-
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. -
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.