tribunal, LA and non educational provision

[oramum]

I am appealing dds statement (part 2&3) through sendist. the hearing is now less than a month away and the LA are gathering evidence against our case.
the LA are trying to argue that SALT and OT are medical needs and not educational, hence them not being specified in part 3.
However the LA EP has had the nerve to recomended we attend a parenting course. this is written in her assessment report and is now included within the working document.
do you think it would be appropriate to ask how they can justify this as being an educational need? it just seems crazy that they will fund a parenting course but not dds therapy!

Unfortunately, whilst it was rare in the past, recently some LAs are sometimes ignoring SOSSEN’s letters.

And whilst it is easier to find someone to take a JR case than a SENDIST case, many find it still takes perseverance these days. Demand is high.

BTW, I am not saying it happens all the time or even most of the time. Just some LAs and sometimes. And there seems to be an uptick from the odd case in the past. It isn’t only limited to SOSSEN’s letters either.

Unfortunately, whilst it was rare in the past, recently some LAs are sometimes ignoring SOSSEN’s letters

Can I ask how you know, given that that is not what their legal officer says?

Via supporting others. As I said, I wasn’t saying it was happening all the time or most of the time, I have just come across more cases in recent times than in the past. That isn’t a criticism of SOSSEN, as anyone who reads my posts on MN will know, more a comment about LAs’ underhand tactics. Great if it isn’t the overall picture; as I said, I was merely commenting on what I had seen.