Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
We Lost(20 Posts)
Can't believe we really got the impression from the panel and the judge that it was in our favour. They agreed with all our points, but we lost on cost. It would be £7500 more to send him to specialist school. They even said his current school don't have expertise to help him, but said he wouldn't cope with change. He is going to have to go to secondary school next year, and all the professionals have agreed he wont cope there!
We are going to appeal. Does anyone know how long this takes?
I am so sorry and anything else that may help.
That judgment makes little sense. I don't know the answer to your question, but just wanted to say sorry.
What a nonsense! I am so sorry for you. How stressful. It is just putting off the inevitable.
Take some legal advice on the appeal won't you?
Going to tribunal must have cost them more
and issues won't go away - you will be back next year because you will have no choice
I fear that it is not sufficient to predict failure but to wait until there is definite recorded failure
We couldn't even get an assessment at that stage. Transition from primary to secondary had to fail before anyone took any notice. My advice would be not be bend over backwards to make that happen.
The reasoning does seem odd. If the argument is that DS can't cope with the transition then the passage of time alone will make that irrelevant as a defence. The cost is not a significant difference but just to be sure get as much expensive provision in the meantime to ratchet up the cost of the cobbled together package in m/s. Did you get any outreach, SALT, OT?
I'm still focusing on winning at tribunal in a couple of weeks and so have no advice what to do next but I am sure someone else has been there.
Sorry to be nosey but any more details would be gratefully appreciated.
Thank you. We have got legal advice. We used FS and she was brilliant. She herself is bewildered that we lost. What more information did you want KEEPON
I am struggling to understand the decision tbh - I suppose the idea that cost was the 'real' issue
Is it possible that the year 6, end-of-an-era, natural-transition-point view may have influenced the panel's decision?
Are you 'allowed' to appeal because the decision of the panel is pants according to precedent and legal understanding or does there have to be some failure to abide by due legal process?
I thought that secondary provision for statemented children was sorted out in year 5? What year is DS in atm?
Think about different timetables - perhaps the panel would have ruled in your favour in a year's time - what is the cost of the delay - what's the quickest route - appeal or review or failed transition? I suppose that explusion is out of the question? That would really speed things up.
Don't know enough about appeals, but hope that the decision is wrong in law.
Also would presume if it's in writing that his needs aren't being met, that the statement part 3 has to be amended to try and meet them (even if part 4 was not agreed)?
Also would imagine this 'he's just about bordering on /almost but not quite needing a move / doing very badly indeed' is a useful starting point for a further statutory assessment very soon, and that you'll win the next tribunal (when things decline just a tiny little bit more, as they usually do).
Can you challenge their costs? If the additional provision he needs is bolted on to current provision, would it be cheaper.
Or would specialist school agree to take him at a discount for year 6, knowing then they are very likely to keep him to make a profit on from years 7-13?
So sorry to hear that - and it makes me more worried for our answers now too as we are still waiting and I am sure a lot of the later discussion must be about costs now given the new funding arrangements. I will keep everything crossed for your appeal - hopefully somehow you can find a whole in how they argued the funding calculations and fight back. Did your figures as calculated have the same cost differences or was it just the LA figures that were presented?
We too are struggling to understand decision. They have said school doesn't have necessary expertise so will need to have specialist teacher for 1hour a week 1_1. Which has obviously put costs up. Solicito has said we can appeal on point of law because they have said exact costs just sai about.
I thought that the central issue for Tribunal was whether the LA named school in part 4 could meet the provision detailed in part 3 of the needs identified in part 2.
If the answer is 'no' then the issue of cost being an unreasonable expenditure becomes irrelevant. I have read rulings where the judge says that much of the hearing was taken up with funding issues only to rule in favour of the parent's named school regardless of costs because the LA school could not meet needs.
If part 3 is amended to add 1:1 with specialist teacher in order for the answer to be 'yes', this provision has to be costed and added to the lea costs. When would this provision actually be available? We have been promised all sorts of provision that only exists as a potentiality and therefore cannot be specified or quantified. What's the betting that it wouldn't be worth waiting for?
How does DS feel? If it was thought that he couldn't cope with the transition to a small ss he will definitely not cope with transition to a large m/s secondary. Actions speak louder than words. A child that is not at a key transition place and is attending school is easier to place on the back-burner than a failed transition resulting in authorised absence.
The more I rearm the more balmy it seems . Definitely appeal.
I am so sorry. That is totally SHIT! They are going to send him into an environment where they know his needs will not be met in order to save £7500?
What happened to the obligation to meet need?
He wil definitely not cope with transition to secondary,everyone has agreed that, but like you say, while he is in school easier to leave him on back burner. That is about to change, when we told him, he said, but we can go to tribunal again can't because I can't go back to my old school,what is oing to happen to me! We have gone to centreparcs this week to take it all in and decide what to do next. But on't think I will be able to get him into school next week.
DS's reaction is perfectly understandable and I think it is important to be on the side of your child, this is a relationship for life, rather than acting on the behalf of those whose 'success' depends upon your efforts to deliver the child whatever the costs.
I would imagine 'losing' would have triggered enormous school related anxiety and so really any absence is the result of the Tribunal ruling as they did.
It would nicely demonstrate failed placement if you got permission to park in school car park daily and then requested their assistance so they fail to drag him out of the car. From a ds point of view, he's still obliged to 'go to' the unsuitable school but comes straight home again...
in fact, 3 staff (one teacher, one HLTA, one whoever, 30min/day, 5 days/week, 38 weeks/ year.... plus national insurance, pension, sickness... All adds up to about £7500 pa )
I am really not sure I will get him back in there again. The lsa assigned to him is also responsible for a child with diabetes. Whenever child is unwell lsa leaves my ds and goes to her. The week before the holidays ds was taken out of class because it was too noisy lsa was then called to other child and ds was left in empty classroom for 1/2 hour alone he was in dreadful state. I complained but they just aren't interested!!!
I am so sorry to hear this.
I didn't think you could lose on cost? I thought you could only lose if they can show that suggested provision will meet need? It sounds like they've messed up...
The SENCO told tribunal they could meet his needs and told them they are doing things that they aren't and they believed her. Then back at school she told me they aren't I am just seething, tired of fighting for everything
Join the discussion
Please login first.