EHCP support thread no. 6

I dodnt know i child request specific assessments to be honest, although I think I will be asking for OT input now as they are clearly still assessing 🤷‍♀️.
And the autism diagnosis report (April this year) EP report (March 2025), EP report (May this year) all say thay occupational therapy involvement should be sought and/or would be beneficial.
The gp did do a referral last year followinf the first EP report, but the service pushed it back without any explanation, and whenever I tried to contact them I couldn't get through.

Did send caseworker gynae letter from yesterday aswell which does state cannot cope with sanitary towels so uses period pants. And autism related sensory issues.

Thank you for your reply 🙏

An OT assessment should have been part of the EHCNA. Did you request it?

B&F are based on the evidence, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be amended. They can. You just propose amendments based on the evidence and reference it. You need to look at the evidence. Just because OT is mentioned doesn’t mean the wording you propose is supported by the evidence.

The wording you quote isn’t adequate. Neither is changing it to a referral will be made.

It is normal for some to have paeds appointments during NAs. It shouldn’t be but sometimes this happens late.

Has anyone had an call from community paediatric 3 weeks after receiving draft EHCP? Had a call today and online appointment booked for monday which has been requested by SENAR.
I just thought the assessment process was done, however I have asked that instead of section f saying 'it is likely a referral to occupational therapy services would support......' to a referral to occupational therapy will be made.
And I have also explicitly stated verbally and in writing that if a mainstream setting is named in the final EHCP I will most definitely be going to tribunal.

In response to my asking about occupational therapy the caseworker replied that section f is based on the professional evidence so cant be amended.......... but surely OT has been recommended by the professionals for it to even be mentioned in the draft????

The LA may not delay finalising even if you say you don’t have enough time. They may ask your preference and then finalise whether you reply or not.

LAs often act unlawfully by just finalising the version naming the secondary placement later in Y6 without going through the proper process for amending. So they would just ask your preference at some point/request you complete a form (you don’t have to) then finalise an amended version.

@KeepItSpinning My only concern is that if the LA wants to name a secondary before the plan is finalised, then this will delay finalising as I'm not sure we will have enough time to speak and visit all secondary options?

You say that it is not common for the LA to name a secondary straight away if a plan is finalised in September of year six... But if a phase transfer review doesn't happen, when do we name the secondary?

There wouldn’t necessarily need to be a review immediately. At some point before the last week in November. If you want to challenge it, and some don’t bother, by all means speak to the SENCO but also speak to the LA.

Thank you @KeepItSpinning So the standard, lawful process for an EHCP finalised in the September of year six would be to immediately hold a phase transfer review?

I think the SENCO is trying to say that the phase transfer discussions will happen during the drafting process, but I guess that's not a review because you can't review something that's not been finalised?!

Should I respond to the SENCO or take it up with the caseworker? The SENCO is quite affirmative and did write a very supportive witness statement, but as with many of them, she doesn't seem to have a secure grasp of the process and obviously trusts what the LA tells her!

When the first EHCP is finalised after the start of the Y6 academic year, LAs sometimes try to get away with not holding a phase transfer review. It isn’t that your LA is claiming they will roll a phase transfer review into the initial process. It is they are saying they won’t undertake the phase transfer review. When LAs do this, while it isn’t unheard of for LAs to finalise an EHCP naming secondary placement in September of Y6, it isn’t common. It is more common that they just ignore the law, issue the EHCP naming the primary placement, then amend later in the academic year without following the correct process to amend. They should hold a review. Many don’t though.

@KeepItSpinning Thanks so much for your reply.

Sorry, just to clarify - the SENCO is stating that the phase transfer process should be part of the initial draft and final plan. Is that correct? Or should the initial draft and final plan just name the primary and then straight away we have the phase transfer review meeting?

The LA, according to the SENCO, are trying to do it all in one. Which I guess makes sense from an efficiency perspective, but not from a timing one as we need to visit and speak to secondary options (which we obviously can't do until September...) Obviously all of the normal year six open events happen in September and October, so we were planning to go those anyway, supplemented by additional meetings.

