Overwhelmed - Phase Transfer Appeal

[Thistleberry]

Hello,

I have received the Registration documents (appealing sections B, F and I) and I feel so overwhelmed. There's a lot to take in.

When I appealed, I provided all my evidence - including what I'd like changed / added into sections B, F and I.

I never provided evidence of costs - the LA used the reason for secondary school placement (why they won't admit child into maintained school who said can meet needs) as 'inefficient with the education to other children at the school', that the school is 'full'. They never explained further or provided any evidence. As this reason was stated - I did not think to add information about costs etc (they have named a mainstream school). Do I need to add this? - or is this down to the LA?

Is it best that I wait for their response and then see where I need to counter-argue?

I have read that you have a right to request the appeal be actively case managed by a member of the judicial team SEND Tribunal. Do I need this? or is this if the LA are not adhering to the directions set out?

I believe I need to complete the Case Review Form - when the time comes, not entirely sure what it is for, an update perhaps? I am ofcourse worrying about timeframes - missing anything and document pages - are they really strict with how many pages each evidence is? - I just submitted them, and did not see how many pages they were each. The only large document was the EHCP and OT report.
Is the number of pages something that I need to address or is it down to the LA?

Thank you in advance - I feel so overwhelmed with all of it and I am scared to make a mistake :(

The case review form is https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/654256a61f1a600010360bda/SEND45_1123.pdf. It needs completing by the date given by SENDIST.

You can see the page limits for each section of the bundle here. Yes, it is something you need to be aware of. If you need to go over, you can request this using a SEND7/RfC form. This may or may not be agreed. It depends on the case and to an extent whose desk it lands on.

When the LA responds to the appeal, their response should include information about costs of the placement. You should check these include all relevant costs. LAs are sometimes selective in your they include.

If the LA is relying on the placement being incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others, you need to dig into specifics. The bar to prove incompatibility is higher than LAs admit. Being full is not defined in law and on its own being ‘full’ is not enough of a reason to automatically prove incompatibility. It has to be something tangible and specific and is more than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”. So you need to ask for specifics. Not vague reasons. What children? What incompatibility? Is it really incompatibility with efficient education or only incompatibility with providing an education in excess of what is considered an efficient standard of education? Could anything reasonably overcome the incompatibility? Think about making SARs to the LA and school. I would wait to do this until after the LA’s response is due.

Yes, you will be able to add to your case in response to the LA’s response to the appeal. You will also get a working document where you can propose amendments to the EHCP.

You don’t need the case actively managed at this point. Don’t worry about that.

Thank you so much for this.

I will look back over the submitted evidence and check how many pages.

I'm a little bit stumped with how to go about our current situation.

Our LA used a AR from 2025, and did not update it correctly with the SALT Report. As our preferred choice was consulted with an ehcp that does not accurately reflect our child's needs (and they said they can meet needs), I am unsure what to do next.

Would the LA need to re-consult with them, with the correct information in from the report? Or would this be up to me to approach the school with the SALT Report? Would tribunal order them to reconsult?

I really don't want to step on anyone's toes or go and annoy the school :(

Thank you in advance :)

You need to ask the LA the questions in my fourth paragraph. Have a read of some of the case law surrounding incompatibility. For example, OO and BO v London Borough Bexley [2023] UKUT 223 (AAC), NA v London Borough of Barnet (SEN) [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC) and Hampshire County Council v R & SENDIST [2009] EWHC 626 (Admin) (2009) ELR 371 and M v LB Harrow HS/4850/2013. The Noddy guide summarises some case law if you want a good starting point for a summary.

As part of the LA’s response to the appeal, they should submit information from the proposed schools. If there are significant amendments to the content of the EHCP after this has been submitted, the LA may reconsult.

By all means ensure schools are aware of the full picture and up to date information. You can share reports the LA hasn’t. When you get to the working document stage, you can share that too. In future, when LAs consult, it is a good idea to ensure the schools have accurate information.

When you say the LA used an AR in 2025, it is right that the phase transfer AR meeting was held in 2025. It should have been held in the autumn term of 2025.

This is incredibly helpful - thank you so much, I really do appreciate all of your advice and knowledge. It will certainly help me to navigate all of this.

The AR took place in Feb 2025. They don't seem to care when I raised this.

The working document that they have sent over only includes sections B, F and I. I have requested that they send the full working document (outcomes E are outdated / not updated) - but they are not abiding.

Is this allowed? - i'd like B and F to align with outcomes E

An AR meeting should have been held in the autumn term of Y6 for the phase transfer.

You can’t directly appeal section E. However, case law establishes you can request consequential amendments if necessary.

The WD is often only the sections under appeal. This is because of the page limit. Although even before the change in practice directions, it was common for it just to be the sections under appeal.