EHCP support thread no. 4

Can only the LA call LA professionals as witnesses to the tribunal? Or would parents be able to ask the LA EP to attend as a witness?

Going back and forth with the LA and EP team trying to get the 1:1 support sufficiently quantified in Section F and in the EP report but am getting nowhere. The LA EP said they can only attend if asked to by the LA.

@BrightYellowTrain thanks a lot for explaining, that’s really useful to know!

@Ponche phase transfer appeals including section I would look at the placement for the phase transfer. For example, if a current nursery child had an appeal in, say, June this year, the placement would begin in September. For those phase transfer appeals that won’t be held by the start of the new academic year, placement would begin ASAP after the conclusion of the appeal/amended EHCP issued. Although some may need a period of transition. For non-phase transfer appeals, mostly placements begin soon after the appeal. Occasionally, it may not begin for a while. Waiting 10-12 months is unlikely.

@BrightYellowTrain thank you for explaining how the hearings work.

In terms of section I appeals (both generally and for phase transfer), if parents win the appeal, how soon does the child have to move to the new school, eg. from mainstream to special.

If I appeal section I in the next couple of months and get a hearing date for eg. October or November 2024 and say the appeal goes in my favour, how soon would DD have to move to the new school? Could I say I don’t want her to move until September 2026?

I’m guessing the answer is probably no but I just wanted to explore all possibilities.

@RibbyJumper that will be fine. I feared you wanted something like ‘see attached table…’ in section F. Rather than have the provision itself in section F.

…Section F is inadequate, and I’ve said that the document I’ve attached needs to be incorporated in Section F. I’ve called it Section F amendments…

@BrightYellowTrain

Sorry, I sent it off before I saw your message. I’ve made it clear that t

@Phineyj I'd love to see this list too, if you could please share. Thank you.

@BrightYellowTrain I know you are right, it is just finding the capacity to add yet another battle! But DD is very cross and that is sufficient reason to complain.

@handmademitlove personally, I would pursue it further. Even if DD will drop any language heavy subject, SALT support can help so much for other things - PfA, social interaction and communication, emotional regulation... It isn’t just about language heavy subjects.

Thanks all. The SALT assessment was carried out by local SALT. Initially we had a "not known to service", then a refusal by LA to insist on assessment. Only when the EP referred to further specialist advice from SALT did the LA press them to assess.

I will ask school what they think - if they agree then I have some backup to my suggestion that the assessment was not effective and the report not reflective of what actually happened.

In reality, she is almost done with yr11 and by the time they get anything in place to support the language issues, she will have dropped any subject that has a significant language content. So not sure how much effort to put into fighting this, even though I know it is wrong.

@BooksAndHooks if money is tight, you would be better off saving it in case you need a pre-action letter &/or independent assessments for appeal rather than having a solicitor attend a meeting with you, IMO. A direct access barrister would be cheaper, but still expensive. An advocate would be cheaper, but be careful - it is an unregulated business and whilst there are some good ones, there are also some who do more harm than good. SENDIASS is free, but be careful whilst some are good too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies. Some LAs have a truly independent organisation/charity/CIC who runs in addition to SENDIASS - if your LA has a good one of these they may be able to help.

Have you appealed the EHCP? If so, have you requested an expedited hearing?

Have you requested alternative provision from the LA? They are the ones with the ultimate duty to ensure DD receives a suitable full-time education. This is in line with section 19 of the Education Act 1996. They are also responsible for anything detailed, specified and quantified in F of the EHCP under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

If DD is to attend a school, the school must be named in section I.

A maintained school a child is on the roll of can in some circumstances direct a student off-site. However, from what you describe, off-site direction isn’t appropriate in your situation. If you haven’t already, read the statutory suspension and permanent exclusion guidance and the alternative provision statutory guidance. They cover off-site direction. The law around this doesn’t apply to academies, but they can direct off-site under their general powers and best practice is they follow the rules maintained schools have to follow.

Coram is in a bit of a mess at the moment, IMO. Without going in to detail, at the end of last year, they unceremoniously dropped some clients because of staffing problems - one of their solicitors moved to Watkins.

@TripleRocks I would give notice now but also email the LA informing them you are not EHE, DD is unable to attend school and they must make arrangements to ensure she still receives a suitable full-time education. I take it alternative provision isn’t already in place?

I’ve put this to be referred to as a separate document as I don’t know how it could fit into their ‘box’.

@RibbyJumper don’t do ^this! All special educational provision needs to be in F. Not in another document or a made up section (not an imaginary section O or section L or any other made up non-statutory section the LA wishes to try to invent). This is important for enforcement and accountability.

@SpaceInvader321 one witness isn’t an additional witness, so you don’t need to request permission to bring an additional witness. If you decide to have the EP attend and when you ask them they will/can attend, you will need to update attendance using the CRF.

