@Robotindisguise take a breath. You can do this. That type of response from the LA is normal. Easier said than done, but try not to let it get to you. It is part of the process. Don’t withdraw the appeal. That is what the LA wants. To reassure you, you don’t need representation. Although, of course, you can choose to if you want. @Namechange857 is right; if it is a choice between independent assessments and representation, you must choose the independent assessments. The best representation in the world can only work with the evidence available.
@Namechange857, a good independent EP report is a world away from 99.9% of LA reports. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell if the LA is going to concede. Even if the LA will concede, the CMR won’t automatically make them do it then.
@Leafywool great news on the agreement to issue.
The LA is being slightly disingenuous. They must give you at least 15 days to make representations. It isn’t a legal maximum. You can request longer. Be aware, not all schools will allow you to visit before being approached by the LA and some not until named. Do you know how to look at all the options, or do you need me to link to the government search page?
You need to state which placement, if any, you wish to be named in section I of the EHCP. That should be the placement DD will attend for at least the next year (but realistically you should look further ahead, particularly because of waits for Tribunal).
You can go through the draft yourself. Go through all the evidence (it shouldn’t just be C&P from the EP report), which should all be in K, with a fine toothcomb and highlighters.
Highlight all DD’s special educational needs in one colour and then all the provision to meet the needs in another colour. Each need should have corresponding provision.
Then go through the draft and make sure all the highlighted needs are in B and the highlighted provision is in F.
Make a note of anything the LA has omitted from the draft, any needs without corresponding provision, any woolly and vague wording, anything the reports have failed to include, and any reports the LA has failed to include.
When you go through F, look out for vague and woolly wording. For example, “access to”, “would benefit from”, “regular”, “up to”, “or equivalent”, “opportunities for”, “as appropriate”, “would be useful/helpful”, “such as”, “e.g.”, “etc.”, “as required”, “as advised”, “key adult(s)”, “small group”. Provision must be detailed, specified and quantified, otherwise the EHCP isn’t worth the paper it is written on and cannot be enforced.
When (it is a matter of when, not if) you find vague and woolly wording, check the reports to see if they are woolly and vague or whether the LA has watered down provision. If the reports are vague and woolly, ask the LA to go back to the report writers to make the reports detailed, specified and quantified. If the LA has watered down provision, request the LA stick to the wording in the reports.
Also make sure any health or social care provision that educates or trains is in F. For example, LAs like to put things like SALT, OT, physio, etc. in G (health care provision) when it belongs in F.
Be careful with SENDIASS. Some are good but too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies.
May I please just confirm that it’s your preference for DD to remain at [current school] while accessing MNHES
If DD is to not attend the current school, it should not be named in section I. Besides, the education provided by MNHES is not sufficient on its own.