FGS the LGO is staffed by morons

[insanityscratching]

I swear the case officer dealing with my complaint must have the brain of an amoeba.
She cannot grasp the simplest concept. She doesn't seem to be able to open attachments because if she did she would see that the attachments prove that the LEA did not fulfil their duty.
Everything she writes I swear is copied and pasted because it bears no relation to what actually happened.
Have asked for the bloody lot to be reviewed by her senior now she has decided there is no case to answer. Aaaaaargh

Agree with you.

Do you think they don't know the law or they are hopeing w don't know it?

She just doesn't get it
She writes "in June Council named mainstream sixth form giving you the chance to appeal". She disregards letter from LEA stating they won't amend the statement, she disregards school response stating they can't meet his needs etc, she disregards that the statement now names an 11 to 16 provision for post 16, she disregards that it should have been amended by February, she disregards that I got a Final Statement on 27th September and states there was no unreasonable delay!!!!! TWAT

I feel for you insanity because it is an absolute f*ing disgrace when our kids have been unjustifiably let down by those with a LEGAL responsibility to support them, to find that those to oversee and monitor these people don't give a toss and are only after filling in the holes for them.

I think the only hope you can take from it is that, behind the scenes, arses may be kicked over mistakes like this and that the LA may realise you mean business.

However, I think it is more likely that they will use the judgment to ignore complaining parents.

Are you going to ask them to review?

Insanity, I hope you wrote in an email all that you wrote here in your last post (with the exception of TWAT - although I think that is a fairly obvious unwritten word).

Is there anyone you can inform too? LGO watchdog, IPSEA?

LA's will and do these things time and time again because there seems to be absolutely NO accountability or penalty.

Brian Lamb seemed to imply as much but his report and findings got buried by the government instigating the 2010 Ofsted review which conveniently fails to agree with anything Brian Lamb suggested but points to evidence to support the Green Paper stuff.

You know what though ? Perhaps the first fielding is from someone on a graduate training scheme that isn't expected to know the law or anything, just charged with fending off as many complaints as possible.

You do know that the LGO also get a load of completely ridiculous complaints too from parents that aren't anywhere as articulate as you who either have nothing really to complain about, or do, but just can't explain it well or unemotive enough for it to be taken seriously.

Perhaps the next level up will take you more seriously. However, if you can bear it, when you're through, consider a complaint against the LGO

I think we need to pull these type of stories together and maybe approach some organisation like IPSEA if we don't manage to get anything off the grounds ourselves. They can be input into some sort of lobbying where appropriate.

The LGO are the watchmen so who watches the watchmen? No one. It's outrageous.

I have asked for a review but don't feel in the least bit hopeful I will achieve anything unless someone with half a brain looks at the facts and the evidence.
I think arses will have been kicked already tbh. The LIO's email was decidedly frosty, the case officer has been replaced although I've now got the one with the reputation of being a bastard.
I've put a complaint into ICO as well as they have missed FOI request deadline (to know how many phase transfer statements missed the February deadline), three times now(currently on day 64 (13 weeks!)
I will make sure I get somewhere somehow

I think part of the problem is the means of communication you are using - i.e. email.

I never emailed the LGO - I always wrote them a very formal letter. Call me old-fashioned but email, in my book, is still a casual form of communication and I think by communicating in this way the LGO are treating it too casually.

You could write a letter formally requesting a revision by another LGO officer and threatening to refer the matter to your MP if the LGO fails to agree to your request. MPs can initiate juduicial reviews - at least ours told me he could.

Anyway, you might find that approach is sufficiently intimidating to get them to take this seriously.

Right WA I'll put it on paper the whole lot from the beginning, I'll print all the attachments, I'll get back on to the MP to press them to review the decision (I've missed her call today) and hopefully they will consider it seriously. She only works Monday and Wednesday so I can get it there before she reads her emails anyway.

They were quite ken to get me to agree to close my case - but I persisted, asked for a revision and pointed out in simple sentences where I felt they had overlooked my evidence.