@handmademitlove I would request the SALT amends the report. Was this an independent SALT?

We have spoken to IPSEA, SEN SOS, Coram and the local information service but aren’t getting anywhere.

I cannot even find the relevant part of the law to clarify what they are doing. It seems there is a loophole in policies that are allowing them to do this.

Apologies this will be long. The situation is our daughter has been in the process of getting an EHCP since February last year. School fully on board, agreed in November’s draft meeting the draft was sufficient in their view and could meet needs. As the EHCP was so far past the 20 week deadline it was issued without the school being named. Consultation issued to school with response due before end of last term.

Two days before end of term there was an incident of negligence whereby DD self harmed at school. Not a new occurrence it something she has ongoing CAMHS support for and a plan in school, which was not followed. School have used this incident to refuse to allow her back to school.

They refuse to state which legal framework they are applying, they were insisting that she needs to attend a temporary medical provision until she is able to return to school.

LA gave two extensions to school to reply to EHCP consultation, throughout the last few weeks they have stated at each and every meeting and every email they can meet her needs and will reintegrate her back into school. At the last minute of the deadline to respond they have replied can’t meet needs. Have not completed the consultation properly or documented or evidenced why they suddenly can’t meet needs.

DD is now not being educated at all. The children not able to attend school for medical reasons policy seems to be being taken advantage of. The policy has a gaping big hole in it, whereby nowhere does it state who determines if a child is medically unfit for school. Presumably because it is not intended to be used by headteachers to illegally exclude pupils. There is no medical evidence to say she can’t attend school from any professional, we as parents have not said this and neither has DD who is desperate to return to school. Her needs have not changed since the EHCP was drafted.

The school knew full well the position when taking her. They have been more suitable, such as staying in one classroom majority of the day, small class sizes and so on, but this is just how they are set up rather than anything special they have done for DD iyswim. They made so much of how much they would help us with the EHCP process but have done nothing. The quality of the teaching is highly questionable in my mind, they have also been highly inflexible with regard to e.g. uniform. They have been flexible with start and finish times and arranging a weekly OT session. So overall a massively mixed bag.

Overall we don't want her to continue there and neither does DD. I can't find anything in my paperwork or emails to confirm what we actually signed (I think it was sign hard copy and hand in scenario) so I've slipped up there. I will contact them next week, thank you.

Hi this is the first time I’ve been on these threads.

we have a difficult and seemingly complex situation with our DD 13, who is effectively being off rolled by her school.

We have spent the last of our savings on a private assessment for her. We really need a solicitor but we cannot afford this. Are there any alternatives to a solicitor that could attend the next meeting with us? Sort of a McKenzie Friend type person? That would be more affordable?

I'm in a bit of a quandary, if anyone has a take they could share as I'm feeling in a muddle.

Waiting on draft of EHCP due end of Jan. DD is currently in an independent school (self funded). We felt we had no choice at the time after she crashed out of mainstream secondary and at the time had no EHCP. She's not thriving there, it exhausts her and long story short our goal is to move her to special provision funded by the council as soon as we can, and remove her from the independent school. She has barely attended since Christmas and is generally in a bad place.

Whatever we do we are on the hook for Spring term's fees. SENDIASS mentioned that we need to have something lined up before removing her so we aren't seen as electively HE. I'm alarmed now about serving notice and jumping the gun, but also really worried about being on the hook for Summer terms fees for a placement we no longer wish her to attend.

What are our options here without being seen to be electively HE?

We have got DD's SALT report back. DD is furious having read it. She says it is not in any way reflective of what actually happened eg lots of " X was too anxious continue" when in reality she simply didn't understand how to answer because she is autistic and has language problems... And I suspect the salt normally deals with much younger children and doesn't understand the impact of autism on highly articulate children. It will be interesting to see what the member of staff who sat in on the assessment thinks.

The question is - to request they correct the report or not? It is clear to me that she completely didn't understand DDs difficulties with the assessment tasks so I'm not sure she could change it anyway.

Thanks, as always, @BrightYellowTrain. I've informed the LA that we want to amend the grounds of the appeal to add Section I and am preparing SEND7.

We didn't name any witnesses when we originally filed the appeal but now we might ask an EP to serve as a witness. Do I need to also tick that we're requesting 'permission to bring an additional witness' and inform the LA? (I'm not sure if going from zero to one witness is 'additional'.)

We're also planning to speak with a solicitor recommended by a friend to see if we want to go that route. It feels like things have become so complicated now. I'm terrified of how big an expense that is going to be (probably my entire salary for the year) but it feels unavoidable and the only way to ensure (maybe) that the Plans are watertight and the placements more likely to meet needs. My DC are so burnt out right now; it's completely unfair to them. I'm so angry that the system is like this.