You should be thinking about secondary placements now.

LAs should not be holding phase transfer review in the summer term of Y5. That is unlawful. Although sadly not rare.

The LA must finalise the phase transfer EHCP with the secondary placement by the 15th Feb of Y6.

When the first EHCP is finalised after the start of the Y6 academic year, LAs sometimes try to get away with not holding a phase transfer AR. While it isn’t unheard of for them to finalise an EHCP naming secondary placement in September of Y6, it isn’t common. It is more common that they just ignore the law, issue the EHCP naming the primary placement then amend later in the academic year without following the correct process to amend.

Unless one of the exceptions applies, yes, the LA must finalise by when you have said.

Hi all, I hope the summer is going okay so far.

We received our consent order back from SENDIST, with a direction for the LA to issue an EHCP, on 8 July. So by my calculations, we should be receiving a draft by 12 August and final EHCP by 23 September.

DD will be going into year six, which is obviously a phase transfer.

This is where I am getting confused about when we name a secondary school. Does the first plan just need to state the primary school or should we also be consulting with secondaries (when?!) so a secondary is also named?

I thought that the plan would be finalised with just the primary, then we would have a prompt phase transfer review to look into secondaries.

I have been liaising with our SENCO about this over the past few days and she has said:

"I have inquired with our LA school case worker (who the plan will be passed onto once it has been finalised) and asked her about the phase transfer process as (DD) is going into Year 6.

She has said that (LA) changed their processes last year and all annual reviews for phase transfer are to be completed before July 31st in Year 5. It used to be that we would do an early annual review in the first term of Year 6 and submit this before October 31st. Which I think is what the IPSEA advice is saying, but they were struggling to secure school placements by the deadline.

I have been told that due to the timing of the plan and (DD's) entry into Year 6, the phase transfer will form part of the draft plan and finalised plan. This has been the case with plans I received last academic year for pupils in Yr 6."

You are amazing and thank you so much for taking the time to listen and advise. I am off to work now but will look at all the resources you have mentioned.

I may be back for more advise so tell me if I am becoming annoying 🤦‍♀️.

Bit from the bottom of my heart thank you ❤️

Yes, when I asked if alternative provision was in place I meant provision under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

Section 38(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 states you have the right to request a section 41 independent and section 39(4) means the only lawful reasons for refusing to name it are those set out in my pp. Although some have to appeal, but that applies to other types of schools too including maintained (MS or SS).

If you have to appeal, it is worth looking at independent assessments.

It is worth reading IPSEA and SOSSEN’s websites and the SENCOP to begin to learn more about the SEN System. Some of the case law around when LAs can refuse to name schools is set out in the Noddy guide if you would like to read more on that.

Thank you so much for this, and i didn't request any professionals i was trusting the process 🤦‍♀️. I did pay for the autism assessment though and made sure it was a multi disciplinary team following NICE guidelines to go towards the needs assessment.

I am very new to this and you are way more clued up than I am, so rrally appreciate your reply.

I thought although not impossible would be extremely difficult to get an independent school (even if section 41) to take on a child if they have said no vacancy.

I know the LA can over rule mainstream and LA run schools when they say no vacancy. I havent asked for alternative placement which I think you are referring to a section 19. I have only very recently learnt about this, I have sent them atyendamce figures all throughout the assessment along with my concerns regarding this and my daughters mental health. Along with the affect it jas on her sibling.

If they are a section 41 independent school, they aren’t wholly independent. Therefore, if they are your preference, the LA must name them unless the LA can prove:
-The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs
-Attendance would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others
-Attendance would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.

Being full is not defined in law, and on its own being ‘full’ is not enough of a reason to refuse to name your preference. The LA has to prove the school is so full admitting DD is incompatible. The bar for this is high. Far higher than LAs and many schools admit. It has to be something tangible and specific and is more than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”. The LA can, and must, name the school regardless of the school’s objections unless the LA can prove one of the reasons above. The school doesn’t have to agree to being named and they don’t have to offer a place first.

