OMG at LGO and LA

[appropriatelyemployed]

You know when you think these people have hit a low beyond which they cannot fall?

It's never true is it?

I have been pursuing the LGO for info from DS's file. They relied on an exemption initially under s 31(4) of the DPA.

I challenged this and they have now released further info - redacted.

Most of it relates to my 'vexatious' determination last year and most of it we already have (and actually sent to the LGO) so why the hell where they refusing to disclose? Could it be they have not actually read the submissions we made?

Anyway, the delights within the documentation we hadn't seen where some astonishing allegations passed on second hand from redacted persons (presumably an Ed Officer to someone in their 'governance team') in support of a determination against me.

It is suggested that this person went to DS's old school for another unrelated matter and the WHOLE school and ALL the children were being affected by me and staff were planning to leave and staff could no longer do what they wanted in the classroom etc. This was turning a happy school into a sad school

It's really outrageous, distressing stuff.

This outstanding school with a teacher who is a national leader in education couldn't apparently deal with it themselves by talking to me or by telling me that they knew what to do so I should butt out.

They had to sit on their sadness and cry to the LA - make the bad lady go away.

What a croc of shite!

Oh and then mention of SLT doing the same is made.

Oh and of course, it is then suggested that they MIGHT WANT TO RAISE THIS AT TRIBUNAL!!!

What a bunch of low life scum and what are the LGO doing covering for them?

"And the DP thing I suspect is happening in most pathfinders. But then where are the criteria for success, for outcomes, for the parents and services to be 'researched'. What accountability?"

I agree and if this is the case how can the current government justify spending tax payers money to "test out" a process in times of austerity without agreeing this first? Why offer something only to allow LA's to hand pick the recipients by making things up as they go along?

I cannot believe that tax payers money is being used for such a flawed process and as for the jackanory pathfinder bids ......... unbelievable waste of public funds,in my view.

AE so sorry to hear of your experiences,hope you keep up trying to challenge the systemic failings.

I have approached my MP about the pilot scheme. Let's see what he says - he's a Tory.

These LAs are given money for this project and are just pocketing it.

I was just thinking - the email that I mentioned which was clearly an Ed Officer of some sort passing on info from school complaining about me in the most serious ways and asking questions about dealing with me and making me vexatious - wouldn't this form the basis of a separate LGO complaint?

There is no evidence this was discussed with me (because it wasn't), no evidence that those involved were advised to speak to me to try and resolve matters, not attempt to contact me to raise these issues.

Should LAs be permitted to write this sort of info on files about people and use it secretly against them? Especially the parent of a child with SEN in light of all the guidance in SEN COP etc?

Thanks. I have gone so far with this now I am determined to pursue it to the bitter end.

The Information Commissioner is a possibilty if the LA are recording incorrect and unnecessary data of a personal nature about you.

If it was an Ed Pysch or other 'professional' you could obviously complain to their professional body.

Have you thought of a straight formal complaint to the Chief Exec?

Thanks Wet. This dysfunctional county doesn't have a chief exec!

This is not too far removed from the sort of issues that Christopher Booker writes about in the Telegraph i.e. the demonisation of parents by LAs. In his articles it's usually connected to child protection cases but perhaps an email to him asking advice may be useful?

I think the problem is that, until I can clear in some way, the vexatious label, this will be used against me to undermine anything I say.

But I do think this kind of written gossip-mongering in and of itself could constitute poor administrative practice, particularly in view of the fact it was flagged up to be mentioned at Tribunal.

Surely, if a school was saying things like this to their LA and everyone felt it was serious, someone, somewhere, should have said...have you spoken to this mum about it?

Surely, this would be appropriate practice, effective working with parents, as per SEN COP etc.

No, on the LA's evidence, they went straight to pursuing a vexatious ban (using the fact that I had already been to the LGO) and advising the school about doing the same.

The LGO didn't even challenge all this nonsense. They didn't even look at the pile of emails and letters I sent to the council and say - where these ever answered.

They tried to cover up this information.

How can there be any argument about their abject bias?

appropriatelyemployed The problem is that if you ask average Joe bloggs on the street, they would never believe that this kind of shennanigans go on, unless it had actually happened to them.
The Government at all levels and not just this one have been getting away with flouting the rules to suit them for years and nobody has challenged them, which makes them feel even more immune. The problem is not so much with the government, they have always tried to get away with 'it', it is the British public's attitude " If it is not happening to me, I don't care" which lets the bureaucrats get away with it scott free or in the worst case scenario with a wrap on the knuckles.

Before we found out about DS's issues, I had no idea or awareness about ASD, special schools etc and I consider myself well educated and well read. Sad as it is, I would be very surprised that any of us would get any support outside the SN groups or communities for any of our issues.
If there is anything we could do to improve the awareness of the issues, then I am all up for it.

isn't this libel?

I expect so, but I also expect the 'systems' would be unable to cope with that claim and would collude.

AE I expect that the risk would be that if you went to the LGO they may seemingly listen to you, pat you on the back and then agree with the LA or you might be lucky and get an officer with insight, but what are the chances of that?

I really feel sad that you have experienced this and that others have too, I agree with dev9 and actually feel a bit jealous, in a way, of those that have no need to understand because they have not been exposed to the battles or the real impact that acts of maladministration on the part of local government has on families like yours and ours.

