Application for Tribunal costs dismissed

[sugarcandymonster]

Heard from SEND today that they would not award costs as 'the LA did not behave unreasonably' in relying on their own evidence (from an EP who saw him over a year ago) and completely ignoring my reports. Despite the LA responding with a flimsy case statement, refusing to negotiate on any changes in Pts 2&3 (which were mostly agreed at the hearing because they couldn't defend it on the day), and naming a placement which was agreed to be wholly inappropriate by anyone who had actually met and worked with DS. Everyone expected them to pull out before the hearing.

Oh well, my solicitor did warn me that the Tribunal dislike awarding costs against a public body and I always knew that the threshold for their idea of 'unreasonable' is way above any normal person's. They don't even pay the full amount in most cases anyway. And we got our placement, so this is just a minor grumble in the scheme of things.

Thought I'd post this mainly cos many people don't realise the Tribunal does have the power to award costs, but also to say that it would have to be an appalling case for them to be awarded. Think our LA just about got away with it because they ticked all the boxes, returned forms by deadlines (mostly) etc.

I guess it is bad timing with cuts and saving public money?

I'm off soon and hope with 4K a year I will save LEA with what I want for ds...hope they will snap my hand off

But then they always say it's not about money..then why do we have to prove it's cost effective also

I have been warned SENDIST will only look at costs for last minute changes eg if offer you something a the door which would make tribunal unnecessary and then would only award the wasted costs ie of everyone traveling there for the day. ie they don't seem to be prepared to go back over the months before - just the last week

You could try LGO on basis your DS should have had suitable placement months ago - you would need to show that what LA did was unreasonable and that they breached rules eg COP etc or failed to give reasons for decision etc. LGO can look at admin processes but could decide as you won that LA may have been unreasonable in not offering proper provision sooner. However equally they could say that LA were entitled to take that view and pursue it even if lost - so you would need to FOI LA and see if any audit trail / rationale for decisions - usually there isn't anything on file as LAs don't like to write it down. So if the file doesn't have a note which analyses your evidence and gives a reason for disagreeing the LGO might find that was maladministration. However if they feel SEND have looked at issue already they might say they cannot intervene. But as I say I have been told SEND are very reluctant to look at anything other than costs at last minute.

Thanks Agnes. I've looked briefly at the LGO website and I think we could have an argument, but it's quite a weak 'could' (based on the written evidence - as you say, the paper trail is thin) and it's quite a lot of fighting for such a slim possibility.

I'm still paying back the money I've borrowed to fight this but I can't say it wasn't worth it. It's the last stage in the whole statementing/tribunal issue and part of me is relieved to put it to one side for now.

One thing that does worry me is that the decision mentions the total cost of KS3 provision and says that the LA had a duty to consider it carefully as it's so high. But the school is a KS3/4 placement and now I'm concerned that the LA will use this as a lever to move him after KS3. I don't want to go through this again in a few years!

Good luck with your appeal want2sleep. Sounds like you've got a good deal for the LA there.

Hi all, can I just ask what the LGO and COP is TIA x

i've never heard of Tribunal costs being awarded. It is something people without our experiences don't seem to understand. Everyone assumes that, if you win, you get your money back but you don't. A friend of mine had to fundraise £30,000 to pay for Tribunal and she won but good money down the drain, should never have happened (it was transition from primary to secondary, she wanted her DS to stay where he was, LA wanted to move him).

Hi devientenigma We probably need our own acronyms page just for this section.

LGO = local government ombudsman
COP = SEN Code of Practice (aka a SN Mum's Bible)

I've been reading up on some other types of cases where costs were awarded. E.g. in a case where SA was refused but the LA didn't explain their decision and didn't even send a rep to the hearing, or when the LA agreed to some amendments and then denied it so there had to be a second hearing. But even in those cases, the costs awarded were several hundred, far less than the actual amount spent.

"she wanted her DS to stay where he was, LA wanted to move him"

Davros, that is something that worries me, that the LA will review his place at 14 and/or 16. I'm still paying back the money I've borrowed and worrying that there'll be another tribunal in a few years to maintain his place. By then I might have managed to repay it and saved enough to take on a new fight!

Its a disgrace that costs aren't awarded, even when you win! I don't know if there is any other "legal" area where this is the case, it stinks.

If you go to LGO quote anything relevant from Lamb Report as he really pushed LGO role. He also recommended we all get legal aid to go to tribunal - the govt could at a stroke say all children will get legal aid in their own name for tribunal and that would massively level the playing field - it would also open up the possibility of awarding costs in that parents would be protected. The reluctance of tribunals to award costs is probably because to be fair they would have to do it both ways - so i guess they don't want to open up the possibility of costs against parents as that would put parents off

Good point Agnes.

Good luck Star. I'm glad you're still fighting. I get your point about making yourself known to the LA as well. DS is 11 so has fewer years than yours in the system, but I know we're not home and dry.