I think I might just do that Starlight.
Wait, oh my God! I have just google my LEA's name and IPSEA and there is formal complaint from IPSEA to the Secretary of State regarding my LA and exactly this problem. They took a shocking 7 months to respond to the letter! 
and then imho it was frankly a complete whitewash.
IPSEA
In January 2009, IPSEA lodged a formal complaint with the Secretary of State against X LA under section 497 of the Education Act 1996. IPSEA alleged that the Authority was pursuing a policy of never quantifying special educational provision in the Statements it produced. In order to investigate IPSEA?s complaint the DCSF examined a sample of X LA's Statements and the Authority agreed to review 50 Statements issued over the period covered by the complaint. Although the DCSF found no evidence of a policy, as such, X LA has accepted that some of its Statements were
'not sufficiently quantified and specified [and] ? has said it will use the annual review process to further scrutinise the content of current statements, clarify any perceived shortfall in terms ofs pecificity and quantification and make appropriate amendments wherenecessary.?
The DCSF has informed IPSEA that they have
?? brought this matter to the attention of the Department?s NationalStrategies SEN Adviser for the region and asked that the work the Authority has committed to is carried through.?
This was the actual wording of the SOS's reply:
In order to determine whether the authority are operating a blanket policy in failing to quantify and specify provision in statements of special educational need we have examined a sample of statements from the authority. The LA has also examined a sample of fifty statements issued during the period to which you refer.
The sample statements we examined would not indicate X LA is operating a blanket policy. The authority has reported that in the sample they looked at, the majority were detailed, specific and where appropriate quantifiable tor both mainstream and special school settings. However, they did find a small number where they felt it could be argued the statement was not sufficiently quantified and specified.
The authority has said it will use the annual review process to further scrutinise the content of current statements, clarify any perceived shortfall in terms of specificity and quantification and make appropriate amendments where necessary.
X LA has also stated that the paragraph within the statements relating to funding is included to identify the sum of additional money that the school will be given in addition to the resources already allocated to the school through delegation. It is not intended to remove the requirements to quantify or specify.
In view of the current Lamb enquiry into parental confidence in the SEN framework X LEA is also working alongside other West Midlands local authorities to look at ways in which they can improve specificity and quantification within statements. This work is being led through the West Midlands SEN Regional Hub, which is part of our work delivered through the National Strategies.
In light of the current, and future, actions being taken by X LA I do not feel there is an expedient direction the Secretary of State could make at the present time. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Department's National Strategies SEN Adviser for the region and asked that the work the authority has committed to is carried through.
AND
They've been taken to tribunal over it and lost, but that was before the IPSEA complaint.
This looks like a useful quote though. Its from the notes of a the ISC (whoever they are) SEN2008 conference.
Code para 8.37: Provision should be quantified in terms of hours (etc) except, exceptionally,
by reference to the ?changing needs of the child? A child?s needs may be ?changing? in that way because the child itself is changing or because
of the interaction between the child and its environment; but not because of external factors or changes; it is not permissible to leave provision unspecified or unquantified simply to allow for flexibility in the school?s approach/arrangements: IPSEA ?v- Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 07 [2003] ELR 86 ? Court of Appeal
As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing has changed since then, the LA are still pursuing what is in fact a blanket policy - no matter what the former SOS said about it and is bare faced enough to actually state it on their website! 
IPSEA, very graciously said they welcomed the LA's promise to use the review process to quantify any weak statements - but were clearly unhappy as they are still asking for parents in our LA to contact them if they need help arguing for quantification on section 3 and/or they have met resistance when requesting amendments due to lack of specification.
I actually scanned these documents before, a long time ago now, but didn't at the time realise the relevance or the effect it would have on us.
To cap it all, our LA has been chosen as one of the Government 'Pathfinder' LAs who are supposed to be trialling the Green Paper proposals including direct funding SEN Pioneers Named.
Oh dear, it looks like we could be in for quite a battle.
and just when I let myself relax slightly because things seemed to be going a little better wrt to ds1 and school. 