Evidence for appeal / tribunal

[Ahhhcantthinkofag00dname]

Hi
I'm currently compiling evidence for appeal. Sons statement has recently been converted to EHCP and we are not happy with speech and language provision in Section F. Background is son has ASD and verbal dyspraxia diagnoses. He spent 18 months on a speech unit and now aged 7 has been in mainstream for 18 months. During this time he has had no speech therapy even tho he is unintelligible to lots of people lots of the time. Main bit of evidence is independent SLT report saying he needs fortnightly therapy. We are also using annual review paperwork from school that refers to his speech being difficult to understand and with lots of errors.

However I am wondering about also using these things as evidence (on the recommendation of our independent SLT:
1 a cd with videos of our son talking
2 a RCSLT document on verbal dyspraxia. Royal College of SLTs report describing verbal dyspraxia and how in general it should be managed.

Any advice on this would be much appreciated. I'm not sure 1 is even allowed and 2 is a generic report not specific to our son only one of his diagnoses. Thanks!

I would stick to information on your son specifically and try to include a cd of your son talking. However, the exclusion of provision of speech therapy is likey to have more to do with levels of provision the authority can provide. There will be cut off points that have little to do with on going need and more to do with finance and the number of speech therapists available. You may have to bite the bullet and find a speech therapist privately. Good luck.

On the question of evidence I think the independent SALT's report should be sufficiently explanatory of your DS's delays and difficulties so that a video of his speech isn't necessary. Similarly, rather than using the document as evidence, the SALT should be referring to it in her report, particularly how the general management guidelines relate specifically to your DS's needs.

I disagree with Tissie that there is a 'cut off' to the support the LA can provide and you might have to seek private therapy. SALT is an educational need and the amount your DS needs should be specified in Section F of the EHCP. It is then LA's responsibility to make provision and pay for it.

In my LA before my DD had an EHCP the 'cut off' point for her SALT need was 2 blocks of
8 sessions, then no more! Once she had an EHCP she had 10 sessions each year specified in Section F which the LA funded.

Thanks for the replies. Yes agree with panne tone - why would we be appealing if there was a (lawful) cut off?! The point is our son needs speech therapy and the LEA should pay for it, not us!

I was actually leaning to not including the extra things, so very helpful to have your thoughts.

On a side note - our salt is nhs funded. Would that be option while your appealing the echp. We have self referral for salt where I live and they assess and decide treatment

The CD is allowed and is a good idea. Don't make it any longer than around 10 minutes, though.

The evidence from indi salt should be enough but I've heard of some la trying to dismiss private reports.

Cross referencing with school reports to back the indi report up and also cross referencing with published reports about benefits of salt will stop them being able to dismiss the info.

Hello from a fellow mum of a child with VD (and an EP when I'm at work).
I would agree that evidence from your independent SALT should be sufficient, provided it provides clear evidence of your son's needs, and very clear recommendations for provision which you need to ask to be placed in secion F. There is no legal maximum amount of SALT a LA can provide. The LA's job is to provide the type and quantity as specified in section F of the EHCP. This may well be more than the NHS can offer, in which case they need to commission additional services. The law is very clear on this, don't let the local systems of your LA/ NHS provider confuse you. The LA needs to consider all professional advice received, unless there is a good reason for not doing so, so if they try that one on, give the SEN officer (who probably won't know the bit of the CoP you quote to them) a good talking to.
In terms of the other information you considered including. I've sat on lots of these panels and they have to get through a huge amount of material on very complex cases each week. The SEN officers are not SEN professionals (there will probably be a Senior EP there, there will not be a SALT) and are not qualified to make a judgement on your son's needs based on a CD recording, they need a professional SALT to do that. No-one will be able to find a CD player either, I can assure you of that. (And no one will have been to the loo for the past five hours, and everyone will have worked through their lunch breaks, truly these panels are a joy). And they are not really able to extrapolate about what should be in your son's provision based on the RCSLT document (I know it well!), that's what your SALT needs to do in her advice.
Keep it as simple and succinct as you can, be really clear about the provision you are asking for (in Section F, as it's the legally enforceable section), and clearly show where professional advice has recommended this provision.
On a side note, I am aghast that your son has had no SALT for that long. I think that a firmly worded covering letter expressing your dissatisfaction with that situation would be very appropriate.
Good luck!

Thanks so much for the further replies. Ended up sending off our appeal with "just" the independent SLT report and recent annual review paperwork. We now have a hearing date and LA have to respond by end of October.

All the waves - it's the nhs service that are saying they don't have the resources to provide our son with therapy. In our area it seems you are either in a speech and language unit where you get twice weekelt therapy or in mainstream where you get nothing! But we've finally realised this isn't acceptable and hopefully the appeal will rectify the situation

Boogle thanks so much for all the info in your reply- very interesting

You're not kidding me - our LA did dismiss the input from our private SALT during the discussions about EHCP but I gather tribunals don't!

If the SALT report has clear provision recommended and they have nothing to the contrary, the LA shouldn't let it go to tribunal. Only a small number of appeals seem to get to hearing, but if they do it sounds like you have quite enough evidence. I presume the local NHS providers are saying they can't provide the support, not that he doesn't need it. If that's the case, it's the LA's problem to sort out. Loads of kids get commissioned SALT, it's not that complex an issue they need to resolve there! And remember, your child has a right to an inclusive mainstream education if that's what you choose, with appropriate support, including SALT. I don't know about other professionals, but I can't think of many EP's who would try to argue that a unit is the only place to appropriately educate a child with VD ( most of my colleagues are very 'meh' about such places, but my son's done okay out of one).

Boogle you'd be surprised at how far some la will go to avoid EHCP!
Mine forced me to tribunal even though ds was out of school and even when the judge called us up before hearing and asked la directly if in light of new situation (he'd been in school when I appealed but 6 months had passed!) they wanted to change their stance - they said no!
4 hours we sat in the tribunal. I spoke for about 10/15 minutes of that.
I did win though
(This was refusal to asses)

youarenotkiddingme luckily, I've never worked in an authority like that, what a waste of public resources and professional and parental time and energy for all involved! The only tribunals I've been a witness at the past have involved parents wanting the LA to pay for a child's very expensive prep/ private school fees, when they'd cope perfectly well in their local school. Given at the time, most of my work was with children in public care, who get the rawest deal of all from the education system, I had few qualms about offering my opinion.

The LA rep actually told judge "even if you enforce an assessment miniyouare doesn't meet criteria for an EHCP".

So I sat through assessment waiting for next fight and low and beyond he got an EHCP straight off for 20 hours a week in MS.

Even more ironic is the only thing that wasn't held up in tribunal (academic stuff) is the biggest need and provision on his EHCP!

'to do with levels of provision the authority can provide. There will be cut off points that have little to do with on going need and more to do with finance and the number of speech therapists available'

This is illegal. If SALT is an educational need (And it almost always is - as being able to communicate is essential to being able to access education) then the LA has a statutory obligation to provide that regardless of their resources. If they don't have an available SALT themselves, they can commission a private one for you and fund that instead.