The LA should consider all evidence, not just medical evidence. And should not refuse provision just because certain medical evidence is not available. The law does not state the LA does not have a duty unless there is medical evidence. They should not have a blanket policy of waiting for medical evidence before providing it.
The LGO are of the opinion LAs must consider all available evidence and that there will sometimes be conflicting, little or no evidence and sometimes all the evidence the LA wants will be unavailable. They are also clear a lack of medical evidence does not necessarily mean the LA does not have a duty to provide provision, so LAs should not have a blanket policy of only providing provision. There are several LGO cases and reports on this.
There are several LGO reports and upheld decisions confirming this. For example, this LGO decision states, "The Courts have found that councils are entitled to decide whether a child’s health needs prevent them from attending school and to decide what weight to give medical evidence. But the law does not say alternative provision will only be given where there is medical evidence.” Although parents have the right to challenge the LA if they decide they don’t have a duty.
And this LGO report (pg10/11) criticised a LA for stating they did not have a responsibly to provide education because there was no medical evidence as that shows “a lack of understanding of the relevant legislation”. “Firstly, a lack of medical evidence should not stop a child from accessing education; nor does it negate the Council’s duty to provide the child with a suitable education.” And “Even without medical evidence, the Council had a duty to arrange suitable alternative education provision for Y under the category of ‘otherwise’. “
Also see this LGO report which includes “Another problem was the lack of medical evidence to explain why Fareen could not attend school. The council decided not to provide alternative education because there was no evidence to justify Fareen’s absence from school. This was wrong. While councils must take account of any available medical evidence, they must make their own decision about alternative education, even when there is no medical evidence”
And this LGO case - “Section 19 also requires the Council to make suitable education arrangements when a child who is of compulsory school age, who because of exclusion, illness or otherwise may not receive a suitable education unless the Council arranges it for them. Therefore, the Council had a duty to provide Y with education despite its view there was insufficient evidence to say she was medically unfit. This is because it should provide her with education under the category of otherwise.”
Also this government guidance.
The GP can write DD is unable to attend school. A letter with diagnoses alone wouldn’t show DD is unable to attend p because support is based on needs.