School can't meet SEND needs - council named them anyway

[ColonelCustard92]

Hi all,

The council have done us the honour of naming a school for us, but prior to that had consulted with said school and the school said that they could not meet need.

Is this normal procedure? Obviously I am looking to appeal but I am exploring the option of judicial review as well.

Unfortunately, LAs do this yes because unless the school is wholly independent, the LA doesn’t need them to agree, and it saves the LA money.

As @EndlessLight says unfortunately LAs do this a lot as placing a child or YP in a state mainstream saves them so much money. They can also do this because they prefer placing in their own, "in borough/locality" special school rather than an independent, out of locality one, for example. It is always because of finances and sometimes also if they are desperately scrabbling to comply with statutory timeframes.

If it's an issue of cost, would it be worth offering to self fund?

If the preferred placement accepts self funders, you could ask the placement if they will admit DS if you self fund.

However, if you do that, you risk the LA saying you are making suitable alternative arrangements, thereby relieving them of their duty.

Some LAs will sometimes come to an agreement whereby parents pay the fees and the LA funds the SEP, but this isn’t as common and isn’t guaranteed.

Personally, I would focus on getting the placement in I.

Did you want a private or specialist school for dc?

No it was an independent SEND school

So the LA named a mainstream provision and you wanted independent SEND school? It's unlikely that this will be agreed without going through tribunal.

LA's can and will name a school where they think can meet needs. It's not unusual for a school to say they cannot meet need. Schools get a copy of a proposed plan, with no funding attributed so sometimes they say no as it opens up negotiations about funding etc.

Be that as it may, DS's needs will not be met in the first 3 months and this is the whole point of the plan - to get his needs met!

They've already topped his budget up to £8000 but this clearly won't be enough to employ his own qualified TA, he's a flight risk!

So if he doesn't have a TA from day one he could go missing at a moments notice!

And that's okay because "there's a budget for it"?

What a load of crap!!!

Is 1:1 detailed, specified and quantified in F?

That's what needs changing because it says he needs "a key adult" with him to do things during the day, but it's not specific on 1:1 support

If 1:1 is not detailed, specified and quantified in F, it doesn’t have to be provided and the LA does not have to provide funding for it, so it isn’t surprising the funding doesn’t cover a 1:1. As well as appealing section I, are you appealing B&F?

I hadn't considered that before - It looks like that will be the best way forward now.

Unfortunately, this is the problem and why section B&F as so important. Section I is the logical conclusion of B&F, so if B&F are poor you risk an inappropriate setting being named in section I.

A vague and woolly section F is also unenforceable.

It would help you to read the SENCOP and IPSEA and SOSSEN’s websites to understand EHCPs better.

It would indeed, thankyou.