-
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?
-
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. -
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. -
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?
-
Is appeal still valid if LA unilaterally issues a new final EHCP
- Child received EHCP in Sept 2024
- LA named mainstream in that EHCP
- Parents had requested specialist school A
- LA agreed that child needs specialist school but couldn't offer a specialist school for now because LA was short on places
- So, parents made tribunal appeal for section I only of the EHCP
- LA offers special school B instead of parental preference A
- Parents give LA's offer a serious consideration but then reject the offer as B isn't suitable for the child
- LA sends a new EHCP to parents and tribunal, just 3 months before the hearing date naming special school B
- SENDIASS says to parents that parents will have to file a new appeal now
- Parent rang tribunal who have said LA can't change EHCP unilaterally
- Parents also read lots of case law summaries online
- Parents are confident that the appeal is valid and this new EHCP that LA sent was nothing but a document, it wasn't legally binding
What is the truth of the situation, legally?Inactive User
13 Jun 2025
-
Tribunal: do I point out school has verbally confirmed they can't meet need?
I have lodged a refusal to issue appeal. School has admitted verbally they can't make the recommended provision in the summary of assessment report but seem unwilling to put this in writing. I think this is because if they admit they can't make provision that is (according to the LA) 'ordinarily available', they look bad. The evidence they have provided is really sloppy. Do I argue this at tribunal? Or, do I argue they've made best endeavours but still can't meet need? Child is ASD, EBSNA and new independent reports support that she needs a specialist placement. Thanks.