Illustrative examples — built to the depth and structure of a real pack.

This document sets out the grounds on which we appeal against the decision of [LOCAL_AUTHORITY], dated 14 March 2025, to refuse to carry out an EHC needs assessment for [CHILD], currently in Year 5 at [SCHOOL_NAME]. [CHILD] was born in August 2014 and is ten years old. She has been on the SEN register since September 2021 and has been receiving SEN Support since the start of Year 2.

We made our request for a statutory EHC needs assessment on 10 January 2025, enclosing an Educational Psychology report, a Speech and Language Therapy assessment, a paediatric report, and a supporting letter from the school SENCO. The Local Authority's decision letter of 14 March 2025 refused this request. We respectfully submit the following grounds of appeal.

The Educational Psychology assessment conducted by Dr [PROFESSIONAL] in November 2024 identified significant difficulties across several areas of [CHILD]'s development. The report notes that [CHILD]'s working memory scores place her at the 2nd percentile — more than two standard deviations below the mean — and that her processing speed is similarly severely impaired. Dr [PROFESSIONAL]'s report specifically states that these difficulties have a 'pervasive and significant impact on [CHILD]'s ability to access the curriculum and make progress in line with her peers.' The EP report recommended that a statutory EHC needs assessment should be considered, noting that the complexity and severity of [CHILD]'s needs may require provision that cannot be specified or guaranteed under the current SEN Support framework.

The Speech and Language Therapy assessment completed by [PROFESSIONAL] in October 2024 further identifies significant difficulties with [CHILD]'s receptive and expressive language. [CHILD]'s comprehension scores placed her below the 5th percentile for her age. The SALT report noted that [CHILD] frequently misunderstands multi-step instructions, struggles to follow verbal classroom discussions, and requires significantly more processing time than her peers. The report recommended specialist speech and language therapy input of at least 2.5 hours per week delivered by a qualified therapist — provision which the current SEN Support framework does not include.

The Local Authority's decision letter of 14 March 2025 does not appear to reference either the EP report or the SALT assessment. The letter refers broadly to 'school support plans' and states that 'current provision is meeting needs,' but does not address the specific findings of either professional assessment or explain why those assessments and their recommendations were not considered relevant to the decision. The SEND Code of Practice at paragraph 9.14 requires Local Authorities to take into account professional advice when considering a request for an EHC needs assessment. We are concerned that this requirement may not have been met in this case.

The Local Authority's decision letter refers to 'progress made since the start of the SEN Support plan in September 2021.' We do not dispute that some progress has occurred in certain areas over this period. However, the relevant question is not whether progress has occurred in the context of high levels of support, but whether that progress can be sustained without a formal, enforceable framework — and whether [CHILD]'s needs can be reliably met without the specific commitments that an EHCP provides.

The EP report is explicit on this point. Dr [PROFESSIONAL] notes that [CHILD]'s progress in Year 4 was 'substantially dependent on the consistent availability of a designated teaching assistant for approximately 80% of the school day.' She further notes that when that support was temporarily unavailable during a period of staff absence in January 2024, [CHILD]'s ability to access learning 'deteriorated rapidly, and she was unable to complete independent tasks or participate in group activities without adult mediation.' This is consistent with what we have observed at home: on days when [CHILD]'s regular TA is absent, she frequently returns home distressed and is unable to recall what happened during the school day.

Progress that depends entirely on the consistent presence of a specific adult — at a level that cannot be guaranteed under SEN Support — does not demonstrate that needs are met. The SEND Code of Practice at paragraph 9.14(f) explicitly asks whether the child's special educational needs have responded to relevant and purposeful measures taken by the school. Where progress is conditional on levels of support that cannot be guaranteed, a statutory assessment is relevant precisely to formalise and protect that support. We submit that the Local Authority has not addressed this issue in its decision.

The SEN Support plan currently in place for [CHILD] uses language such as 'TA support where available,' 'regular literacy intervention,' and 'access to nurture provision as required.' These descriptions do not specify what provision is to be delivered, how often, by whom, at what level of qualification, or how effectiveness is to be measured. The EP report specifically highlighted this in its recommendations section, stating that 'any provision identified as necessary for [CHILD] should be specified with sufficient clarity to be monitored and evaluated — the current SEN Support plan does not meet this standard.'

In practice, we have observed significant inconsistency in what is actually delivered. During the Spring term 2025, [CHILD] received no literacy intervention for three consecutive weeks because the designated TA was covering another class. When I raised this with the SENCO at the February 2025 review, she acknowledged that staffing constraints had affected delivery but said there was 'no straightforward solution' within the current budget. We were told that the school would 'do its best' — which, while appreciated, does not represent the specific and enforceable commitment that [CHILD]'s level of need appears to require.

An EHCP would not only specify provision clearly; it would create a legal obligation on the Local Authority to ensure that provision is made. The SEND Code of Practice at paragraph 6.64 makes clear that where SEN Support has not enabled the child to make adequate progress, the question of whether a statutory assessment should be conducted becomes relevant. Given the documented inconsistency of provision delivery and the acknowledged inability of the school to guarantee the required levels of support within existing resources, we believe that a statutory assessment is necessary.

[CHILD] has been identified by three separate professionals as having significant and interconnected needs across communication and interaction, cognition and learning, and social, emotional and mental health. The EP report documents difficulties with working memory, processing speed, and emotional regulation. The SALT assessment documents severe language comprehension and expressive language difficulties. [CHILD]'s paediatrician, Dr [PROFESSIONAL], noted in his report of August 2024 that [CHILD] presents with characteristics consistent with autism and ADHD, and recommended specialist support in a structured and predictable environment.

These needs do not exist in isolation. They interact with each other in ways that the school, despite its best efforts, has found consistently difficult to address. [CHILD]'s processing difficulties mean that instructions given verbally during busy classroom transitions frequently do not reach her — and her emotional regulation difficulties mean that when she becomes overwhelmed, it can take 30 to 40 minutes before she is able to re-engage with learning. These patterns have been consistent since Year 2 and have not reduced despite the interventions in place. The school SENCO's written submission supporting the application acknowledged that 'the combination of [CHILD]'s needs is beyond what we can address effectively within our current SEN Support capacity.'

We are not suggesting that the school has not tried. We are saying that the combination of [CHILD]'s documented needs, the complexity of their interaction, and the demonstrated inability of current provision to address them consistently — all of which is evidenced in the professional reports provided — means that a statutory assessment is warranted. Without a full EHC needs assessment, it is not possible to determine what specific provision [CHILD] needs, or to put in place a framework that will reliably meet those needs. We respectfully ask the Tribunal to direct the Local Authority to carry out a statutory EHC needs assessment.