How Education Law Disputes Work
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a SEN support plan and an EHCP?
SEN support is the school-level provision made without an EHCP — the school identifies the need, puts support in place, and reviews it through the Assess–Plan–Do–Review cycle. An EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan — Children and Families Act 2014) is a legally binding document issued by the local authority, describing the child's SEN needs (Section B), the educational provision required to meet them (Section F), and the school or institution where that provision will be made (Section I). Unlike SEN support, which is entirely at the school's discretion, an EHCP legally requires the LA to arrange and fund the specified provision. A child who is not making adequate progress with SEN support alone, or whose needs are too complex for the school to meet without specialist resources, should be assessed for an EHCP.
Can a school exclude a child with SEN without adjusting for their needs?
No — a school must consider a child's SEN before excluding. Where a child's behaviour that leads to exclusion is connected to their SEN (a "manifestation" of the disability or SEN), exclusion may constitute disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (Part 6). The DfE Exclusion Guidance (2023) requires headteachers to consider a pupil's SEN before excluding — including whether adequate support has been put in place, whether the pupil's conduct is related to their SEN, and whether alternative strategies have been tried. Exclusion of a pupil with SEN without proper consideration of these factors is frequently challenged successfully at the Independent Review Panel. A solicitor advises on whether the exclusion properly considered the child's SEN.
My child has been refused a place at our preferred school — what are the appeal chances?
Admissions appeal success rates vary by ground: appeals succeed most commonly where the admissions authority made an error in applying the oversubscription criteria (for example, an incorrect distance measurement, a failure to apply a sibling rule correctly, or an error in a faith criterion). For oversubscribed schools (where all other grounds are met), the appeal turns on balance of prejudice — whether the prejudice to the child of not attending outweighs the prejudice to the school of admitting an additional pupil. This balance of prejudice test is harder to win but can succeed where there are strong educational or medical reasons for the specific school, or where the child has SEN that the preferred school is uniquely placed to meet. A solicitor analyses the admissions authority's decision for errors and prepares the strongest possible case.
What happens after a university dismisses my academic appeal?
Once the university's internal appeal process is exhausted, a student can make a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA — Higher Education Act 2004). The OIA can be approached after the university issues its Completion of Procedures (COP) letter — indicating that internal processes have been concluded. The OIA complaint must be submitted within 12 months of the COP letter. The OIA considers whether the university's decision was contrary to its rules and procedures, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair — and can recommend financial remedy, academic reassessment, or change of academic record. Where the OIA does not provide a remedy, judicial review of the university's decision is available as a last resort. A solicitor advises on the OIA complaint and, where necessary, manages the judicial review.
Can I be prosecuted for my child not attending school?
Yes — where a child of compulsory school age fails to attend school regularly, the local authority may prosecute the parent under Education Act 1996 s.444. Section 444(1) — strict liability — requires only proof that the child failed to attend; there is no defence other than the authorised absences listed in the Act (illness, religious observance, transport provision not made). Section 444(1A) — the more serious offence — requires the prosecution to prove that the parent knew the child was not attending and failed to ensure attendance without reasonable justification. A solicitor defends s.444 prosecutions, challenges the local authority's compliance with the required process (including whether a School Attendance Order was properly issued), and advises on valid absences and the education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) route.