I offer a range of support, from one-off advice through to full strategic casework, including:

• EHCP requests, reviews and redrafting

• Strategy and next-steps advice

• Tribunal appeals and mediation support

• Section 19 alternative provision cases

• EOTAS requests and packages

• Case reviews where families feel “stuck”

• Annual review support

• LA/School correspondence support

Some families want a single letter or call. Others need ongoing support. I’ll always be clear about what I can offer, what I think will help most, and what’s realistically achievable.

Read more

Neuroaffirming practice recognises that neurodivergent children are not broken, disordered, or failing — they are responding to environments that often aren’t built for them.

In practice, this means:

• Focusing on access, regulation and safety rather than compliance

• Understanding behaviour as communication

• Recognising burnout, trauma and nervous-system overload

• Challenging attendance-first narratives where they cause harm

• Framing needs accurately and respectfully in legal documents

Neuroaffirming does not mean being “soft” or vague. My work is firmly grounded in law, evidence and enforceability.

Read more

No. A diagnosis is not required to request an EHC needs assessment.

The legal test is deliberately low. The question is simply whether your child has or may have SEN, and may need special educational provision.

Uncertainty is not a barrier - it’s often the reason an assessment is needed.

Yes, absolutely. It’s very common to feel unsure at this stage - about what support is needed, what’s going wrong, or even whether an EHCP is the right route. That’s exactly why the law sets a low threshold for accessing an EHC needs assessment.

Under Section 36(8) of the Children and Families Act 2014, the legal test is simply whether:

1.     your child has or may have special educational needs (SEN); and

2.     may need special educational provision to be made via an EHCP.

That’s it.

You do not need to have everything figured out in advance. You don’t need a diagnosis, or to be 100% certain an EHCP is required. The purpose of the assessment itself is to explore those questions properly - with input from professionals including education, health, and care specialists. The process is designed to help identify your child’s needs, and to determine whether an EHCP is necessary to meet them.

So, applying isn’t about claiming you already have all the answers. It’s about saying:
 “We have concerns. Support has been tried. More may be needed - and we need help figuring that out.”

You lose nothing by applying, and if your child turns out not to need an EHCP, the process can still help clarify what support is appropriate. But if your child does need one, delaying the request could mean further unmet needs and unnecessary distress.

We’re always happy to help you word your request in a way that reflects this uncertainty while still making a strong case.

My primary role is supporting families. However, I do work with schools and professionals in specific circumstances - particularly around lawful process, neuroaffirming practice, and children missing education.

The EHCP process is a statutory legal framework with strict deadlines — but many families experience delays, refusals, or poorly written plans that don’t actually deliver support.

Families most often get stuck at:

• Refusal to assess

• Poor-quality draft EHCPs

• Lack of specificity in Section F

• Inappropriate placements being named

• No education while “things are being worked out”

I support families at any point in the process, including when things have already gone wrong.

This is a really common and understandable worry - and no, requesting an EHC needs assessment (EHCNA) does not mean you’re criticising the school or saying that nothing is working.

In fact, one of the key parts of meeting the legal threshold for an EHCNA is showing that despite the support the school is already putting in place, your child’s needs remain unmet. It's about demonstrating that the existing provision, however well-intentioned or partially effective, isn’t enough.

You can - and should - include a balanced picture in your request. It’s absolutely okay to highlight what is working while also being clear and honest about the areas where your child is still struggling or not making expected progress.

This doesn’t weaken your case. On the contrary, it strengthens it by showing that school-based support has been tried but more is needed.

It’s also worth remembering that this is just the first step in the process. The initial request focuses on whether further assessment is needed - it’s not the final EHCP itself. If anything feels too strongly worded or unbalanced, we’re always happy to help you refine the language to ensure your request is firm, clear, and fair.

This is a very common question – and the short answer is: not necessarily.

There’s often a sense that families must wait until school has exhausted every possible intervention before requesting an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA). While this is sometimes a strategic route to reduce the risk of pushback, it’s not a legal requirement.

The legal test is actually very simple and low-threshold:

The local authority must carry out an EHCNA if:

1.    Your child has or may have special educational needs (SEN); and

2.     They may need special educational provision to be made through an EHCP.

Both parts of the test use the word “may”, which means even a suspicion is enough to trigger the duty. This means you don’t have to wait for school to try every strategy or intervention before submitting a request.

But what about what school or the LA might say?

It’s true that some local authorities have their own internal ‘criteria’ or expectations (e.g. requiring evidence that support has been tried first). However, the law overrides local policy – so if your child clearly meets the legal test, a refusal can be challenged.

Is it ever worth waiting?

