@LittlePickleHead “in F” is missing from the end of the second paragraph of my pp. I shouldn’t get distracted part way through writing a post without going back to proofread!
You will be able to request an expedited hearing on the basis DS is not in school. The LA will still have a duty to provide anything detailed, specified and quantified in F and ensure DS receives a suitable, full-time education. Unfortunately, it is rare to get a good comprehensive EOTAS/EOTIS package without an appeal. Many have to appeal to even get EOTAS/EOTIS at all, a good package or otherwise.
With EOTAS/EOTIS, you don’t need one AP to do it all. In fact, most APs are not registered establishments, so cannot provide a full-time education because of the rules around unregistered schools. And although there are some who cover everything you mention (and offer off-site provision including at home), it would be a very poor EOTAS/EOTIS package that only included provision one AP alone could provide. It is normal for DC to use multiple providers (APs or otherwise). Just so you are aware, providers are not named in F. That is for the child’s benefit as much as anything.
When you get the draft, it can help to make a table. Needs from B (it can help to break it down into the different areas of needs), provision from F (and any provision that is not in F but is essential for the delivery of the provision in F), provider (don’t worry if you don’t know this), cost (one off/weekly/termly/yearly - again don’t worry if you don’t know this for your proposed provider), outcome. You can add a column for how each part of the personal budget will be paid (direct payments, third party arrangements, commissioned directly). This will help you start to put a proposed package together. Making a list of any provision that isn’t in F but is necessary in order for the LA to fulfil their duties under s19 is a good idea too.
It can also help to make a mock timetable. If provision needs to be child-led/self-directed, that can still be accommodated in a timetable. This enables you to show it is a considered, organised, reasonable plan, which is important, and even more important if you have to appeal.
For Tribunal, they need to see the plan is considered, organised, reasonable and, importantly, viable. Some parents get bogged down with the past. That is a downfall. Yes, for EOTAS/EOTIS, you need to demonstrate it is inappropriate for provision to be made a school, but, as SENDIST is forward looking, they also need to see the plan going forward. They need to see it is carefully considered. It helps for them to see the needs, what the provision will look like (too many try to rely on vague statements &/or the belief that they can rely on them as parents knowing their child), how the provision will meet those needs, that there is some kind of future plan going forward beyond the past - like a school will have an aims and ethos (and sometimes vision) statement, prospectus and SEN information report. It helps to build this from the start.
Personally, I would be careful of using a tuition service to help you put together a package. The provision in F (and anything required to comply with the duty to provide that) will form the content of the package, which, in turn, is based on the evidence. Who will provide the provision is a point I wouldn’t want to rely on a tuition service for because the company has a vested interest in securing business. Even if they are your preferred provider for elements of the package.