect."
I assume this aligns with LA policy, but my concern is that the vagueness makes the provision unenforceable. My son has an EOTAS package (recently agreed in final/nothing in place), and the LA is only organising tuition for the core curriculum. This means the examples listed in the EP report linking learning to interest (especially computing, which he accesses privately and consistently) are not included in his provision.
I agree with the essence of what she has written within F but due to the lack of detail I am appealing Sections B and F, and I’m wondering whether I should request the EP as an expert witness to clarify her recommendations—or whether this could backfire if she aligns with the LA's stance. -
Would ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ in section F mean my son has access to the full curriculum
We have EOTIS Section F states for tutoring included teaching in core education curriculum. He would be in year 7, my concern here is that it’s limited to maths, English and science. He is pda and we have already identified learning needs to be around his interests the one thing he has always continued to access is computing (working towards the curriculum) and cooking. I put in a PB request for computing but “not reasonable required under section F” I will be appealing but I’m just wondering what core curriculum needs to be reworded to so he has access to the full curriculum. Additional where the EP recommendations that were tailored to my son included the use of examples, the LA have stated these are examples so cooking is mentioned twice under learning provision and again under sensory but it won’t be included as “not reasonably required under section F”
-
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 -
When receiving an amended EHCP from the local authority (LA), must a child or young person receive a letter confirming their right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT)?
When receiving an amended EHCP, is it acceptable for a local authority to send an accompanying letter with the newly issued plan, emphasising their willingness to work together to resolve any disputes but no other information? While this may be welcomed, is this what the legal framework requires?
-
Adding Section I to a contents appeal
If an appeal is registered against contents. A new EHCP issued with phase transfer placement. Is section I registered as a new appeal and then request to consolidate or request for change and simply amend the grounds of appeal?
-
Can an inaccurate (or out of date) Section B & E be challenged at tribunal?
Support SEND Kids has been contacted by many parents who are frustrated that their child's EHCP contains inaccuracies or includes out of date behaviours. Despite requesting the EHCP be updated at review, the school and/or local authority ignore these requests and continue to submit inaccurate EHCPs to families. At the point of phase transfer (11+/16+) these inaccuracies, in Sections B & E, have a detrimental impact on which schools will consider the child. Can a tribunal insist that a local authority revise/re-draft an EHCP?
-
Decline to issue appeal: LA says school can meet needs with notional budget but school is not doing so. Is this a valid argument at appeal?
My daughter's EHCP has been declined after assessment on the grounds the school can meet needs through local offer / OAP. She is high masking ASD and as a result her needs are easy to miss in a busy mainstream environment. I sought her diagnosis privately and requested EHCNA myself as a result. She is entirely overwhelmed, distressed and attendance has dropped off completely and I cannot work as a result.
The LA have argued that needs can be met through OAP and external agencies. This is where I feel she has been let down by school. No outside agencies have been involved and the school did not submit any evidence of a graduated response to meeting her needs. I do not feel the LA EP report adequately illustrates the impact on her. The EP interviews were all online and felt quite light touch.
I feel stuck between the LA saying the school can make provision which the school ultimately cannot / will not. The LA summary of assessment has quantified, clear recommendations for 1:1 provision. Even if her primary school find a way to support her now in Yr5, I do not see how she will cope at a mainstream secondary and no acknowledgement of her proximity to transition has been made. Appeal evidence deadline is May, appeal date is Feb 2026 when she will be in Y6 and we've missed the 'transfer window' for secondary applications.
Thanks in advance. -
In the working document as part of an EHCP Contents Appeal, if I quote from Part C evidence, for example quote from a summary of a My Support Plan within an ADHD report (where the My Support Plan paragraph is clearly labelled), do I need to also include the full My Support Plan in Part C?
Part C evidence page limitations mean that I am trying to keep page count as low as possible as there is other evidence I would like to add.
Another example would be if I am including a previous First Tier Tribunal decision letter in my Part C evidence and then quote from a report that is directly word for word quoted in that letter, do I need to add that report to Part C, in addition to the letter itself? -
What happens if you turn down two settings offered by the LA (one AP one a school) because you do not think they will meet needs (backed up with professional evidence)? Can I hope to get EOTAS?
I am currently in the process of taking the LA to tribunal for section B, E, F and I. They failed to put in a lot of the EP evidence and failed to do a SaLT or OT assessment despite the EP report stating it was needed and me asking for them to be done.