LGO deliberately obtuse on purpose

[insanityscratching]

Have had an initial response from LGO obviously trying to shelve my complaint by pointing me towards Tribunal but the fact remains I don't want them to investigate the statements I want them to investigate the LEA's actions FFS.
My first query would be why would LGO insist LEA had until mid April to issue amended phase transfer statement when COP states mid February?
Secondly why would they then not be interested from June when LEA wrote to say they didn't intend to amend the statement when it was a phase transfer statement so had to be amended and also the provision named was a ks3 placement and so couldn't be named anyway?
Thirdly they state that ds could have attended the school that was named on the first amended statement which was issued 4th August but wasn't disclosed to the school (that had already said they couldn't meet his needs) until after the start of the new school year and had neither recruited staff nor had a curriculum for ds.
No doubt the LGO want to shelve my complaint but surely they have to operate and investigate according to statutory procedure not just what the LEA have told them.

Hi Insanity

Some things in the COP are just guidance ot best practice - they are not enshrined in law. I think you'll find the 14th Feb thing is one of these.

You just need to respond to the LGO telling them to focus on the fact that the LA named a school it was impossible for him to attend plus messed you around before giving in which is maladministration that caused you unnecessary distress.

If LGO says it plans to close the case then ask for a review by another LGO officer.

I found I had to keep my arguments very plain and simple for the LGO.

But don't give up.

Best wishes

I wasn't hopeful of anything being resolved by the LGO anyway after reading on the website about York Office in particular.

What really annoys me is that because it centres on ds's statement they insist I can address my complaint at Tribunal but my complaint is nothing to do with the content of the statements which will be addressed at Tribunal it's about the LEA's conduct in getting the statement.

It feels like they latch onto the keyword statement and they then only see Tribunal.

I'm going to strip my complaint back so that they can see the picture fact remains in June despite the fact the phase transfer statement should have been amended in February LEA wrote saying they didn't intend to amend the statement knowing that it had to be amended because it named a KS3 provision.

In August contrary to what they said in June, following solicitor's involvement,they issued a proposed amended statement naming a school that had already indicated they couldn't meet his needs.

LEA didn't inform the school named on the statement until HT chased them up in September (although they wrote that the school had recruited and had a curriculum in place) by which time ds should have been in school but couldn't because the school hadn't recruited for staff to cover the thirty hours on his statement.

On 20th September the day prior to a meeting at the school on the amended statement to discuss what provision, curriculum and support ds would need in order to attend and coincidentally following the instruction of a Barrister to take the case to Judicial Review the LEA decided instead to name the school of my choice that had assessed ds and had told the LEA could meet his needs back in May.

It's pretty glaringly obvious that my complaint cannot be addressed by Tribunal although we are going to appeal parts two and three, my complaint is strictly about how the LEA has behaved with regards to securing a provision for ds's post 16 education.

I'm fortunate in so far as I have documents to prove the facts are in no way the circumstances that the LEA have given the LGO. For instance they assert that we had a final statement to appeal in June when in fact we had a letter saying that they didn't intend to amend the statement which is entirely different and the first final amended statement was issued 27th September.

LEA insist that ds could have attended the school named on the proposed amended statement dated 4th August however they didn't send it to the school named until 6th September and so there was no support in place for him to attend and the school weren't able to recruit until they had a final statement that never happened anyway.

The LGO accept the LEA's version of events as fact even though they have provided no evidence to support the case and seem happy to believe them that is what annoys me the most. LEA are urging LGO to drop the investigation now they have given me what I want but my complaint is asking the LGO to consider how I eventually got what I asked for months previously.

I will not drop the complaint, I have grounds to complain and I want them investigated whether I now have what I wanted and an option to go to Tribunal is neither here nor there.

In August contrary to what they said in June, following solicitor's involvement,they issued a proposed amended statement naming a school that had already indicated they couldn't meet his needs.

That's the key complaint -everything else id either best practice or reasonable. For instance it's reasonable for the LA to wait until school reponed after the summer holidays (6th Sep) before consulting - delays over the holiday periods are acceptable.

Just focus on the key issues - essentially naming a school he was unable to attend. Everything else just muddies the waters.

Best wishes