To wonder how a £36k a year education can meet DS’s needs if a £250k one can’t?

[GoneBatty]

Private residential SEND college (out of area) costs £250k a year. They are saying DS’s needs are too high for them to manage.

Council are saying a £36k a year local outreach provision can meet his needs.

It’s all very fishy as SEND college at first said they felt they could meet DS’s needs so we visited, all was OK. As as soon as the council (who will have to fund it) got involved, college backtracked and said they couldn’t meet his needs.

They have given nonsensical reasons which I have mitigated numerous times. Both the college and council have told blatant lies and I’ve caught them out in two big ones!

Now we have reached Tribunal the college is suddenly full which was not an issue a few months ago so know they’re lying again as they would know numbers of students months in advance due to Tribunals and the time it take to get funding. Also most Tribunals due to take place over the summer were postponed for this age group.

AIBU to suspect the council has given the college a backhander to say they can’t meet his needs? It would cost council £750k for a 3 year program. They could have given a £100k ‘investment’ per se? Still saves a lot of money!

There is literally no other provision like this in the country. I have approached 21 other colleges, local and out of area. DS has had no proper provision for over a year and he is running out of time as age 20 - EHCP is to 25.

Do I sound nuts (I feel it)? Can this actually be possible?

I think we both know that the key to a tribunal lies in the definition of ‘appropriate’ and ‘reasonable’, and a good lawyer can argue anything.

Parents don't just fight for expensive provisions for their child on a whim ,they do so as they believe its the only place that can meet their childs needs ',stop trying to make parents of disabled childrren feel guilty for wanting the best for their child , I m guessing you don't have a disabled child ?

Urgh. Why is the first person to post always the nastiest?

What’s nasty about it?

Local governments have to draw up their budget according to needs. If they budget at £10 a head knowing that there are bound to be children in their areas needing a much higher level of provision, they can't complain when their budget doesn't work. The economics just don't work the way you suggest.

It's not a matter of parents automatically fighting for superior provision. No parent goes into a tribunal fight just because they fancy an expensive placement. What they are fighting for is what their child actually needs, very often after years of their child falling behind because of failure to recognise their needs or provide for them properly.

Parents do NOT win tribunals because they demonstrate that what they want is superior. They win because they prove that it is able to meet their child's needs whereas the local authority offering can't.

The vast majority of SEND tribunal cases are won by parents without lawyers, so your picture of parents who can afford lawyers somehow being more privileged is seriously misleading. LAs don't HAVE to fight any tribunal - time and again they fight even when it is blatantly obvious that their decision is wrong and unlawful. If they didn't waste money defending indefensible decisions and themselves hiring lawyers, their budgets would stretch further.

The disability discrimination being argued for on this thread is disgusting. Dress it up how you like but people are arguing for the removal of education for disabled children. Shame on the lot of you. You disgust me

Well then parents don’t win because the placement is superior. They win because the placement is appropriate and reasonably required. If the placement was just superior that would be beyond that definition no matter who was arguing it.

Again, a lawyer isn’t required.

I think you missed where I said I don’t blame parents?

It truly is the case that local authority provision is substandard and of course parents want their child’s needs to be met.

My point really is just for people to realise that this isn’t an issue within the LAs control.

Fight the tribunals if you have to, but do so knowing that the ‘enemy’ is not your local casework manager, but the government who have not funded services properly.

And if you win a tribunal, I beg you to vote for a government who would give all children who need it the provision you have fought for yours.

A lot of the children that end up in these very expensive placements are the ones who were denied support early on so things escalate. So a child that may have needed some 1-1 in early primary to do some specialist work on emotions, social skills for example. Ehcp assessment application refused, parent spends years fighting and going through tribunal system, by the time they get the support in place it’s no longer enough as things have escalated, child struggles on, things escalate to the point they are not going to school, become socially isolated, start self harming or attempting suicide.

@Lizthelettuce my LA insisted that my son stay in his current mainstream school. This is despite the school categorically stating they could not meet his needs. Despite him only ever being on a 50% timetable. Despite him spending those 3 hours a day he is in school in the sensory room or running around the playground. Despite never having sat at a desk to complete any work. Despite him last week managing to get a plank of wood and try to smash the classroom to bits. He is five.

