Does Speech and Language Therapy needs to be noted in Part 6 in addition to Part 3 of the Statement?

[ChrisInNeed]

DS (7) has severe specific S&L impairment (receptive & expressive), ASD (relatively mild) and dylexia.

S&L is clearly the predominant need (more than ASD).

The statement being appealed did not have any S&L mentioned in Part 3 but noted in Part 6 (Non Educational Provision). I understand provisions noted in Part 6 cannot be enforced.

In the Working Document, I have noted the recommended S&L provision per the indie SALT's report in Part 3.

In the WD, should I now delete the "Speech & Language Therapy" phrase mentioned in Part 6 or are there any benefits to remain it being mentioned there too?

Thanks

When the statement is finalised it would only be in either part 3 or 6 not in both so I would put it in part 3 and not agree to it being in part 6

Sorry forgot to mention.

Statement being appealed has the following mentioned in Part 5 (Non Educational Needs):
ASD, Receptive & Language impairment, Sensory processing difficulties.

In the WD, these have now been adequately noted in Part 2.
Are there any benefits for these to be continued to be noted in Part 5 also?

My solicitor deleted salt in parts 5 and 6, even though the LA tried to argue that salt was also a non educational need as it effected dd socially. There is no benefit at all to it being named in parts 5 and 6.

I would definitely delete all of these from parts 5 and 6, the LA are just trying it on!

It's named in both parts 3 and 6 in DS's statement. I don't know what the official rules are though.
The main thing is that it is in part 3.

i don't really see the purpose of it being in both parts 3 and 6 - case law is clear that it should be in parts 2 and 3 - lots of LAs do try it on though. mine did then conceded the lot on the morning of the hearing despite only 12 hours earlier calling me unreasonable for insisting it went into part 3 - told them they could argue it with the judge at the hearing hence why on the morning it got moved pretty swiftly as no judge would have let it go in parts 5/6 and the LA knew that but they were legally represented and I wasn't.

My solicitor checked over the working document before she signed it off so i figured if she is happy with it being in 3 and 6 then its all good. There is also bits about OT and SALT in part 2. DS statement has gone from 3 pages long to 6 pages long because it was so out of date.

I've just checked again and its also in part 5.

Ds is at an indie SS now anyway so he will get what he needs as all therapies are included.