Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.

How did it go bjk?

(26 Posts)
Ineedmorepatience Wed 17-Jun-15 17:31:42

Just that and I hope you are ok flowers wine

bjkmummy Wed 17-Jun-15 19:13:47

oh dear god = where do I start - that was the worse one by far....

it started with the LA refusing to discuss the WD and turning up with a new WD - then the judge told us to go out and work on it which we did. during that the La EP had a real go at me saying the WD had been sent yesterday so I said no way it had and then he was threatening to show me the email blah blah blah - then as if by magic the so called WD appeared by email on my phone at 11am this morning!! odd that!

then the judge just went through the WD - never told us how it was going to go , never asked to see a picture of our dd - no chit chat at all.

the judge the queried her dx by MS and DK...... she made an issue that I hadn't put dk qualifications in my paperwork - the LA did agree they accepted the dx.

then she turned to costs and then told the LA the costs quoted were therapy only and where were the cost of the placement - LA were clueless -out we went came back and LA confirmed the 6k so that got added on then they judge went on about the AWPU - out we go again - LA come back and confirm it but say weve not added it on cos not our cost so the judge said 'but it is to the public purse' so that went on....

then the LA conceded the more expensive transport costs which then meant our school was cheaper!!

but then it all then turned back on us and our school and the recent boarding report and then LA attacking our school.

then the judge turned to the LA senco who admitted dd would be withdrawn for about10 hours of lessons a week and the judge/panel not happy with that really

then LA told to go out again and reconsider their position given the costs of their school now higher than ours.....

came back in and LA refused to concede as say that in future years the costs could be lower.

at that point the judge seemed to have had enough and said we have no more questions, get the decision in two weeks - bye!

and that was that!

Ineedmorepatience Wed 17-Jun-15 19:29:09

WOW!! Jeepers, I bet you are exhausted sad

Oh well you have done your best, your LA showed what fuckwits they are!

Lets just hope the judge makes a sensible decision! flowers

wasuup2014 Wed 17-Jun-15 19:51:16

Sounds like the same Judge we had in January. Not Welsh per chance?

uggerthebugger Wed 17-Jun-15 20:00:13

Christ alive. It probably feels like you've gone 10 rounds with a threshing machine, bjk - the judge sounds just like the one we had for DS1.

But from what you've put there, I'd be optimistic. A judge asking one party to reconsider their position, and then abruptly closing proceedings once they've refused to reconsider their position - that's not the actions of a judge who has swallowed the LA's Kool-Aid.

And picking on your lack of evidence of DK's qualifications is the dictionary definition of showy nit-picking - if there were big holes in your case, I'm sure she'd have sharpened her teeth and got stuck into them.

Fingers crossed, hope you've got something brain-dead to occupy you for the rest of the evening flowers

KeepOnKeepingOn1 Wed 17-Jun-15 20:11:55

Given the judge's brisk manner and instructing the LA to fall on their sword go away and reconsider I would also be optimistic. Here's hoping for the right ruling in 2 weeks' time. flowers

bjkmummy Wed 17-Jun-15 20:20:11

thanks ugger - I didn't think of it from that perspective that it was just ultimate nit picking. the LA had agreed the dx anyway and its all agreed in the WD. the judge asked the LA school very little at all and I think they had already come to the conclusion that the LA school cannot meet her needs. just wish the judge had shown her teeth to the LA not to us in the very beginning.

I did google the judge and she is a very experienced judge.

she never asked if we had a photo of dd so no photo went up, she never explained to us how the hearing would go and the format of it - it was straight into the WD and on the attack. the LA got off lightly but I think as there was a question mark over our school they really nit picked over that as well but then I think if they weren't going to agree to name the school then they would have told the LA to go out and reconsider - the hearing would have just carried on.

I made comments about dd severe SPD and she just dismissed me but said its well documented in the bundle and she did a couple of times make reference to the large bundle of documents. the LA EP was trying to dismiss our indie reports but admitted he had never done any testing at all with dd.

bedelia Wed 17-Jun-15 20:29:41

LA EP was trying to dismiss our indie reports but admitted he had never done any testing at all with dd

shock

...If he hadn't done any tests, how could they know what DD's needs are unless they accept the validity of your reports?

Sending [hugs] bjk, and hope the judge makes the best decision for DD smile

pannetone Wed 17-Jun-15 20:59:00

That judge sounds familiar to me too... (initials MT??) and if it was her, I agree that she is a very experienced judge. I recognise the briskness and dismissals of what she didn't want to hear. After giving us a hard time that judge was the one who got our disability discrimination claim 'back on track' over ruling a colleague who had tried (twice) to throw our claim out.

So even if the judge's manner was off-putting, I think she is a judge who will see past the shenanigans (and desperation) of your LA.

flowers while you wait for the decision.

SummerTimeTOWIE Wed 17-Jun-15 21:09:15

Did the judge indicate that she thought your school was suitable? How did the shaky ofsted report go with the judge? Did she accept the school's evidence?

I think the tribunal would be on very shaky legal grounds if the tribunal ruled for the LA based on the LA's assertion that the cost of support in future years would go down. That would be something for a future annual review - not for today's hearing to decide. That's probably another reason the judge abruptly stopped the hearing. The judge had heard all she wanted to hear and as it stands today, your school is cheaper then theirs.

