Who is responsible for the quality of commissioned provision in England (whether or not it is meeting need)?

If a AP is named and it is just meeting identified need, but the quality is poor, who would be responsible for ensuring the quality improves?

Taking children out of school during term time

I will be taking my children out of school next month for our family holiday. 2 of my children have additional needs, one is diagnosed combined adhd and one awaiting assessment for adhd/asd. Neither of them cope well in overcrowded situations with one having social anxiety and the other being liable to wonder off etc. this is the main reason for going out of term time so it will not be as busy. Is there anything I can do in order to not receive an fine from my local authorities for doing this.

University exam access arrangements not followed for an autistic student with significant exam anxiety. It is reasonable for the university to only offer the remedy of resitting exams?

The university say they have discharged their responsibility to remedy the error by offering student the opportunity to resit exams "as if for the first time" ie without penalty. Student has severe anxiety around exams and has had no reassurance that errors will not recur. Year was passed but results lower than expected and results will affect final degree classification.

(In)appropriate Local Authority attendance at the Annual Review

My daughter’s EHCP Annual Review (AR) takes place one week today. Per the norm, the LA has been invited to attend. We’d not had an indication one way or the other if they would; our LA doesn’t usually attend. Today, her college received a phone call from the caseworker saying that they would / could not attend, but their superior would (we do not know yet if this is virtual or in person).
The named person they propose was the lead and very adversarial protagonist on the LA’s behalf for a Lower Tribunal hearing (which we ‘won’), a subsequent appeal (which was also won), and then made an LA appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which we again won, which resulted in the (very successful) placement at the current college.
My questions are:
1) Is it permissible that an LA representative be substituted at this late stage and can we ask for an alternative person?
2) Can we request that the LA does not allow this person to be involved in our daughter’s AR, or indeed any aspect of her ongoing engagement with the LA SENAT?
We feel threatened and intimidated by the named person’s involvement because:
a) their extremely adversarial approach to the tribunals caused a lot of pain, distress, delays and expense – both to us, and to the public purse.
b) their various submissions and representations were found to be at best irregular, at their base level they were incorrect and manipulative, which the judge(s) concurred with (in other words, they were not faithful and truthful, but this is of course tricky territory).
c) we believe they are very prejudiced against us as a family.
d) my daughter is vulnerable and is still scarred by the tribunal process and we do not want this person to have any contact with her.
Thank you in advance for any guidance at this difficult moment, served on us at very short notice.

My friends child is 4 years, due to start primary in September 2025. He is currently in a specialist school with 1:1 and has an EHCP. She has recently got a letter from the council offering places in mainstream schools only. My friend is devasted as knows her child will not cope. He has global learning delay, autism, non verbal and PICA symptoms (not diagnosed but does pick up and eat anything). She has no idea what to do. Can I get advice on what she can do and the steps she needs to take?

We are in the final stages of EHCP. We have requested EOTAS (to pay for online school) and a personal budget. The LA have said "County Independent panel have reviewed your request for EOTAS and personal budget to fund Kings Inter High, further information is required before EOTAS can be considered. We will be contacting F...... high school to establish if they are able to support funding Kings Inter High as E. remains on their school roll. We will also be issuing consultations to independent settings to establish suitability; these consultations will be shared with you before they are issued." My question is does the LA pay for EOTAS - why are they asking the school? The LA tried to unroll her from mainstream but we said they could not do this until they have provided alternative provision - and we request EOTAS - were we wrong to do so?

My daughter is happy at online school. She has tried two mainstream schools and cannot manage. She will not attend school in person and the EP report is fairly conclusive with this regard.

My child has been denied a special school, what can I do

My son is almost 4 and will be starting school in September, they have denied special school as he is a band 7 you need to be a band 8

He is non verbal, doesn't understand commands, barely turns his head to his name, the 2 mainstream schools I had to put down have came back to say they can't accommodate his needs, which I understand

My son attends nursery 9 hrs a week with funding of 1 to 1

I have explained no offence to my child but it will be like having a feral animal in the classroom, obviously this is why he needs a special school, he doesn't understand and will do his own thing, it won't be fair to him, the mainstream school or the other pupils

It went back to panel (EHCP) to question the 2 schools

I had time to think and got angry, I wrote an email stating why is the panel ignoring his needs, every professional person in the EHCP advised he had complex needs and why are they ignoring that he needs special school

It has been passed on to the panel

What can I do if they still say no

Naming a CIC in Section I

My daughter has severe SEMH needs and we’ve identified a CIC which delivers alternative provision for children with SEMH, however they only offer part time hours 15 hours over 2.5 days. The LA are saying as the organisation is not a school, they cannot name it. The organisation have said that they have other kids who attend with EHCPs and this is funded through a personal budget. The other 10 hours to make up full time provision we are considering another provider which isn’t a school but an alternative provision provider. We’re anxious to know whether we can have named in section I of my daughter’s EHCP the CIC and also if we can also have named the other provider for the other 10 hours?

Is there any legal basis for an LA to enforce pre-defined costings onto schools spending of the notional budget?

When providing provision maps to support top-up funding requests Derbyshire County Council is requiring provision to be costed at a pre-determined amount rather than the actual cost even when the school is evidencing the cost of what they are already doing (ie from their notional budget). This means that schools are repeatedly working at a loss in relation to this- can local authorities legally do this/ or is there a legal challenge that can be made against them doing this please?

Can I request the EP as an expert witness in my EHCP appeal, or could this backfire?

Our Educational Psychologist (a 2nd-year trainee) wrote a vague Section F provision with many examples rather than specific, quantified provisions. I have emailed three times requesting that it be made legally compliant, but the response I received stated:

"EP reports are written with the intention of enabling education staff to plan and deliver a personalised curriculum within a school or other educational setting. The additional examples that are included within advice help educators to incorporate recommendations/approaches into their lesson planning without limiting their creativity and flexibility, allowing staff to interpret the essence of the recommendation and plan to best effect."

I assume this aligns with LA policy, but my concern is that the vagueness makes the provision unenforceable. My son has an EOTAS package (recently agreed in final/nothing in place), and the LA is only organising tuition for the core curriculum. This means the examples listed in the EP report linking learning to interest (especially computing, which he accesses privately and consistently) are not included in his provision.

I agree with the essence of what she has written within F but due to the lack of detail I am appealing Sections B and F, and I’m wondering whether I should request the EP as an expert witness to clarify her recommendations—or whether this could backfire if she aligns with the LA's stance.