EHCP support thread no. 4

I would be careful about agreeing to a school DD won’t be attending being named with them arranging AP. Not only shouldn’t it happen. It can lead to both the LA and school passing the buck and the child be stuck in the middle.

I’ll get a statement from the AP when we pit the bundle together for sure. It’s taken so long to get it that it’s still newish.

PfA is in the appeal!

I would add that if the LA thinks that the named setting will meet need by using funding to contract an online provider as AP then I’d take that as a quick win to get my child properly connected with education. I’m not dogmatic at this point. But they haven’t yet shared any thoughts at all about how a school that can’t meet need will, er, meet need.

If you haven’t already, you could try to get a statement from the AP.

You may already have covered this too, but well as the OEAS provider, have you got other provision for things like PfA covered?

I’ve probably given a poor impression of what I’ve already done and looked into as I was only really meaning to ask about the failure to consult. This is my fourth EHCP so very much not my first rodeo unfortunately, nor my first battle with an LA. I’ve had two children in specialist settings, both hard won.

I’m not mentioning school transport in the appeal. It was just an aside on here. Our appeal is entirely around the setting we want and the failures of the panel to observe either law or the code, and there’s case law to support my points. I’ve got some really helpful ideas though from you so thank you, particularly about whether we should appeal B and F.

Yes, I’ve researched pretty much every setting in a reasonable distance. There’s pretty much nothing that would work for them other than, ironically, possibly the unit in our catchment school that their sibling attends, which returned the bullshit response. If we try for that we definitely need to appeal F as it doesn’t currently support funding for a specialist place. But I’m not entirely convinced it’s right. I’d jump at the open offer of a place to find out but I think it’s highly unlikely. They’re currently learning online in an AP and it’s working brilliantly for them but the private online school offers the GCSEs they would like to do.

SS in my experience has been social services!

Special/specialist school.

LA EPs are often not the best people to ask about whether EHCPs are watertight or not. You may be friends, but I wouldn’t rely on their advice on this. This is especially important for things like professional time, therapeutic input, equipment/tech, because they are often lacking in LA EP reports/it isn’t their remit.

Just so you know, even for online providers with accreditation, they aren’t always being named in I. Sometimes I is being left blank with the provider being part of EOTAS/EOTIS and EOTAS/EOTIS is only legally possible if you can show it is inappropriate for provision to be made in a school. I expect what goes doesn’t go in I for OEAS will be subject to challenge one way or the other at some point.

Don’t rely on the cost of transport to win your case. If the view in your particular case is it shouldn’t be named in I, then EOTAS/EOTIS won’t be won on the cost of transport if there is an otherwise appropriate school. You may have already done this, but have your search for schools included independent and non-maintained special schools up to a journey time of 1hr15?

I am not saying your case won’t be successful. I am saying you need to be prepared, know the law and target your case accordingly. For example, the LA may well revisit the ARPs and your case needs to be able to rebut that.

If SS is special school then bring it on. Good luck to them finding one. We asked for a consult with two local ASD units - for complicated reasons one sent back a bullshit response and one was also not consulted by the LA.

I’m happy to appeal the sections if it’s the right thing to do to get my child the provision they need. I’m only focusing on online as there’s no other provision I’m aware of that will work (EBSA, literally no setting that can meet section F anywhere remotely nearby. I’ve done a lot of research! The cost of school transport to anywhere that might work would outstrip the online school fees very quickly).

I’d really love my LA to get themselves sorted and create some EBSA provision but that doesn’t appear to be happening any time soon.

The Ed psych that reviewed was a friend who is an LA ed psych elsewhere rather than a consultant so writes a lot of EHCPs!

SS?

Just to ignore a parental request flat out without informing them beforehand they will be doing that?

Yes, sometimes.

It is very rare for LAs to finalise a watertight EHCP without being forced to via Tribunal. An independent EP won’t always know what a watertight EHCP looks like, especially for provision outside of their remit e.g. comprehensive OT, SALT, MH provision and professional time and not forgetting the tech/assistive tech/equipment/resources required for the online provider.

Even if online isn’t specifically stated, it needs to be written in a way that makes it explicitly clear it can’t be provided in any other way.

You focus only on MS, be prepared for the LA to put SS on the table at the last minute. It is a dirty tactic LAs are increasingly using.

It isn’t uncommon for consultations not to be done.

Just to ignore a parental request flat out without informing them beforehand they will be doing that?