Did you request the LA seek advice and information from SALT and OT as part of the EHCNA? Waiting lists aren’t relevant to EHCNAs.

B&F are based on evidence, rather than what parents say, but you can still propose amendments that are required based on the evidence - this is why you reference the evidence.

The evidence should cover all needs and all needs should have corresponding provision. If that hasn’t happened, you need to go back to the LA and report writers.

Schools will not undertake a full reassessment of needs. While advice and information is sought as part of the AR process, it won’t be full in-depth assessments.

Alternative provision should have been in place a long time ago. Did you request it but the LA refused, ignored you or delayed?

My preferred placement is a wholly independent school, however they are a section 41 school.
The alternative school i have named is a free specialist provision. We are still on a waiting list for OT and no nothing from SALT. Do have GP evidence regarding mental health around school and EBSA, I clouding a letter to the school from the GP.

I did send back all ammendments on parental views form, and have jad confirmation most of these have been added. Other than ammendments I requested to wording of some of section F, I was told that section F is lead by professional advise. However they can assure me any placement will do their own assessments of need and will be yearly assessments of EHCP. .
We have no alternative provision in place as of yet, literally waiting to hear back from LA now but as we are in the summer holidays I dont think amy consultations will be back now before September.
School did put alot in place for her amd her attendance still collapsed, she jas a pupil passport, interventions, did do a reduced timetable for a few weeks (worked well she attended everyday on a reduced timetable), but ultimately nothing changed from before reduced timetable to after.

I followed up the phone call with an email referencing the evidence in the reports as to why I would be taking it to a tribunal if a mainstream was named.

My daughter is academic and I wish a mainstream worked, we really have tried. I am also not against her current school and do have a good relationship with the SENCo and the head of year, my youngest daughter actually statys there in September.

Its the realisation that my oldest daughter just cannot cope in that environment. And IMO the reports arent outlining that she needs interventions ect, it lists the whole environment of the Unpredictability, crowds and noise, not using the toilets, not spending time with peers and preferring trusting adults, flexible times to eat (she wont eat during school, or drink as wont use the toilets).

She achieved greater depth SATS results in a primary school environment which is more predictable. So secondary has completely blown me away. Autosm diagnosis report stated it as expectations are exceeding capacity.

So sorry for waffling and I greatly appreciate responses ❤️

It isn’t uncommon, I’m afraid. The majority of parents who appeal are successful.

Is your preferred placement wholly independent?

As well as the evidence from the CAT team, EP and ASD diagnostic assessment, do you have other evidence? For example, OT and SALT.

When you received the draft, did you propose all the amendments that are required and reference the evidence?

I would go back over the reports because LA EP reports are often not brilliant and sometimes people don’t realise that until they dig deeper. For example, look for wording such as “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”, “small group”.

I would also remind they should have finalised by now.

Not commenting on your case specifically, but the LA is right that a child not managing mainstream without an EHCP doesn’t automatically mean mainstream with an EHCP isn’t suitable.

Is alternative provision in place?

My parental preference school who jad spaces the week before they received consultation, sent back consultation saying they have no vacancy. To say I snot cried is an understatement as the school was just perfect. My daughter is academic when she can access the environment and this was an autosm specialist school who do still cover academics.
I have requested the LA consultation with another school similar to this, so absolutely praying with all i have that this school say they can meet need and have a vacancy 🤞.
Although the caseworker said it then goes to placement panel, which I'm guessing the LA could still say no.
I have visited 8 settings with my daughter from resource bases attached to mainstream, aswell as specialist provisions.
I also know I have no chance of getting her to consistently attend any mainstream setting, thr mention of it sends her into a spiral.

