EHC Needs Assessment Rejected

[Twigglett1]

My local LA has rejected my request to complete an EHC needs assessment. They think that we should do more assess, plan do etc.

One thing which I don't think they have properly taken into account is the fact that my little boy has been under Portage and IDS support. My understanding is that...

"A local authority must also carry out assessment where, under CFA 2014, s 36(3), it ‘otherwise becomes responsible for a child or young person’. CFA 2014, s 24 refers to a local authority being responsible for a child who has or may have SEN, when the child has been identified by the local authority (perhaps through its Portage service or via colleagues providing services as part of the Local Offer) or where a child has been brought to the local authority’s attention by ‘any’ person. This is broad enough to encompass a situation where a local authority SEN department is notified by another professional that a child may have needs which require an EHC plan, or if the child has recently arrived in the area and has such needs."

I think this this means they must do the needs assessment, not necessarily the report, but the assessment must take place.

Does anyone have any advice on this?

Thanks

Appeal. The vast majority of appeals are upheld.

As you made an EHCNA request the “otherwise becomes responsible for a child or young person” part of s.36(3) CAFA 2014 is largely irrelevant to your argument because it also states “When a request is made to a local authority under subsection (1)” which covers your request. So don’t get bogged down in that.

However, your quote doesn’t mean they have to carry out an EHCNA only “determine whether it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”. s.36(5) CAFA 2014 makes it clear the LA don’t have to carry out an EHCNA.

You would be better reading the actual legislation than the summary you quoted.

The legal threshold is a) has or may have SEN, and b) may need SEN provision to be made via an EHCP. That is all. The first part is the easier part to prove and it sounds like you can meet that part. The second part is the harder part, so focus on that.

Have you looked at IPSEA and SOSSEN?