Sometimes, yes – for strategic reasons. Waiting may reduce the chance of the request being refused. This is why some advisors (including us) might suggest building your evidence base first, especially if school support is only just beginning.

But it’s also important to know that:

·      Even the most well-evidenced requests can still face pushback.

·      Waiting too long can mean long delays in getting help – especially if refusal and appeal are still likely.

Our general advice:

It’s a balancing act between giving the request the best chance and avoiding unnecessary delays. If the legal test is clearly met – and there’s already a reasonable amount of evidence – it’s often better to get the ball rolling sooner rather than wait for the “perfect” moment.

If a child of compulsory school age cannot attend school due to illness, exclusion, or “otherwise” (including anxiety, trauma or burnout), the local authority has a Section 19 duty to arrange suitable education.

“Suitable” means education that is:

• Appropriate to age

• Appropriate to ability and aptitude

• Appropriate to SEN

• Actually accessible in practice

This duty applies whether or not an EHCP is in place.

Where an EHCP is in place the local authority has an additional duty under s.42 Children and Families Act 2014 to ensure the provision in the plan is delivered.

This is a very common response from the LA. However, it's crucial to understand that medical needs tuition is just one possible route the LA might use to discharge their Section 19 duty - it is not the only way, and it doesn't change their statutory legal obligation under Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996 to arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion or otherwise, cannot attend school - with 'suitable' meaning education appropriate to the child's age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs.

Case law confirms that LAs must consider whether education is "available, possible and accessible" to the particular child (R (R) v Kent [2007]). If the medical needs panel rejects the application, or offers provision that isn't practically accessible to your son, the LA's Section 19 duty is not discharged - they must explore other suitable alternatives.

Not without being absolutely clear about the implications.

Deregistering your child from school can seem like a natural step when attendance has broken down - but it’s a legal minefield that could seriously affect your child’s future access to support, particularly funding for alternative provision or an EOTAS (Education Otherwise Than At School) package.

What’s the key issue with deregistration?

If you deregister your child, most local authorities will automatically treat this as Elective Home Education (EHE) - even if you make it very clear that this wasn’t your genuine choice.

That means:

• You, as the parent, become responsible for funding and arranging all of your child’s education - even if they have an EHCP.

• The local authority is no longer legally required to provide or fund any of the provision in Section F of your child’s EHCP.

• The local authority’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide suitable full-time education if a child cannot attend school no longer applies.

In short: you could lose vital legal protections and access to funded support.

What if I don’t want to home educate - I just want education to happen somewhere other than school?

This is where it’s important to distinguish between:

• Elective Home Education (EHE) – where the parent takes on full responsibility for education.

• Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) – where the local authority agrees that education should happen outside of a traditional setting, and continues to fund and coordinate the support.

If your child’s needs mean that school is not appropriate, you can seek for this to be formalised in their EHCP under Section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014. This could include tuition, therapies, mentoring, or other provisions delivered outside of a school.

This is very different from EHE - and still keeps the legal duties on the local authority.

Can’t I just deregister and ask for help after?

This is very risky. Once deregistered:

• The LA can claim you’ve chosen to take responsibility for education.

• You may struggle to access alternative provision funding.

• You may be unable to get an EHCP issued—or if one is issued, the LA may say you’re making your own arrangements and they don’t have to fund it.

As clarified in R (Y) v Croydon [2015] EWHC 3033 (Admin), LAs can be in breach of Section 19 if they fail to provide suitable education where attendance at school isn’t reasonably practicable - but this only applies when a parent has not taken responsibility for education via EHE.

But I didn’t want to home educate - I was pressured. What now?

Many families feel coerced into home education - either through threats of prosecution, or because the school environment has become completely unmanageable. If you’ve already deregistered and the LA is treating it as EHE, you can take steps to formally withdraw from EHE and make clear that:

• You are no longer electively home educating

• Home education is not suitable or sustainable

• You require the LA to fulfil its legal duties under Section 19 and/or issue an appropriate EHCP

This can re-trigger statutory responsibilities and may improve your access to support.

Should I ever deregister?

Only if:

• You genuinely wish to electively home educate your child,

• You are fully aware that this means taking on responsibility for their full-time education,

• And you understand that you may not be entitled to funded support (including EHCP provision) unless the LA chooses to provide it voluntarily.

Should I ever deregister?

Only if:

• You genuinely wish to electively home educate your child,

• You are fully aware that this means taking on responsibility for their full-time education,

• And you understand that you may not be entitled to funded support (including EHCP provision) unless the LA chooses to provide it voluntarily.

So what should I do if school isn’t working and I don’t want to home educate?

