help needed, OT and code of practice

[oramum]

is there anything within the sencop that supports that OT is an educational need and has to be provided by LEA? thanks

My DS's OT is in part 3 (so an educational need).

I've just looked at David Wolfe's noddy guide from Nov 2012 (shame he hasn't updated it recently). He specifically mentions SALT being an educational need but OT is not mentioned.

However, in the middle of page 3 - from just above the heading for "Part 3" he says

Each special educational need specified in Part 2 must be met by provision specified in Part 3: R –v- Secretary of State for Education ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377.

Then he continues by saying

Where something is identified as an "objective" in Part 3A, Part 3B needs to specify the SEP intended to meet that objective: C –v- East Sussex CC [2004] EWHC 3122 (Admin), [2005] ELR 367.

This indicates to me that provided you have something in Part 2 about your child's needs which can only be provided by an OT, then OT has to be in part 3 and is therefore an educational need.

davidwolfe.org.uk/SEN%20Noddy%20Guide%20November%202012.pdf

I don't think there is, but tribunals almost routinely accept that OT will be an educational need.

thanks for that link TOWIE.
I have an indie OT report that states dds need for OT is educational so im not overly concerned that there isnt anything in the sencop. I have also referred to case law.