I agree with Ugger that the query for your expert's qualifications is the ultimate nit picking. It could also be so that when she writes the final ruling she can make sure there's no holes in her report. The last thing a tribunal judge wants is for their ruling to be over turned high up the food chain so she has to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

Icimoi Wed 17-Jun-15 21:29:30

I suspect that she went straight into the hearing without a lot of time on introductions because she wanted to make sure you finished it today, given the time wasted because the LA was so late with the WD. By the way, did the email with the WD which you received show when it was sent? They've got a right cheek having a go at you when they were supposed to have responded to it and lodged it with the tribunal two weeks ago. Did they have a barrister this time?

I would hope the lack of questions of the school witness is also a good sign - if they were seriously considering it I think they'd have had to put a lot of questions to them given the school's Ofsted and the fact that two good mainstream schools had said they couldn't meet dd's needs.

bjkmummy Wed 17-Jun-15 21:36:36

no barrister this time - LA EP was saying the WD was sent to me at 3pm and it never was and even if it had arrived WTF was I meant to do with it at 3pm yesterday??? as it was it came in at 11.22am

from the email it looks like it was sent at 3pm yesterday but didn't reach me so was resent this morning when I think someone realised their error.

I think a barrister would have told them to concede hence why they went alone - but they had no clue on the costs at all.

the transport costs jumped by 10k as at first they were saying she could join other kids but then had to admit later she would be the only child as the other children no longer getting transport so good job they did double check it

zzzzz Wed 17-Jun-15 21:37:35

it sound exhausting.

brew cake lots of wine

well done that goose

Icimoi Wed 17-Jun-15 22:11:19

I wonder whether they sent the email to the wrong address or something? When you re-send an email it's possible to change the details of who it was sent to. But anyway sending the WD yesterday was still around three weeks too late.

Well done, sounds like you were much more on top of the issues than they were. It's appalling, really, considering they're paid to get this stuff right.

AgnesDiPesto Wed 17-Jun-15 23:02:36

Sounds positive
Sometimes I think they are harsh on parents when they are going to find in their favour so the LA has less reason to try an appeal / complain about it
Our judge was we felt far more lenient to the LA but then found for us on every point

SummerTimeTOWIE Wed 17-Jun-15 23:18:15

The no barrister is interesting. I wonder if the LA consulted one, but were advised that they didn't have a case. Being that the LA visited your school this week and so late, I would imagine that they were told to do that by a legal bod.

Elisabennet Thu 18-Jun-15 08:17:14

It seems positive. Really if your school is suited to his/her needs and cheaper overall then it should go in your favour! All the best!

deadwitchproject Thu 18-Jun-15 08:40:16

Phew I was exhausted just reading your summary! Best of luck to you.

ouryve Thu 18-Jun-15 13:36:14

Wow, that's one tough judge, but also very thorough. Sounds like a hard day, but also sounds promising, bjk. I'll wager the LA found it more gruelling than you did.

tryingtokeepintune Thu 18-Jun-15 14:46:57

Hope you get a positive result soon.

What number tribunal is this now? Just asking cos am thinking that we might be going for no. 4 soon - and that is for one child!

bjkmummy Fri 19-Jun-15 09:58:27

The dark cloud has come today - I know the drill and know this happens but still very very hard.dd very upset last night as the children at school calling her names . 15 days left to end of term. I'm now breaking it down into stages - now need to focus on getting through the weekend. Next week we have the builders in fitting a new fireplace so that should keep me busy

adrianna22 Fri 19-Jun-15 12:46:31

are you ok bjk? What happened???

bjkmummy Fri 19-Jun-15 12:54:01

im fine - its just I always find the 2 week wait awful just awful - and here I am now in the midst of it and going over and over the hearing in my head. know I have to stop but also know everyone seems to do it. its also for secondary placement so feels that everything is riding on this one - I do have a plan b which helps.

I think also the fact we nearly crossed the finish line but the LA refused to concede doesn't help either.

nothing I can do but just carry on and hope the 2 weeks pass really quickly and we get the right decision

KeepOnKeepingOn1 Fri 19-Jun-15 14:03:36

flowers

Waiting is hard because you are completely powerless to influence outcome.

Logically, financially I think you are right, conceding at hearing would have increased the likelihood that the LA would have to pay costs, especially given the history. They will want to argue belief in the strength of their defence.

The fact that this is secondary transition point is significant (and not only emotionally). I saw some stats somewhere (can't remember where) indicating that year 7/8 was the most likely point at which the DC would be placed in indi ss.

Now long now. Focus on the fireplace grin <as an aside - why are you fitting a fireplace in summer? Is this a form of extreme deferred gratification?>

bjkmummy Fri 19-Jun-15 14:17:57

its my dh thing keep - we are having a log burner put it! hopefully we wont be using it for many more months!!! its something hes wanted to do for years and I hate our current fire place so glad it is gone.

I think you are right bout year 7/8 - I see it lots where kids enter year 7 in mainstream and don't make it to the end of the year and that would be the case with my dd. I do have a plan b and the evidence was overwhelming - the LA provided not a single report but we were questioned at length over our reports which I found unfair but understand the panel had job to do and all of the reports said the same thing - the LA threw the 'over assessing' card at us but the panel did pick up that he LA EP had never assessed her himself and in the only time he wrote a report he had used our reports scores. given by then that report was nearly a year old as well he could have done more himself but chose not to

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now