They said that was an adequate,."good enough" education for him.

They have finally conceded that he needs a special school and are looking at schools that cater to autistic children. Except he isn't autistic. He has PTSD from years of abuse from my exhusband and from being adopted. They are still shirking their responsibilities to find him a school that can meet his needs. Despite a trauma experienced school offering him a place.

In relation to SEN, local authorities just need to obey the law. Sadly, they don't do that.

Its looking at inadequete and adequete normally and the LAs tend to be the ones with an in-house solicitor and a specialist barristers up against parents with a charity fact sheet, and they still lose 95% of the time.

Council backhanders can and do happen all the time, particularly where I live in the East Midlands. It's naive to think otherwise. I was even told by a retired employee who had worked in the planning department that my local council accepted backhanders from builders to demolish many medieval buildings and replace them with ugly concrete megaliths in the early 1970s. Don't find this hard to believe.

Cancer treatments are expensive should we be spending that for just one person ?

My point really is just for people to realise that this isn’t an issue within the LAs control.

Except much of it is within their control. They choose to act unlawfully, they choose to force parents to appeal knowing they lose the vast majority, they choose to spend large sums of money on representation defending indefensible cases against unrepresented parents.

Of course a 20 year old shoukd be aBle to go away to college for 3xyears, most kids do right? To uni etc

facility on-site that he is gifted in,

What is on offer locally to provide that?
After college and when in supported living how will he continue to access such facility?
Can private tuition provide that?

He could move into supported living now circa 2k a week 24 7 care
Plus local provision 36k
Plus specialised tuition in his talent maybe 100 per week

I’m sorry to hear your son has had such a terrible experience, your LA’s decision to send a child without autism to a school for autistic children sounds quite bizarre.

The law doesn't require councils to provide the "ideal" but it does require them to meet the needs of young people with EHCPs. They can't say "Yes, OP, you have found a college which is able to meet your child's needs but it's just not practical to use public resources on that, so instead we'll waste a smaller amount of public resources on something that won't come anywhere near meeting his needs". I find it astonishing that you blame this on people who voted in the Tories but think it's acceptable for councils to break the law by throwing young people with SEND to the wolves.

@Lizthelettuce at one point our LA lost 99% of Tribunals, just now they lose 98.6% so they are improving I suppose. There are currently 140 cases in the Tribunal process in our LA, a good percentage of them they will concede the week before the hearing considering the wait for Tribunal (currently 51 weeks in our area) a good saving on costs (ignoring that quite probably that means a child has no education) Those that they take to Tribunal they will often fund barristers for against unrepresented parents and they will still lose. So of those 140 cases they will be batting over averages if they win 4. Parents don't win because they are greedy and want more than they are entitled to they win because they have evidence to show that what is needed cannot be met by what the LA is offering.
@GoneBatty Your child is most likely entitled to Legal Aid in their own right. You can secure independent assessments as well as legal support without cost. The independent assessments will give you the evidence to determine what provision will meet you child's needs.

I'd like to think things have improved in terms of audit and scrutiny since the 1970s but that is absolutely not what the OP is saying @Caroffee
She thinks the council have given a backhander not received it. How would that be accounted for, or did someone pay it out of their pocket?

AIBU to suspect the council has given the college a backhander to say they can’t meet his needs?

And while parents campaign for political change instead of going to the tribunal, what should happen to their children?

If every tribunal costs the public purse, LAs have a very simple way of avoiding them - comply with the law, and don't fight appeals you can't possibly win.

100% agree. This thread is such a depressing read.

This is my no.1 peeve in life. It absolutely infuriates me! We KNOW early intervention is key, yet because of underfunding, the go to response is 'wait and see' or just so ridiculously long and drawn out that it makes things worse. If every child schools flagged recieved that vital early intervention, it would actually reduce costs long term because the longer its left, the needs increase and therfore costs increase!

Okay well I’ve told you why it is that they have to do that.
So what’s your theory?

Why do you think they are choosing to act unlawfully and choosing to spend vast amounts of money fighting tribunals they know they are going to lose?

This.