Stay on roll (even if your child isn’t attending)
 This preserves your legal protections while you seek:

1. 1. EHCP assessment or review

   2. Section 19 provision due to non-attendance

   3. An alternative named placement or EOTAS via the EHCP

This is an issue we support families with regularly. If you're unsure what route is right for your child - or want help drafting communications, making a complaint, or working out the best next steps, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. We’re here to help you navigate this process with clarity and confidence.

Read more

No, there is no specific legal requirement for a set number of schools to be consulted before EOTAS can be agreed. The legal test, as set out in the Children and Families Act 2014, is simply whether it would be “inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school” (s.61 CFA 2014).

This is a question of suitability and practicability in the specific circumstances of the child. Case law has clarified that “inappropriate” doesn’t just mean the absolute impossibility of school attendance - it includes circumstances where psychological or emotional barriers (such as school trauma, anxiety, or other mental health factors) make access to a school setting realistically unviable. In R (Y) v Croydon [2015], for example, the Court accepted that even if a school was “technically suitable,” the LA remained in breach of its duty under s.19 EA 1996 if attendance wasn’t reasonably practicable in real terms.

That said, many local authorities have adopted the practice of requiring consultation responses that confirm “needs cannot be met” before they will agree to EOTAS. While not a legal threshold, it has become a de facto one in practice.

My suggestion would be:

1.     Write to your caseworker requesting:

a.     The names of all schools that have already been consulted.

b.     Copies of the consultation responses already received.

c.     The list of any further schools they now intend to consult with as part of the next round.

2.     Once you have this list, it would be wise to proactively contact the schools directly to:

a.     Explain that you do not believe a school setting is appropriate for your child and why.

b.     Express concern that forcing your child into school-based provision would be detrimental and likely unsuccessful.

c.     Politely but clearly request that they respond to the LA confirming that their needs cannot be met within their setting.

This can significantly strengthen the case for EOTAS and help avoid being stuck in a cycle of repeated panel reviews.

Mediation services (such as Global Mediation) sometimes issue what is called a "deemed" mediation certificate automatically once 30 days have passed without a confirmed mediation date from the LA. However, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost your right to mediation, it just means you can now appeal to Tribunal if you wish, without needing to wait any longer.

This means have two options:

1.     Go straight to Tribunal using the certificate (deadline will be either 1 month from the final decision you are appealing OR 1 month from the date on the mediation certificate, whichever is later).

2.     Still pursue mediation, but you’ll need to:

a.     Let the mediation service know that you still want to proceed with mediation.

b.     Make absolutely sure that you do not miss the appeal deadline in case mediation isn't arranged by then

c.     Ask the mediation service to confirm whether they would issue a second mediation certificate after mediation (or another deemed one if the LA pulls out again after the deadline).

It’s totally up to you which route feels right, but if you are leaning toward mediation, we’d recommend pushing for a clear written confirmation from the mediation service about how they’ll handle this timeline.

I would also recommend clarifying (with both the mediation service and LA) if a decision maker will be attending mediation – if not I would advise proceeding straight to appeal.

The short answer: it depends on what you’re appealing — but in many cases, mediation can be worthwhile.

That said, we strongly recommend submitting your appeal before the deadline even if mediation is ongoing or seems promising. This protects your right of appeal in case the mediation doesn’t result in a full resolution.

The appeal deadline will be either:

·      2 months from the date of the LA’s final decision letter (the one that explains your right of appeal and how to request mediation),
 OR

·      1 month from the date of your mediation certificate – whichever is later.

 Mediation certificates are usually issued:

·      A few days after mediation takes place,

·      Or, if mediation hasn’t happened within 30 days of your request, the certificate may be issued around that point instead.

Even if mediation seems productive, don’t wait and risk missing the deadline - lodging the appeal ensures your legal rights are protected. You can always withdraw it later if everything is resolved.

Refusal to Assess

If the local authority has refused to carry out an EHC needs assessment, we would generally advise going to mediation first.

·      Why? Because these decisions are frequently overturned at mediation.

·      It’s often quicker and less stressful than going straight to tribunal.

·      If it isn’t resolved, you’ll still receive a mediation certificate and can proceed to appeal.

Refusal to Issue an EHCP

These cases are now less common, as most assessments result in a plan — but if the LA refuses to issue one:

·      We would usually advise mediation here too, as the decision can sometimes be reversed following discussion.

·      If mediation fails, you'll have the right to appeal after getting the certificate.

Appealing Contents of the EHCP (Sections B, F and/or I)

Mediation can still be valuable when appealing the contents of a plan - particularly as a first opportunity to explain:

·      Why the description of needs in Section B is incomplete or inaccurate

·      What provision in Section F should be added, clarified, or quantified (based on reports or unmet needs)

·      Why the school named in Section I is unsuitable, and why another setting (or EOTAS) is needed

However, it’s important to note that in contents cases, mediation rarely resolves everything within the time available - and agreements made at mediation may not always be clearly reflected in the final EHCP.

