This case study demonstrates the need for clarity from the LA regarding their position in relation to an appeal and the consequences of not having this.

In XXX the uncle of I.R contacted our service for support in dealing with his nephew’s school in particular with regards to increasing pressure they were placing him under to agree to a reduced timetable.

Mr R (as I’s uncle) was his legal guardian. His nephew had been born prematurely and as a result of prenatal neglect had a range of needs particularly with learning, attention and behaviour. The school were aware of his needs and had in fact applied for a statutory assessment.

SENDIASS liaised with school to try and resolve some of the tensions that managing I’s behaviour in school were causing, SENDIASS explained the statutory assessment process to the family and what that could mean for a future placement for I. Mr R was in agreement that mainstream school and large busy classes would not work for I as he needed specialist support particularly around some of the early life experiences he had been exposed to.

There was initially some discussion about another SEMH provision at another local school but it was felt it would be better to limit the changes I needed to make in order to provide more stability for him. There were ongoing tensions at his current setting which were largely due to reduced attendance putting more pressure on Mr. R’s employment situation. SENDIASS continued to liaise with the school senco regarding these issues.

In XXX I’s draft EHCP was issued. SENDIASS worked again with the family to look at the plan and discuss which schools they felt would be best for I moving forward. Mr R decided that a local school (although in the neighbouring borough) would be a good placement for I. Although mainstream, it had a specialist SEMH provision attached to it and there were already extended family members, who attended which Mr R felt would help I to settle.

The LA consulted with the preferred school, which said although it could meet need it was full. The LA then finalised the EHCP naming a Manchester SEMH provision that only catered for key stage 1 and was over 13 miles away from the family home. The family felt it to be unsuitable and they made the decision to lodge an appeal.

Unfortunately, due to Covid SENDIASS staff were unable to work face to face with families so much of the preparation for Mr. R’s challenge to section I had to be done remotely.

Managing the appeal with the family was made more challenging by both lack of communication from the LA and their repeated failure to comply with evidence deadlines and directions from the judge himself.

The Appeal took place in XXX and the only grounds the LA presented were that the admittance of I to the preferred school “would impact on the education of others.” Unfortunately, they were able to provide little evidence to support this and the failure of the Head Teacher from the XXX school to attend helped Mr R’s appeal.

Discussions took place regarding the impact travelling to a school some distance from home that could only provide a placement for a year, would have on I. SENDIASS supported Mr R pointing out the best practice guidance on travel times for primary age pupils and the potential travel costs that would be incurred were he to attend the school currently named in section I.

After a short hearing, the tribunal judge without having been presented with any evidence as to why the LA were unable to name the preferred school issued a consent order instructing the LA to amend section I to name the family’s chosen school.

The family were obviously relieved and pleased with the outcome and grateful for the support given by SENDIASS. At this time when contacting the LA is particularly challenging for families, our service is especially valued. This was a good outcome for the family.

In terms of learning for SENDIASS it demonstrated that every tribunal is different even if it is the same section being challenge and the reasons for this and the response from the LA will vary significantly. This case also demonstrated the importance of getting clarity from the LA on their position and understanding what their position is during the course of the tribunal. With better communication it is possible that more tribunal cases could be resolved ahead of the appeal itself.

Listen to our SENDIASS Podcasts: Season 2 - Episode 3 and 4

You may wish to read the following:

Fact sheet 45 - Appeals - Challenging section B and F.

Complete our website contact form: