Appealing for a place at a 'full' setting - EHCP

[Sprogonthetyne]

My DD has a draft EHCP but we've reached a hurdle at school placement. Her current mainstream do not feel they can meet her needs and we are looking at moving to an ARP.

I've looked round and the LA have consulted with a few and there is one that I think would be great for her. It is also the only one that responded to the LA consultation to say they could meet needs, but that they don't have a place currently (the others also didn't have space, but didn't think they were a good fit anyway). I think I'm going to need to appeal this decision, and was wondering if anyone had done similar and might be able to give advice.

Everything that I've read said to look over previous years and see if they have ever admitted more then the current number, but the ARP has only been operating since last January, so that kind of data isn't available. Not sure if that would be a benefit (haven't established if going over would be harmful) or more difficult as there isn't a precedence.

Firstly, you need to investigate the nature of the ARP. Most are not separately registered establishments. Therefore, the mainstream school is named in I and the provision provided by the ARP included in F.

Being full is not enough of a reason to refuse to name your preferred placement. The LA needs to prove the school is so full admitting DD is incompatible with the efficient education of others or use of resources. The bar for this is higher than LAs and many schools admit. It has to be something tangible and specific and is more than an “adverse effect”, “impact on” or “prejudicial to”. So you need to go back to the LA and ask them for specific details about the incompatibility - e.g. what children/resources, what is the current standard of education, what effect, what reasonable adjustments could change that or is it unavoidable. Rather than the vague nonsense LAs try to rely on.

There are a few bits of case law on incompatibility such as OO and BO v London Borough Bexley [2023] UKUT 223 (AAC), M v LB Harrow HS/4850/2013, Hampshire v R & SENDIST [2009] EWHC 626 and NA v LB Barnet [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC).