EHCP support thread no. 3

[Phineyj]

A new thread for when no. 2 is full up.
Link to thread no. 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/4834986-ehcp-support-thread
Link to thread no. 2:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/special_educational_needs/4989146-ehcp-support-thread-no-2

I am the mum of an 11 year old girl with SEN and have spent the last 20 months battling for my local authority to issue an EHCP to support her transition from primary to secondary school. We are currently after draft stage after two tribunals. I've had so much useful advice and moral support from posters on here.

This new thread is here to help everyone, whether you're just starting out or are a battle-hardened veteran of years of this.

There is no such thing as a stupid question and there are many acronyms and technical terms so please ask for an explanation of anything that you don't understand.

SEN: special educational needs (sometimes SEND: special educational needs and disability)
SENCO: teacher at school charged with overall responsibility for students on roll with SEN
ECHNA: education care and health needs assessment - the process of a local authority commissioning reports to find out a child's needs
EHCP: the education care and health plan that details a child's needs and the agreed provision to meet them; a legally binding document
SENDIST: the special educational needs and disability tribunal - an independent appeal panel which considers parental appeals against Education Authority decisions about special educational needs.

The EP report came in today as well as the decision to issue.

The main body of the EP report is fine but as suspected, the recommendations are not sufficiently detailed and quantified so will be going through them tonight and requesting amendments tomorrow.

@BrumToTheRescue I know now why they are playing games at the last minute - they are looking to weaken the case or have tribunal without a witness for an area of need/provision we thought was non-contentious.

We were almost at 100% agreement with the WD and then, with just a few weeks to go to tribunal the LA has now added some flies to the ointment.

They have added comments around OT provision, saying its over provision and PE will do instead (!). Also it could be class based not 1:1 as they are 'worried' about him coming out of lessons. We did not invite the OT to tribunal as our issues were mainly around other types of need/provision, now agreed.

Unlikely OT can attend at short notice.

They are saying EP advice out of date (5 years old report) and they won't use wording. They did say a year ago they'd commission a new report but then went back on that. Going to make our own arrangements but after tribunal.

Should we just crack on with tribunal? OT report is clear (independent) and has had the same provision in for 3 years or more.

Will the judge just look at the OT report and tell them to put wording in? What is the LA bring an OT of their own? Our OT likely not there to defend.

Will the judge be unimpressed they have had months to dispute provisions/provide evidence and are now arguing the toss at the last minute? Or is this all OK for them to do legally? Their suggestions seem bonkers to me but I'm not a judge.

What about the EP thing? Should we reply in WD to say about them promising a new report (in email) and then saying no a year later?

Should we defer tribunal date? There may be other reports from us in the pipeline so in a way it does no harm. We'd have to go back to tribunal within a year or two anyway I suspect for phase transfer placement.

However potentially could they just issue a woolly final in the meantime with a quarter of the provision he should get for one are of need.

Going to reply to their comments this week so would be helpful to have a steer.

Can I PM you with their comments @BrumToTheRescue ?

@Ponche at every level there's something to contest isn't there?

At least knowing what should be done is the 1st step to correcting bad/illegal practice.

@Alltheyearround of course you can PM me.

Try not to let this throw you, that is what the LA wants. Try to ignore their games. LAs do get away with contesting previously uncontested content late in the day. By late in the day, I mean right up to the day before the hearing. LAs going back to previously agreed provision happens more often than you think. To give you an example from another thread on MN, a poster had her LA remove previously agreed content from F for EOTAS 1 working day before her tribunal a few months ago on the basis the LA now claimed it was health, not education. It wasn’t, it isn’t and the EHCP now still includes the provision in F. Getting away with it doesn’t mean SENDIST doesn’t see what is happening, doesn’t know the dirty tactics they are using or that they agree with the LA. Since the LA has previously accepted the provision is reasonably required, ask what new evidence they have that it now isn’t required.

This far into the tribunal process and with the problems you are having with the placement, I wouldn’t withdraw and wait until phase transfer. Not least because you have the independent OT report now. If you wait a couple of years, that will need updating. How old is the OT report? If you feel it is necessary, you could ask the OT if they will write an additional witness statement. An LA OT may attend as a witness. SENDIST will weigh up all evidence. They won’t automatically disregard the independent OT’s evidence because they aren’t attending.

If you are thinking of an EP report ASAP, you could request to push back the hearing slightly. No guarantee it will be agreed, though. A 5 year old report isn’t up to date. Is there anything in there you think is crucial? SENDIST may still use elements of it, but don’t be surprised if they don’t. Did the LA agree to seek updated EP advice as part of a reassessment of needs? If so, there are timescales that apply to that.

Wise ones please help me,
I had a response back from the LA with regards to my amendments, they changed some but the bits that said 1:1 support for all learning tasks has been changed to individualised support for all leaning tasks (what does that mean) it needs to be delivered by a qualified teacher/senco or someone skilled in meeting the need of children with limited play interests and delayed across all areas of development. then how often is embedded though out the day.

then some of the basics stuff like risk assessment states covered under the mainstream core standards. is this a suitable answer.
My brain is fried words are losing all meaning.
any advice as always will be greatfully received

Our time is up on Friday (as in, that's the 12 weeks from the tribunal order to issue) but the EHCP names the current primary school in I. She leaves on 12th July, which it notes.