TBH - I would on;y waste so much time on these tossers. I'd be inclined to pursue the legal remedy route by asking a solicitor if DS has a personal injury case for negligence throughout his time at school and exacerbated by LA's refusal to name a suitable placement.

WA I don't know how much more simple I can make it tbh.

I have pared it back to the bare bones I've cross referenced to the evidence and even quoted what is relevant from the evidence. I have done the investigating for them at the end of the day and still I get a response that is no doubt a copy and paste from their guidelines as to what the LEA's statutory duty is whilst disregarding the evidence that proves they haven't done that.

My only worry about the legal remedy is that I would feel bad dragging the school into it because they really did go above and beyond for ds and were brilliant in providing evidence against the LEA. Even now the head of the unit phones for updates on ds and the TA's email me for news on how the transition is going and keep in touch with ds encouraging him and nurturing him.

They were and continue to be great it wasn't for a lack of trying on their part it was just that ds could no longer cope.

Maybe we have the same investigator

She doesn't seem to understand either the law, the SEN Code of Practice or what I send her. And I have sent her a lot, all of which she claims to have read .

I made a complaint almost a year ago about nearly 8 years now of wrangling with LA over my son's Statement.

First, refusal to assess, despite loads of evidence - wrote to MP & appealed to SENDIST = LA backed down.

Then, refusal to allocate full-time support, despite loads of evidence - wrote to MP and appealed to SENDIST = LA backed down.

Then, random reduction in hours (cut 12 hours per week), despite no evidence recommending it - wrote to MP and appealed to SENDIST = LA backed down.

Each time they backed down, there was no extra evidence to prompt this. Stage 1 complaints achieved sod all; went to LGO.

LGO claimed that SENDIST is an appropriate way of solving disputes and that LAs have got a duty to manage their finances. Wanted to shelve case. I wrote back disputing her findings and the final decision grudgingly assigns fault to LA in one specific area but repeats her claims that decision-making is generally all fine and dandy and that LAs have to manage their finances and therefore should challenge children's Statements if they have a high level of support .

Has taken the fingers-in-the-ears approach to any suggestion that provision should be made based on needs and reviewed through Annual Review procedure ie. based on actual evidence rather than panel making random decisions; has also ignored the fact that LGO did find maladministration causing injustice in similar case in same LA 3 years ago. Just keeps repeating that their procedures are fair.

I am going to complain but don't hold out much hope of her colleague over-turning her decision.

They're bollocks!

Interested that MP can start judicial review - mine is fantastic and really supportive so might look into that.

It is hard not to lose hope when you realise that they truly are all in this together - shafting kids and parents - and we're left to pick up the pieces.

Good luck with your fight.

Star - wish you were right but before you even get to complain, you have to talk to someone who decide whether to refer your case. THEN the investigator will decide whether to investigate before 'investigating' and finding ways to let your LA off.

From adrnow:

The outcomes for complaints to the LGO in 2009-10 were:

In 46% of the cases not enough evidence of maladministration was found, and the LGO did not produce a report
In a further 26% of complaints, the LGO decided not to pursue the complaint for other reasons, such as there was insufficient alleged injustice, or the complainant decided to pursue the matter through the courts
Around 27% of complaints were resolved through a ?local settlement?, where LGO staff negotiate an agreement between the complainant and the local authority (this is up from last year)
In fewer than 1% of cases (69 in total) the LGO published a report with a finding of maladministration causing injustice

In 1,135 cases the complainant questioned the LGO decision. This is over 10% of the complaints taken on by the LGO over the year 2009-10. These customer complaints are reviewed by a senior member of staff not involved with the original complaint. In most of these complaints the original decision was confirmed, but in 30 cases a fuller or better explanation was needed. In 27 cases the investigation was re-launched because more information became available, and in 20 cases because of procedural error. Of complaints about service failure by the LGO, 18 were upheld.

I am coming to WA's view on whether to waste any more time with any of them or whether to get on with helping ds. Also dp reminded me that I do have other children.

