EHCP Spcificies TA but funding insufficient

[Claire050]

Dear Parents,

Could you please provide any advice on the TA hiring?

We have got a EHCP specifies a 1on1 TA. But the nursery DD attending said that the hourly wage is lower than the minimum wage and they think it is illegal to post a job like this. But LA refused to give more funding. We have been chasing many times for the LA to review. Three months has passed. We got no progress.
What can a parent do to walk out this situation? Sorry for my poor English, I was trying best to describe the issue.
Any comments are welcome. Now EHCP is like a useless paper for us. We have it but cannot get the support.

I’d contact your MP. That sounds like a systemic issue that needs eyes on it.

Focus on the provision detailed, specified and quantified in F rather than the funding.

Under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, the LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision detailed, specified and quantified in F is provided. That includes ensuring there is sufficient funding.

If the provision is detailed, specified and quantified in F but isn’t being provided, you can look to pursue enforcement action. Email the Director of Children’s Services using one of IPSEA’s model letters. If that doesn’t work, you need a pre-action letter. Then, if that doesn’t work, judicial review proceedings will.

However, the provision can’t be enforced if it is vague and woolly. For example, with wording such as ‘access to 1:1’, ‘would benefit from 1:1’, ‘opportunities for 1:1’, ‘1:1 or equivalent’, ‘1:1 as required’, ‘regular 1:1’ and ‘1:1 as appropriate’. If this is the case, you should request an early review in order to try to tighten up the wording. IPSEA has a model letter for requesting an early review.

Thanks. The good news: LA has finally agreed to increase the funding.

Thanks. Our EHCP is quite clear. But it is not exactly 1on1, it is 1on1, or 1on2 or 1on3. But LA has agreed to increase the funding.

As long as the ratio is explicitly stated without vague and woolly wording, then it is OK and enforceable whether that is 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 or a group up to 8 or whatever. But the wording in my pp would apply, e.g. ‘access to 1:2…' is too vague to be enforceable. So if F isn’t detailed, specified and quantified and you still have the right of appeal, you should appeal. If you are no longer in the appeal window, you can request an early review in order to try to tighten it up.

The buck stops with the LA. You can request a judicial review for failure to provide if the EHCP states something they are not providing. Most LAs think that they can do whatever they feel like. They cannot.