Correct route of redress.

Section E - Outcome and Provision used to prevent full-time attendance. "Child will return to full time education by the end of Key stage one" Section F discusses slow transition but isn;t actually provision. The EHCP is under appeal with a hearing date of 13+ months now down to 12 months. The school named in Section I has placed the child on a reduced timetable. Parents disagree with this. A meeting was held, and the HT would not respond other than to state, "I am just going to repeat: we are following the EHCP". The following day, the child was suspended for 2 days. The following week, for a day. The child is in Key Stage One. We have submitted a request for change - An expedited hearing date. This is a friend I am trying to help. The EHCP is being used to prevent his legal entitlement to a full-time education. My question is, Is a PAP letter to the LA something that could work in this situation?

Fall back position - Mainstream vs Mainstream

I am aware that I can propose a fall back position if the LA preferred school is a special school but what if it’s a mainstream?

Can I ask for mainstream type?

I would be using L vs Wandsworth 2006 - breakdown in relationship.

Do tribunals often refuse requests for witness summons?

We are concerned that we will be disadvantaged if our witnesses do not attend the hearing. What else can we do if a summons request is refused?

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.

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

Child offered place but LA won't fund what can be done

Child offered place at preferred school, turned down by 8 others named. LA has named totally inappropriate setting which will be damaging to her development and mental health. Tribunal will take a year, she's in year 9 so can't be kept out of school for a year. Clock ticking what can be done?

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.

My son's ehcp was granted but the council have refused to write 1:1 support in section F, despite their Educational Pyschologists specifying that he needs this. Instead they have written 'individualised' which does not constitute the same thing. The case officer stated in email that they are not allowed to write 1:1 support. What legislation applies to provide the right and specified provision - along with the quantity of how often they should receive this? They also finalised section J, despite providing a personal budget as requested which is to be used for OT services. Any advice would be kindly appreciated. thanks

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

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.