I really hope that you find a way to challenge this because it feels though it might be worth doing.

I think it would have to be 'published' and I am not sure an internal email would qualify but I will check.

I think a libel action may not be a go-er but it is the proper way of describing this for the purposes of the LGO.

Of course, school will lie, the LA will lie, but you have to ask - if it was so bad, why is there no evidence of anyone speaking to this person, writing to this person or asking this person to stop?

I am, as usual, waiting for my lawyer to get back to me about the submissions I wish to file and how she thinks we can add these in. She is helping pro bono but they've been with her for 4 weeks so it's a bit frustrating.

Well apparently published just means to someone other than the complainant and this would certainly fit all other criteria.

Thanks cornsilk - that is a useful angle to explore.

AE I do get how horrible this is to read, and I have felt similarly appalled by what has been written about me, which was clearly libel.
However in terms of what you will achieve by taking it further, probably very little. At best an apology / small payment for hurt feelings?

If its used against you (as stuff was against us at tribunal) you can use the argument (as we did) that no concerns were raised at the time, there were no meetings, no letters, no warnings to suggest we are obstructing DS education. At the end of the day you are not the client, your DS is and they have to show how they acted in his best interests. The tribunal just saw this as typical LA tactics and clearly did not believe the LA
They can't pick and choose which parents they deal with and which they don't. Parents come as part of the deal and they can't deny your DS provision just because they do not like dealing with you. Their legal duty is to him not you.

But unless and until it is used against you again i personally would not pursue it as you will have to go through the LA complaints process again as a new complaint and that will just bring more misery and upset.

What I now do when I get a document which is plainly wrong is to write back calmly with my version or a correction and ask for it to be placed on DS file next to the document I object to. I say I don't want to a response I just want my version placed on file and them to confirm they have done this. So far the LA has agreed to do that.
Its not perfect but at least there is a chance anyone reading DS file will also see my version, and they know I object.
The outrage does pass - the best revenge is to get them to pay for better provision for your DS. Every single month I bank the cheque from the LA for ABA I get a kick out of it.

Ultimately even our ABA team and new school I think were sceptical about how we felt had been treated, as in 'no smoke without fire', until they attended our annual review - then our ABA supervisor walked out and said to us 'now I get it, now I get why you don't trust them'. I don't think even they believed the tactics our LA would use.

They will show their true colours and hopefully next time you will have a school that doesn't support them.

But I have decided not to engage with this sort of bullying, I just put my view, keep the moral high ground and move on. Hopefully if and when we end up back at tribunal the Panel will see how reasonable we have been and how nasty the LA have been and that will speak for itself.

Agnes, this document is nearly a year old. I have lost my chance to 'put right' what it says as I did not know about it.

I haven't a clue why the LGO tried to hide it or why they have not bothered to action any of the complaints so far.

My anger is actually more with the LGO than the LA who are incompetent idiots.

The LGO is an oversight body and should do its job within the public law framework and stop making excuses for LAs when they break the law.

The LGO guidance that 'compliance with the law is a basic necessity' is one they ignore themselves.

I will not drop this - for everyone this happens to who cannot fight it.

If not me, who? If not now, when?

They only have to disclose information which they have relied on in their decision, if they ignored this (e.g. because it was garbage and irrelevant) then perhaps it was held back not for a sinister motive but because they didn't see any point in upsetting you / aggravating things further?

No Agnes, I am afraid you are quite wrong. This is not about disclosing info they were relying on.

I made a DPA request for the file. The LGO relied on a blanked exemption under s 31 (4) for certain items. No explanation as to why they were withheld.

I challenged this successfully and some of what was disclosed was already in my possession and had been sent to them by my solicitor - how on earth were they claiming a DPA exemption for that?

This, however, was also with the information.

The LGO dismissed my vexatious appeal in a paragraph despite 24 pages of detailed legal submission from a leading lawyer.

Their view? Councils can call who they want vexatious and it only meant you had to correspond with one person. It's reviewed in 6 months. What's the problem?

No reference to our submissions.

No understanding that making someone vexatious brands them AND takes away their legal rights. It means the LA can decide what it discloses, what questions it answers etc etc

No consideration of the policy and practice.

No consideration of the evidence.

And this was signed off by an Ass Ombudsman.

Sorry, this stinks.

It really does stink and I admire you for making a stand.

Thanks. I am just tired of their constant bullying. You can't ignore it and move on because it is always there. Every time you have to deal with them.

And why? Because there is no effective oversight or accountability. None.

Aaargh, spent all day now doing my own 'personal statement' to go with the legal submissions.

It is 30 pages long!

It's interesting going through this additional disclosure. At the same time the school and LA are rushing around trying to make me vexatious, DS is off with chronic fatigue because of his Hypermobility and I'm being advised he needs hospital treatment.

I've got emails from the head offering support on the same day she's apparently telling the LA staff can't cope with me any more.

Little lying shits.

I bet your head is exploding with all that!

Kind of therapeutic though too - to get it all down on paper.

Yes. I suppose it tells the story of your journey and presents a clear picture despite the tangents and fluff that has been thrown at you in an attempt to confuse and disguise.

One day I'll have to do my own personal statement and back it up with all my evidence too, regardless of whether I actually present it anywhere.