Its looking extremely likely she will not have any new placement by September, it is my understanding the LA are legally behind deadline for issuing final EHCP. Mediation was 25th March and research says they should issue final EHCP by week 14 after this?
So i am worried they will just name current school to get it off their desk

(It's going well two years in but we didn't have the traumatic transition).

Have you looked into whether there are alternative schools that would suit her better? You'd think the LA would do that, but unfortunately they tend to leave it up to the parent.

I found one that I believed would be suitable, lobbied hard for that, and got it.

Hi could I join this thread please? I will try not to make this first message too long.....
Fought to get my daughter a EHCNA, school didnt want to know so I applied myself. LA said no, so I did a SAR request on the school and bought evidence from this to mediation in March. Here the LA agreed to assess 🎉🎉🎉🎉 they have now established my daughter who everyone told me wouldnt need an EHCP is actually being awarded an EHCP.
Year 8 attendance finished on 62% fir the year..... 8% over the last 4 weeks.
2x EP reports, one from year 7 one during EHCNA both state she feels unsafe in the school environment (mainstream), she finds school overwhelming, has massive sensory difficulties. Also backed up by CAT team report and autism diagnosis report which was done in April of this year.
Mediation document her current school also state they feel a smaller environment would help her access education. So that to me is the school saying they have exhausted what they can do.....
LA now saying they believe the professional evidence says she could attend mainstream and they intend to still name her current school (where attendance has collapsed) on the final EHCP. I did get cross and say you cannot be reading the same reports as me to come to that conclusion, and stated that if any mainstream school is named in the final EHCP then I will be taking it to tribunal. Caseworker did say that she would have the EHCP that she did not have before. But my daughter snuck up on me during this phone call and it took me hours to calm her down at the prospect of them trying to make her return to the mainstream school.
Has anyone been in this position and successfully managed to get their child into a setting that actually meets their needs.

You could keep detailed notes of what DD does with the specialist teacher, and what you believe the impact on school is. A friend of mine recently had to appeal refuse to issue and she included evidence like that.

I would go back to the OT and the La about the OT report. If you have good independent EP and SALT reports, I wouldn’t worry too much about challenging the LA’s reports for those. The independent reports are likely to be superior even if the LA’s reports improve.

Thanks @Phineyj and @KeepItSpinning - she’s had up to date EP and SALT reports privately (done in November and reports issues in Jan) and they were much more detailed and quantified than the LA versions, the EP didn’t even do any tests on DD just got her to draw a picture and asked her some general questions. The LA EP didn’t dispute anything in the private EP report in terms of her needs, it just didn’t specify anything like the level of proper specialist provision that the Private EP (and, separately before that, a dyslexia assessor) stated was necessary for her to learn effectively. Same story with the SALT largely, although the LA SALT did dispute the private SALT’s view that she presented with social communication challenges as well as language processing challenges. I think the LA SALT’s argument was that her needs were primarily thinking and learning rather than something speech and language therapy could help. It’s exhausting isn’t it. Thanks for your help - I’m dreading the prospect of refusal to issue but u guess I’ll just have to wait until October to find out. Is there anything specific I can do while this process is going on? I’ve asked them to consult the specialist teacher who works with DD 1:1 and has done for over two years (which we pay for because the school won’t and which is the most crucial provision she currently has and which is the only thing keeping her head above water at school) but they haven’t bothered so far.

@Runningshoes99 it could be either.

If the reports are lacking, go back to the report writers and LA and remind them they need to cover needs, provision and (SMART) outcomes and they should be detailed, specified and quantified.

Is the independent EP up to date? If so, the LA should consider that. Sadly, they often pay lip service to this. In fact, if you, the LA and report writers thought it was sufficient for the NA, they shouldn’t have sought further advice and information from an EP. Sadly, LAs often claim it isn’t sufficient so they can get their own woolly report.

If you have to appeal RTI, you are looking at a hearing in 2028.

@Phineyj it is common for LA reports to highlight needs but fail to cover provision. With things such as SALT and OT, it is also common for the reports LAs commission to cover provision but say direct therapy isn’t required.