Yes, the school has an Ofsted online school accreditation.

We got an independent Ed psych to review section F in draft which is why we weren’t looking to appeal it. It is quite specific and does include everything our child said they wanted or needed, and in our view they are the right provisions for them - the issue is that there are no local mainstream schools that can provide them whereas the online school can meet all the educational needs. The school named is their current school and they objectively can’t provide what is set out in section F. But I’m happy to chuck B and F into the mix if people think it would be stupid not to, or if you think section F needs to specifically mention online schooling.

It isn’t uncommon for consultations not to be done. When the LA responds to appeals, one of the things they must provide is information from and about the proposed placements.

Is the online provider one of the few with accreditation that some LAs are sometimes now naming in section I? Or is it one of the providers who are not registered thus cannot be named in I and are instead part of EOTIS provision?

You should seriously reconsider appealing B&F. This is especially important if you want an online provision. B&F = I. Even though legally they shouldn’t, the LA will have written B&F in a way that supports the placement they have named in section I. The wording in F is also likely to be vague and woolly to one extent or another. Also, appealing B&F isn’t only about the school the LA has named now, it is protecting the appeal in case the LA amends their proposed school during the appeal process, which isn't uncommon, sometimes at the last minute.

We’ve already appealed section I but the form has had to go in without the response from our preferred school (an independent online school that has already told us it can meet need). We are happy with B and F - the school named can’t meet those needs and said so in its response.

I was wondering though whether anyone else has had a requested consultation just not be done (not refused, just apparently forgotten or missed) and in that case what happened? We’ll be complaining to the LA through their complaints procedure and submitting a SAR too.

@Leftoverssandwich you should submit an appeal ASAP. The placement named in section I is the logical conclusion of B&F so you should seriously consider appealing B&F as well as I. They are often in need of at least some improvement, anyway. If the LA then changes their mind, they can concede.

Hello, nice thread of people

We are deep in EHCP hell that I won’t bore you all with, and it’s not our first time round. I just had a question about something that some of you may have had experience with (apologies if it’s been extensively covered).

In among many stupidities and mistakes (SENDIASS, Director of Education, MP’s office all involved, appeal lodged etc), the LA simply did not consult one of the schools we listed, merely listing one that couldn’t meet need with no statement on how they saw section F needs being met. They are now saying, two weeks after the final EHCP, that they will now consult the school. There have been no apologies obviously but it looks more like cock up than conspiracy.

Has anyone else had this and what ended up happening around the panel’s decision? Is there any room to ‘reopen’ the EHCP in these situations or are we doomed to at least start down the road to tribunal?

Caseworker emailed to say she hasn’t received confirmation on my son’s speech provision (she did, she got it last Tues from his speech therapist, she even emailed to tell me she’d made a mistake after getting the email). Therefore she hadn’t updated his EHCP (she told me she was planning to do this on Fri just gone, hence I rejigged my whole week to get the annotations to her on time).

She is now on annual leave.

8 months this has been going on for now - with no end in sight.

I emailed the Director of Children’s Services today.

@NonplasticBertrand They should not remove provision that is still reasonably required. However, they often do, especially at phase transfers.

Thanks @BrightBrightYellowTrain. Can the LA remove it even though needs haven't changed?

@NonplasticBertrand pleased to hear you have found someone with a legal aid with the capacity to take on your case.

You might have to appeal, many do for 1:1, but 1:1 post 16 is possible in mainstream in every LA.

In better news I am lawyered up, with a public law specialist with a legal aid contract.

Isn't this the gift that keeps on giving? Have just got specialist advice on post-16 options and was advised to use the AR to 'strip out provision from F, or your child will not be admitted to a mainstream school or college, as this LA does not do 1-2-1 post-16'. How did we end up here?

@Cinnamoncupcake brilliant news. Yes, tell the LA your preference for now to September as well.

@RibbyJumper I am with DP, I wouldn’t resend the email. 48 hours, especially during one of the busiest times of the year, isn’t a huge amount of time. However, I would email the Director of Children’s Services threatening JR. At the minute, the LA is seeing that they can successfully string you along for months and months on end. If you continue to allow them to do that unchallenged, they will continue to act in this way.

We’ve been accepted just waiting on the draft ehcp that should come today 🙌 so happy I just hope it has the relevant needs on there. So because she will still be in preschool do I put this setting aswell as the school I want her to go to in September?