LGO phone call

[insanityscatching]

Had a call from LGO investigator today informing me they won't investigate until after Tribunal when it has been ascertained whether or not the LEA have caused harm through their inaction.

She advised that I contact a solicitor to take them to Tribunal.
I explained that to get to Tribunal I need a final statement which the LEA won't issue because they state the proposed amended statement means they have fulfilled their duty in spite of solicitor asking for it three times already.

She said she could contact the LEA about that if I liked so who knows maybe the LEA will issue a final statement now if they take any more notice of the LGO than they do solicitor.

Followed up her call with this email
Further to our phone call this morning where I was informed that after
Tribunal when it could be ascertained that the LEA's actions had caused
harm you would be prepared to look at my case I'd like to draw your
attention to the following
www.douglassilassolicitors.co.uk/LatestNews/May2009.html

In my case * LEA's maladministration is the failure to issue
an amended phase transfer statement by the February deadline and indeed
by the start of the new school year and therefore makes it firmly
within your remit to investigate now.

My complaint isn't asking the LGO to investigate the content of the
statement as that will be dealt with at Tribunal once the LEA see fit
to issue a Final statement to submit to appeal.

Now we have clarified the reason for my complaint I look forward to
hearing that you will indeed be investigating LEA's actions
in failing to meet the February deadline immediately.
Kind regards,
Insanity

Solicitor is great especially now I get the impression that the gloves are off .

That's what I think LEA's solicitor's are questioning Star whether or not ds should get Legal Aid in his own right. I have sent details of his DLA and his Trust Fund (not anywhere as grand as it sounds I assure you) and filled in the forms for him.

Solicitor said ds would get it and I had no reason to think otherwise but LEA's solicitor believes otherwise although why I have no idea as we aren't rich by any means and ds isn't a high earner on the sly

Well perhaps you're missing the key point.

Your ds can only get Legal Aid IF the opinion is that he would win.

Tell them it is none of their bloody business who is paying (unless your solicitor advises you of a different tactic).

Oh right so that's what solicitor means when she says it needs to go to counsel. That would be my only criticism if any she assumes I know more than I do and she doesn't update me unless she has something that I need to clarify.

Oh so they want to know if he gets Legal Aid because if he does it would suggest he would win and so the LEA would then get their arse in gear to avoid it.
I'm dead slow tonight sorry

I have no idea, but that 'could' be a point!?

I don't know what going to counsel is either

We need AT

Counsel means a barrister

You should get legal aid for child for a JR. Legal aid for SEN cases (eg statutory assessment) are in name of parent not child (which is crap as in any other area of law if its for the benefit of the child its in the child's name - complete stitch up). JR is different. It is in name of child. Look on Council for Disabled Children website - that barrister Steve Broach has done some free guides and explains about JR.

For legal aid is means test (which child would usually meet unless an heiress) and a merits test eg that reasonable prospects of success. May need a barrister to advise the LSC that reasonable prospects. But an opponent shouldn't be nosing into this, thats between you and LSC.

If you are on legal aid they will have to pay their costs win or lose so it can be a factor in deciding whether to contest it.

They may just be rattling your cage. Its for the LSC to determine if your child is eligible. You can look up the rules on the LSC website if you want.

I doubt many LA lawyers know much about legal aid given they never have to rely on it!

DS was granted legal aid to enable him to bring a personal injury case against the LA. The solicitor filled in the forms for LSC funding application on which solicitor had to give his opinion of prospect of success. He put 'Good' and funding was granted.

He was also granted a 'top-up' when initial funding was exhausted.

Isn't JR a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a walnut?

If they have failed to issue a Final Statement can you still go to SENDIST claiming that they have failed to make provision i.e. by failing to issue a Final Statement. (I know you are supposed to have a final statement before SENDIST).

You're in the same quandry as I found I was regarding post 16 except DS did have a Final Statement - only problem was that the post 16 educational placement did not cater for students who were over 16!

It's part of the LA's delaying tactics. They will try to claim that they have no statutory responsibility post-16 and that his needs would be best met in an FE College.

In our case it was all resolved prior to Tribunal when I secured him (at the 11th hour just 2 weeks before the start of term) a post-16 residential placement at a specialist FE college funded by the LSC.

Once he had that FE placement I withdrew the SENDIST appeal - however solicitor was keen for DS not to accept the FE placement and to carry on with the SENDIST appeal in order to get an LA funded special school (not FE) placement. I wasn't prepared to take that chance, especially as the appeal would not be heard until the November (after autumn tern had started).

Connexions told me that had we proceeded with the Tribunal it would have decided whether DS should take the FE offer or whether LA had to fund a specialist school. As FE offer was now on the table in all probability SENDIST would have said he should take it.

Som it appears that your LA is doing to you what mine did to me -stalling until the fact that your child has no suitable educational provison in place post 16 forces you to look for non-LA funded alternatives.

I'm sorry you find yourself in this position - I remember how gut-churning that time wasfor us.

Best wishes

I wwww.psow.co.uk/articles/local_settlements.html

ould have thought that SENDIST would hear your case without a Final Statement as these are some of the situations their website says they can deal with:

As of 1st September 2010 there is a new right of appeal; You can also apply if the Local Authority decides not to amend the statement following an annual review;

Doesn't that apply - as they must have had to carry out an AR?

Can't you go to SENDIST with the Final Statement you already have and claim they have failed to make post-16 provision - without having to wait for them to finalise their proposed changes to the 'old/existing' final statement?

I didn't rely on my solicitor - I was conducting my own parallel campaign by writing to Director of Eduaction and also to Chief Executive of the LA.

The legal people here might know - but when school refused to provide a copy of DS's school file that I had applied for under one of the Education Regulations (pre DPA etc) the solicitor said I could apply to the local Court to make an order to get the file released to me. Can't your solicitor do the same to get them to issue a Final Statement.

Or can't you claim that in failing to provide any post-16 education that they have constructively ceased the Statement - and cessation of a Statement is grounds for SENDIST.

Or am I clutching at straws?

Sorry for post hogging

But the more I think about this.....

You do have a Final Statement. It names a school he cannot attend. Having that 'old' Final Statement allows you to appeal to SENDIST.

That's probably why the LA is saying you don't need their Proposed Amended Statement to be finalised before you can appeal - and they are correct.

So lodge your appeal and keep talking in the background to the LA.

Is your solicitor up to speed on eduaction law - many are not. There were only 2 education law specialist solicitors in the largetown I live in. And post-16 is a very complicated area - even IPSEA told me they didn't didn't know the answers.

So now we have written proof that the LEA have lied does the LGO need to see it?

We have it in writing that the LEA say the school have had the proposed statement since it was issued early August and have support in place for ds for ds to be in school from today.

I have it in writing that the Headteacher chased the LEA for the statement on Monday and got it yesterday and as a result ds can't attend school as the school haven't yet begun the recruitment process for support for ds as the LEA haven't followed the recognised procedure and according to my other ds (who works for LEA ) the LEA could have advertised for support staff themselves because the school was closed.

Obviously the solicitor has it for the petition for JR and Tribunal eventually but does the LGO need it?

Well the email seems to have done the trick the investigation is underway Don't expect anything from it but if the LEA feel under scrutiny and they have more paperwork to fill in well it's just that little bit satisfying