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?

Tribunal Bundle

Extended appeal inc Social Care.

During VCMH the Judge advised the LA to concede Section I as unreasonable (no evidence to support its position). LA agreed which left some minor dispute of OT related needs & provision plus all of D & H.

Judge asked us to agree to the outstanding to be heard on the papers which we did. This was nearly 2 months ago and our actual hearing should have been 6 weeks ago.
The paper hearing date was moved so still hasn’t been heard yet.

Supplementary bundle has evidence which a) was served to us but not submitted to the tribunal b) totally new evidence that we haven’t seen c) omitted evidence submitted by us.

The majority of the errors don’t make a difference in the disputed areas but the new evidence does.

I have asked the LA Solicitor twice in the last four weeks
to correct the bundle without a reply (usually communicates). I

I followed the instructions of the clerks and emailed
in a direction was issued which set out the new hearing date on/from which stated issues with the bundle to be resolved between parties.

This is most probably irrelevant but adding to the injustice but there is a stage 2 investigation report about what I believe is unlawful thresholds for social care provisions which is being withheld yet they’ve submitted evidence in way. As it’s a paper hearing there won’t be an opportunity
to challenge this evidence.
Is there anything else I can do? If there’s isn’t anything I can do regarding the tribunal, is there a route of redress regarding the solicitors lack of action/response?

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

Understanding change of placement in section I after permenant exclusion?

My son is in year 7, EHCP and been permanently excluded.

He was in mainstream and I was trying to get a change of placement but the LA had not put the paperwork through in time and told me to wait. In which time he was PEX. I'm not appealing the PEX as it's pretty pointless, he lasted 10 weeks in Mainstream school.

Now the PEX has prompted a change of placement under section I. I have named a specialist, the LA are consulting on Parental preference. But they feel his needs can still be met in Mainstream and consulting with them.

Due to the PEX he is now educated outside of school and the LA have set him work online with a tutor online. Which obviously does not meet provision F. I also work full time and after next week I have zero childcare. I have complained to the director of children and suprise, nobody cares.

I have two questions with anyone that has been through this:
1.When the LA name a school that is not parental preference I have the right to appeal under SEN tribunal, this is currently a 9-12 month wait, is this triaged as more urgent as he is not in school? Also will the 'tutoring' remain in place whilst I appeal?
2.I have contacted every solicitor I possibly can to proceed with judicial review, can anyone recommend anyone that could take legal aid and has availability?

I actually have no idea what to do and I don't actually no how I'm going to keep my job. Anyone that's been through this experience and could share would be much appreciated, I can't find this situation online anywhere.O

Tribunal B, F and I (July 2024): the LA made a request to appeal, the case has been reviewed once (inconclusive), I am now awaiting a second review (with the original panel)

The LA want to carry out an Annual Review. Can changes be made to those sections which are being reviewed by the tribunal?

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?

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.

Secondary school naming with appeal pending - Y5 transition timing

I have an appeal pending with a hearing in the first months of next year. We've just had our annual review and the school amended the EHCP but noted that there's an appeal ongoing.
They're saying we'll need another annual review after the appeal to name the secondary school. My child is in Y5, and they've warned the secondary could refuse him if they see the EHCP post-appeal.
I've heard it's better to request secondary placement earlier rather than waiting until June 2026. The secondary school SENCO confirmed they usually get requests much earlier than June.
Questions:

Should I request secondary placement now or wait until after the tribunal?
Can the LA delay naming a secondary school until the appeal's resolved?
Could requesting now affect my appeal?

Thanks for any advice!

Do i have to submit an annual review final EHCP to the tribunal during an appeals process?

We are currently midway through an appeals process with the LA over the addition of specialist provision to my child's EHCP. We are currently on working document version 5, and there have been numerous changes and additions to sections B & F agreed by both parties; however, the appeal continues as the LA will still not put the specialist provision into the EHCP.

The problem is we have also just had an annual review. The LA issued a draft, and then a final plan, with none of the changes currently agreed upon in the appeal. They changed a lot of section A, but otherwise, the final annual review EHCP is the same as the EHCP we are appealing from the previous year (i.e. the same as working document version 1).

Do I need to submit this new Final Annual Review EHCP to the tribunal (using the Send7 form as the IPSE website suggests), or can I just ignore it and carry on discussing the Working Document version 5 with the LA, as that is the most relevant document with all the changes agreed so far?

If the annual review final EHCP is included, it would be like taking the Working Document back to revision 1 and starting again, but I’m scared that once the appeal is finally done, they will use this new annual review final EHCP to overwrite my appealed EHCP and remove the provision I have spent a year trying to add. All the information on the internet only seems relevant if you want to add the annual review EHCP to the appeal, but in this case, I don’t. I just don’t want to give the LA another weapon against us.

Thank you for any help you can give.