Expert witness Statements

Are there any specific regulations/rules around witness statements? Is it acceptable practice for the Local Authority representative to author witness statements? The HESCC Rules 2008 and www.gov.uk SEND Tribunal's "If you are asked to be a witness" do not include the level of detail I need.

What exactly can a LA rely on when it claims to be able to refuse under "the efficient use of resources" ground of section 39 CAFA 2014?

What exactly can a LA rely on when it claims to be able to refuse under "the efficient use of resources" ground of section 39 CAFA 2014? Whose resources? What is "efficient"? Is it as regards my child or their assessment of the use of their budget generally? Any case law on this would be welcome (ex-lawyer here, gearing up for a potential "no").

The child is ASC, tier 4 (for risk), and has some time in a secure unit (no risk to others), Section I school is a private with annual fees close to £80k.

Does the LA have a duty to make a decision, and notify parents of that decision, following an EHC Plan review, if there is an ongoing appeal?

I registered an appeal for my Child’s Ammended Final EHC Plan, the LA had already agreed to review the plan, and indeed after the appeal was registered by tribunal, an EHC Plan review meeting was held; all professionals within that meeting stressed that the named school on my Child’s EHC Plan was unsuitable, the LA now claims that due to the ongoing appeal, they will not finalise the review or issuing a notice of the outcome of the review.

The LA instead intends to make make applicable changes to the working document, based on the review outcomes, but I find that this:
- frustrates my rights to appeal the outcome of the review
- confuses the working document by introducing changes outside of the scope of appeal, e.g. sections A & E

Can a LA effectively ignore a SEN Tribunal Judgement ?

We have "won" at Tribunal and the Judge ordered that sections B and F be replaced by the amendments that the tribunal suppled. As well as taking nearly 8 weeks to issue their first attempt, the LA have decided to use the opportunity to edit the entire document including making numerous additions and deletions to sections B and F. In particular, they have taken key paragraphs written by the Tribunal and appended to them so as to change (no doubt they would say "clarify") their meaning. As I understand it they are allowed to edit the document whenever they like so doesn't this in effect override any power the Tribunal has?

I am part way to starting Judicial Review proceedings but I haven't yet had any advice about whether I have a leg to stand on or not because initially at least I'm going with sossen and no professional reply as of yet. Any thoughts on this very gratefully received.

We are in the final stages of EHCP. We have requested EOTAS (to pay for online school) and a personal budget. The LA have said "County Independent panel have reviewed your request for EOTAS and personal budget to fund Kings Inter High, further information is required before EOTAS can be considered. We will be contacting F...... high school to establish if they are able to support funding Kings Inter High as E. remains on their school roll. We will also be issuing consultations to independent settings to establish suitability; these consultations will be shared with you before they are issued." My question is does the LA pay for EOTAS - why are they asking the school? The LA tried to unroll her from mainstream but we said they could not do this until they have provided alternative provision - and we request EOTAS - were we wrong to do so?

My daughter is happy at online school. She has tried two mainstream schools and cannot manage. She will not attend school in person and the EP report is fairly conclusive with this regard.

where the Parents and the LA have been in Sendist Tribunal for nearly two years , the reports are outdated . The LA have had over 7 extensions of time , Can I appeal this with a JR ?

first tier tribunal but reports outdated by 2 years , no support from health or education during that time

Phase transfer - negative consultation mainstream

Our preferred mainstream has responded to say unsuitable due to aptitude, ability. The reasons they have provided are nothing that can’t be overcome and would be applicable to the school the LA have named too although their school responded to say “may” be able to meet need. What I’m struggling to understand looking at sections 33 & 39 is how parental preference & mainstream school being made suitable doesn’t support our choice for a particular mainstream.

Does anyone know what the legal position is in relation to costs in the SEND Tribunal?

Just spoken to the officer at the LGO who made the decision referred to in this question: https://supportsendkids.org/question/1681234603118

He said one of the reasons the LGO doesn't have jurisdiction is because the SEND Tribunal has the power to award costs. He said he doesn't recognise my assertion that the general rule in the SEND Tribunal is not to award costs. He said this would surprise him if it was indeed the case.

Does anyone know what the legal position is in relation to costs in the SEND Tribunal? Has the SEND Tribunal issued any guidance on this point? I was advised by our solicitors when appealing our child's EHCP that the general rule in the SEND Tribunal is that there should be no order for costs. We therefore made no such application. The officer from the LGO said he believed the SEND Tribunal did make orders for costs and that therefore the LGO couldn't look into recompense of legal fees because it would involve stepping on the toes of another body. My point is that if the other body - i.e. the SEND Tribunal - isn't using its powers and is in fact actively encouraging claimants not to - then where does that leave claimants - other than in debt if they've had to instruct a solicitor to try and obtain justice?

I asked the LGO officer if he knew what proportion of cases that came before the SEND Tribunal resulted in a costs order being made. He said he had no idea. Obviously, it his not for him to know this but I just left wondering if this information is readily available or if it's worth me making a FOI request? The officer did say there is lacuna in the law in relation the LGO's jurisdiction ending when appeal rights become available, but he assured me the LGO had fully and properly considered R (ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 1407 (Hillingdon) and applied it correctly in my case. Have I reached a dead end with this or are there cases pending that might make me making an application for judical review (to be put on hold pending such a decision) worth while? Many thanks.

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?

Interim Provision

The YP has been out of school for two years and the LA have not provided any educational provision. The Tribunal has been adjourned for the third time and the LA are supposed to provide suitable interim provision in the meantime. The YP has ADHD and the LA are proposing online learning which he cannot engage in. His assessments and EHCP note he struggles to remain seated for longer than 10 minutes and cannot concentrate for more than 2-3 minutes. A practical course that allows for movement is recommended. The YP wants a construction course (14-16 years) with functional skills maths and English. A local learning provider have offered a place using their own funding for the YP up to the date of the Tribunal providing an interim measure for the YP. The parent would like to accept this but the LA have cited section 42 (5)
The parent is not however suggesting that they wish to electively home educate at any point - in fact quite the opposite. They want to use this as an interim measure up to Tribunal where the placement is to be defined as sections B F and I are disputed and under appeal. The LA proposal for online learning does not meet need or provide the current provision listed in the EHCP and to date the LA have failed to provide any provision at all since June 2022. If the parent sends the child to the construction course in the interim given that there is no provision in place from the LA making it clear that this is simply an interim arrangement just until Tribunal and not elective home education can the LA cute section 42(5). Please consider that they are failing under section 42(2)