So while mediation may help get things moving, it should not replace lodging your appeal in time. You can always continue the appeal on any outstanding issues - and many cases resolve later through the Working Document process, often without needing to go to hearing.

Check who the LA is sending to mediation

Mediation is only likely to be productive if the LA sends someone with the authority to make decisions on the day.

·      If the LA rep needs to “take things back to panel” or get approval afterwards, any agreement made during mediation won’t be legally binding

·      We strongly recommend confirming in advance (with both the LA and the mediation service) that the LA representative attending has decision-making power

If not, mediation may still be worth attending — but it's less likely to lead to a resolution, and you may be better off going straight to appeal.

No, this is not an official part of the mediation process – this is a separate process relating to the local authorities own informal dispute resolution.

Here are the key differences between this kind of informal meeting and formal mediation:

• Mediation is a legal step. It involves an independent mediator and must include a local authority representative with the power to make binding decisions on the day.

• In contrast, a “next steps,”” way forward” or “local” meeting has no legal status. The LA is not required to send a decision-maker, and outcomes often have to go back to panel for approval - so you may not receive a timely or reliable decision afterward.

• Any agreement reached in mediation is written up in a legally binding agreement that the LA must comply with. You won’t get this from a local meeting.

·      After mediation, you receive a mediation certificate, which is necessary if you wish to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. You cannot get this certificate from a local meeting.

It’s entirely up to you whether you attend. There’s no harm in doing so, but it’s important to go in with eyes open. Some families might find it useful for building a paper trail or getting clarity. Others might feel it’s a delay tactic or too draining to repeat themselves. There is no obligation to attend this before formal mediation can be arranged.

If you decide not to go ahead, you can simply respond to say that you have already requested mediation and would prefer to follow that formal route. If they suggest the meeting must happen before mediation can be arranged, that is incorrect - and not legally justifiable. If this happens, we would advise you to pass the correspondence on to the mediation service so they’re aware of this practice.

Technically yes – however, while there’s no specific legal prohibition on a local authority naming a school that has said it cannot meet a child’s needs, doing so can still be unlawful in practice.

If the named setting is not suitable in reality and particularly where it cannot deliver the provision set out in Section F of the EHCP- then naming it would likely breach:

·      Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (duty to secure provision- which ultimately rests with the local authority),

·      Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (duty to provide suitable education where a child can’t attend school), and

·      Basic principles of public law, including irrationality and failure to take relevant information into account.

There’s also strong case law in support of this:

·      In R (Y) v Croydon [2015], the High Court ruled that even where a placement was “technically suitable,” the LA breached its Section 19 duty because the child could not realistically access it.

·      In R (G) v Westminster [2004], the Court of Appeal held that Section 19 applies where it is not reasonably practicable for a child to take up otherwise suitable education, including for psychological or emotional reasons.

So while the local authority may try to argue that a setting is a valid option, the fact that the setting itself stated it could not meet need should carry significant legal weight, especially when taken alongside the EHCP contents and the child’s actual presentation.

No - a school being “full” is not, by itself, a lawful reason for the local authority (LA) to refuse to name it in Section I of an EHCP.

The law is clear. Under Section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014, the LA can only refuse a parental request if they can show that:

·      the school is unsuitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, or special educational needs (SEN), or

·      attendance would be incompatible with:

o   the efficient education of others, or

o   the efficient use of resources.

Courts and tribunals have confirmed that this is a high threshold:

·      In OO and BO v London Borough of Bexley [2023] UKUT 223 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal confirmed that a school can be named even if it is full. The LA must show that naming it would reduce the quality of education for others below the threshold of efficient education.

·      In NA v London Borough of Barnet [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC), it was held that the “incompatibility” test requires clear, specific evidence - not just vague concerns or general impact. The LA must identify which students would be affected and how.

·      In Hampshire CC v R [2009] EWHC 626 (Admin), the court stated that there must be a positive finding of incompatibility - not merely some evidence of impact.

Simply stating that the school is full, oversubscribed, or operating at capacity is not enough. The LA must go further and show that your child’s attendance would cause a specific, unresolvable problem, and that no reasonable steps (e.g. support outlined in Section F) could prevent it.

In practice, many schools operate above their published admission number (PAN), and LAs can and do name schools that say they are “full” - unless one of the lawful grounds above is clearly met.

Therefore, If the LA refuses your preferred school on the basis that it is “full,” we strongly recommend appealing. These arguments are frequently overturned by the SEND Tribunal.