LGOequals we may well have as her findings are pretty much word for word what you wrote in your post.
I'll keep pushing for a while yet ds is going to be just fine where he is and that has freed up lots of time. Dd is settled and the appeal against parts two and three is months off as we'll use the evidence from the school he is at to beef up his statement. I somehow think LEA won't dispute parts two and three anyway.
I won't let the complaint consume me. I've got the school I want, the LEA lost the main battle if I have to concede on the periphery spat then I will it's not that important.
After all they are going to have to answer to the ICO next so a little extra annoyance to keep them busy

York office, by any chance?

Yes initials CT surname male dressmaker?

No - OK, so maybe it's just in their standard training to ignore our evidence and the law and to find excuses for everything.

I've realise tonight that the 'got to protect their resources' argument made by LGO investigator is the direct opposite to what LA's argument has always been; they've always lied insisted that it's about need, not cost 'but everyone has their own interpretation of need' , so the LGO woman is making an argument for them that even they don't agree with!

Very very fucked up.

They can't legally protect their resources by not meeting a child's need though.

Do the KNOW the law?

But which bit of the law actually says that they have to accept recommendations about what that need is and how it's met - none. That's the problem! There's lots of law about being reasonable but nowhere does it actually say 'you must act on evidence when making decisions about provision in a child's Statement rather than making it up'.

I actually hate them. The LA and LGO, for making me feel like I'm in the wrong when (clearly clearly clearly) it's them.

I hate the LA and the LGO with a vengeance - even after the LGO found in my favour and the LA was forced to apologise to me.

The whole complaints process has left me deeply disillushioned with all public bodies. I now see them for what they really are - cynical, deceitful and thoroughly discredited institutions.

Which is sad really as I have always been a firm believer in 'fair play' and transparency - which are qualtities that are totally unknown to these self-serving organisations. I'm bound in my work by the Civil Service Code which proscribes these types of behaviours. Personally, I couldn't be party to the obfuscation that prevails in these public bodies. I'd would resign if I was told to spend my working day covering up for my organistaion's incompetence and illegal practices, denying people their rights and lying to Tribunals.

They exist purely to conceal the failure of others and deflect scrutiny, while offering the false hope of a fair consideration.

When you've had years of battling against them it leaves you totally devoid of trust. It makes you realise there is no 'safety net' , that no one actually acts in your best interests and that trying to force them to play by the rules of human decency is futile.

I never want to be in a situation again where I have to rely on them for any services.

I agree Wet. Too frequently, the LGO will try and make up any excuse it can get its hands on to justify what is a breach of the law by not providing statementing provision or failing in other statutory obligations.

I even got the argument - yes but the delay in provision was not unreasonable.

Er, unreasonable, it is UNLAWFUL [hhmm]. How can you be reasonably unlawful? Ridiculous beyond measure.

I have challenged it but I know they are going to come back at the end of their 'further' investigations (i.e. investigations they should have done in the first place) with another pile of crappy justifications. Why? What is the agenda? There must be one as they clearly don't take their oversight responsibilities seriously at all.

As you say Wet, I couldn't do that. Even if the staff are under-skilled or lacking in training, once the law is pointed out to them, they should be making effort to comply with it. The extent to which they will bend over backwards for LAs is incredible.

I have another complaint in with them at the moment about services the LA stopped supplying to my profoundly disabled brother. It has taken 7 months to get even a response which I am now told has been sent to the LA first for comment.

The maladministration in this case includes sending a LA officer to my brother's flat unannounced early one morning to question him about his need for services (which they had already cut by then!). My brother has cerebral palsy and is learning disabled. He is in supported accommodation and has a special work placement. He was really distressed afterwards and rang me immediately about it.

I wrote to them to complain to the LA as they didn't even ask me to attend the meeting (but told my brother I knew all about it [hangry]. They made up some crappy justification after 2 investigations and 4 months.

My brother wrote too. More justifications. No apology.

I have complained to the LGO. God knows why it has taken 7 months but I am expecting more justifications about this being appropriate behaviour with a vulnerable adult.

Disgraceful.

That's terrible Insanity..

One word for all this window-dressing