What should I do? Surely they should name the secondary school, with only 3 weeks to go?!

@Jaffacakesrlife it means the LA wants to avoid committing to 1:1. As well as the 1:1 point, ‘support’, ‘learning tasks’, ‘qualified teacher/SENCO or someone skilled…’ and ‘throughout the day’ need amending. If DS requires risk assessment beyond what is typically undertaken, that should be included.

@Phineyj chase the LA to amend naming the secondary placement.

@BrumToTheRescue thank you so much. I'm losing my mind. I'm really greatful for your help

I have, but thanks.

@Phineyj, did you have a secondary school place through the normal admissions process before the EHCP was issued? If so, it's likely that the LA intends to name it. However, it could be worth pointing out to them that, as matters stand, they have nothing in place to deliver on the contents of the EHCP in September and very little time left to consult potential placements, and that if your son is left without a suitable school place you will be pursuing a formal complaint and possibly taking judicial review action.

@Phineyj I would chase again. The squeaky wheel and all that. Easier for the LA to delay if they think you will be quiet and go away.

Got it! Plan with correct school named in I.

Phew, onwards and upwards.

Great news @Phineyj

Good 🙂 nice to see some positive news!

@Phineyj Great news, well done for persevering! I know it’s been a long road to get here.

Do all LAs get the NHS OT/SLT teams to ‘verify’ private reports? As this needs to happen before the draft can be completed apparently. Although the reports were sent in May so they’ve had plenty of time to do this.

It’s probably code for ‘let’s not include the direct therapy provisions in the draft’.

@Phineyj lovely news.

@Ponche LAs don’t need to do that, and they don’t always. Some will try to tell you they have to. It won't come as a surprise to you that LAs do it to try to water down the provision &/or as a way of trying to challenge the content.

Hi, I’m sure this is not a new problem! I have a draft EHCP for my 8 year old. Some of it is good but, the coordinator is saying they cannot include SALT recommendations in section F or list the report in section K (even though the Ed Psych quotes it in their report) because it is a private SALT report. The coordinator suggests I get an NHS referral instead. Am I right that this is not compliant with the SEND Code of Practice ?

@ButterfliesFlyingBy the LA is talking rubbish. Sadly, all too common.

Well done @Phineyj!

@BrumToTheRescue Thank you, I thought as much. The OT did say that no parents got the direct therapy recommendation included without a fight.

So I’m sure I will have to appeal.

If the EP doesn’t amend the vague/woolly wording in the report, is the next step to resolve this appealing against the contents of the plan once finalised?

Today is the deadline for the LA responding to our appeal laying out their case. Can anyone tell me what happens if they don't meet the deadline? Do I need to do anything or will the tribunal chase them?

Never mind, the response came. I am cautiously optimistic that they look willing to bend before tribunal, they mostly seem to be waiting on one consultation to come back.

Currently all the case law they've cited as relevant is about sections B and F. They've not said anything about I. Which has me hoping that if the outstanding consultations comes back as a no they are just going to give us our choice. And not try to name somewhere that has said they can't meet need.

We had the agreement to assess on week 5, we're now on week 7 and awaiting an EP assessment. I've been told by every parent in our LA that there's no chance of getting an EP out within the legal timeframes, so i m just wondering, which week is it to start the complaint process with this, do I put a complaint in on week 16 exactly, then give a couple of weeks to put the judicial review pre action letter in or do you have to wait until they are past week 20?

Son's due to start reception in September 2025 and really hoping to avoid mainstream so i know we don't have too much time to waste, although are prepared to hold him back till the January when he's compulsory school age.

@proserpina we always take and circulate notes now due to dodgy goings on around record of discussions at AR. Sometimes I get a friend in a suit to come and write notes while we talk (obs you have to let people know in advance you have them coming. I have taken SEND advocates in before now, sometimes their mere presence makes the meeting go smoother. But advocates can be hit or miss as this thread shows.

@Bendattheknees Love your expression woollier than a mammoth.

We have tribunal B and F in a few weeks. The LA are scraping the barrel wrt trying to argue about provision already in place saying it is over provision and can't DS just do PE like the rest of the children? 🙄

I want to reply in each working document comment 'Och away and boil yer head' in my best Scottish accent but doubtless I shall respond in a slightly more formal and neutral fashion which conveys the same sense.

Thank you@BrumToTheRescue for being the voice of reason in the murkily gaslit world of LA shenanigans.

@Ponche if you are going to need to appeal anyway, I would appeal when you can and seek an independent EP assessment. You could also complain about the LA’s EP report.

@UnendingSaga glad you have the LA’s response. Without a placement to name their defence of section I is non-existent weak.

@1995SENNDMUM I would ask the LA when the EP will give their advice and information. If you haven’t already, request any other advice, e.g. SALT and OT that is needed. When the LA tells you there will be a long wait, make it known to the LA you know anyone approached for advice must respond within 6 weeks, if they are going to issue they must finalise by week 20 and in order to do that they should send the draft by week 14 and if they aren’t going to issue they must inform you by week 16. Letting the LA know you know what should happen and will enforcement action if necessary sends a message that you won’t let them do what they like. If the LA doesn’t stick to the timescales, send IPSEA’s model letter once you get to week 14. Or chase if the EP doesn't respond within 6 weeks. Edited to add, the 14 weeks timeframe is a should rather than legally must.