Decision Report Case 4/2011-12
| Decision Number | 4/2011-12 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Court | Special Education Needs Tribunal for Wales |
Disclaimer: This document is an anonymised version of the specific decision. Each case is considered
by SENTW on its individual merits, reflects the law as at the time the decision was made, does not create
precedent and should not be relied on as such.
Decision
Date of Birth: 2002
Appeal of: The Parents
Type of appeal: Against the contents of a Statement of SEN
Against Decision of: The Local Authority
Date of hearing: 2011
Persons present: The Parent Parent
The Parent’s Legal Advisor
Representative
The Parent’s Educational Psychologist
Witness
The Parent’s Speech & Language Therapist (SaLT)
Witness
Appeal
The Parents appeal under s.326 of the Education Act 1996 against the contents of an
amended Statement of Special Educational Needs issued by the Local Authority (LA) in
respect of the Child. The Statement is dated December 2010. The appeal is in respect
of Parts 2 and 3 of the Statement.
Preliminary Issue
By letter dated May 2011 the LA indicated that it did not oppose the appeal. By letter of
May 2011 the LA provided the Tribunal with a proposed amended Statement dated May
2011 which incorporated some but not all of the amendments to the Childs’ Statement
being sought by the Parents. It did not provide a Case Statement in support. As
directed by the Tribunal the parents prepared a working document of the Childs’
Statement, taking into account the position of the Local Authority, to show areas of
agreement and the outstanding areas of disagreement between the parties, dated
October 2011.
Since May 2011 the LA has played no active part in the appeal. In line with Regulation
15 of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 it did not attend and
was not represented at the hearing of the appeal.
The Tribunal was informed at the hearing that the Local Authority had provided the P
Parent representative with a further proposed amended Statement in November 2011 to
take account of the parental working document. The Tribunal was told that as a result
there now appeared to be a large measure of agreement between the parties
concerning Part 2 of the Childs’ Statement, and some measure of agreement in respect
of Part 3 provision, however there remained some areas still in dispute in respect of
Part 3, particularly around the delivery of dyslexia support, speech and language
therapy provision and occupational therapy provision.
To continue reading
Request your trial