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?

I put all the legal stuff in one submission and saved the rest of it for a personal statement where I could properly let rip on the she said, I said stuff.

AE - another one here who admires your tenacity but you're trying to take on school, the LA and the LGO singlehandedly, as well as caring for your DS.

The LGO stinks - that's indisputable.

But I honestly don't see how one complainant is going to change them.

Can't you put this to one side or 'do a Star?'.

I just fear you're going to get to breaking point with this.

Hi Wet thanks. I know what you mean but at least I am no longer at this school which means DS is happier and I am not fighting daily battles.

Submissions are all done now really. Well need to get blardy solicitor to sign off on them and circulate to interested parties.

Then it goes off. I can do no more after this. But at least I will know that I have done everything I can.

I am just frustrated by the solicitor - again.She had these submissions a month ago and I've chased her several times. I don't understand why, if she's busy, she doesn't say I can do it by x,y or z.

This has been the trouble with her all along but I need her help this time.

Glad you've compiled your case but annoying that the legal assistance is dragging its feet.

I spent 8 years in total complaining, dealing with LA / LGO and pursuing the legal remedy. That's 8 years I'll never get back

I'd put a time limit on this or at least set a realistic objective and cease if it's achieved.

But I really do admire your tenacity.

I can't say I won't be doing the same as AE when DS is settled.

It's therapy isn't it, and a chance to put to use you experience if only as a little chip at the system. Chips do add up. The titanic was supposed to unsinkable but it's sinking and disasterous consequences were primarily because of the arrogance and greed of those in charge which was ultimately challenged.

Thanks guys. You keep me going and if anything this disclosure confirms to me the whole dirty business for real. Without it the LA might be able to say they acted properly, with it, it looks like malfeasance in a public office.

A direct attempt to tarnish me. If there was a good and legitimate reason for it, school, LA or someone would have spoken to me.

They even say 'we've run out of strategies'. What strategies? They didn't speak to me, write to me, nothing.

To think that the LGO had this, tried to withhold it and has released it under pressure (while covering up the LA officers' names) is a complete disgrace. They are biased and should be ashamed of their evident partiality.They are complicit as their first judgment was used to get this ban.

I will get these bastards - I don't care about compensation. This nonsense has to stop. How can I continue to deal with them?

I advise anyone to only deal with LAs in writing and to get very firm consents in place for all providers, limiting your consent to information sharing so that reports have to be disclosed to you first and meetings cannot be conducted behind your back.

There is a duty of confidentiality on these people and constraints under the DPA - use that protection.

I will do a separate post on it I think.

I wonder how a post like that would be received on the main board?

I wouldn't venture out into the outside world!! Just this board. There is no way that people outside that system understand the nastiness of these bureaucrats.

No, I know. I have a thread running where I have been accused of trolling because I have posted factually about a complex difficulty I faced that has been 'caused' by the system.

Thankfully there are a handful from this board that have posted on it.

But you wouldn't believe it unless it happened to you would you?

This is why it is then so hard to get 'justice' as it is too easy for anyone you turn to to think you are bonkers.

The LGO must see this all the time so they know quite well what goes on. They just don't have the balls to do anything about it so hide behind their 'limited powers'.

If you look at their guidelines on evidence gathering and what they consider to be good administrative practice, their general investigations don't even come close to the standards they set for themselves.

I mean to add for anyone looking for the rules the LGO is supposed to follow - there is an interesting post on what do they know which contains internal guidance.

You can see how far removed practice is from policy!

Ooooooh!

For example, under investigations:

21. If you make written enquiries you must require the body in jurisdiction to provide evidence to support any assertions it makes. It is never acceptable to treat a statement by a body in jurisdiction as a fact unless you hold evidence that shows it to be true. Such evidence should be copied to the citizen unless doing so would reveal confidential information about a third party1.

22. If you consider that a statement by a body in jurisdiction is credible but no corroborating evidence exists, you must explain your reasons. If such a statement conflicts with the citizen?s account you must reach a ?balance of probabilities? decision on which is true and explain your reasons.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

I don't think taking 8 months to write 2 letters (one to the LA and one to school) to say, sorry to bother you but 'do you think you did anything wrong?' quite lives up to this, do you?

Oh and then to make a determination which says basicially, well, we all know they broke the law, but delay is inevitable isn't it, and appointments often take a while to arrange.

Er, based on what evidence in this case?

For me, the obvious evidence bias apart from sitting on the disclosure was the comment on our decision to take the children out of this toxic school. It basically said we removed them after DS was screaming when he was alone with us in the playground. What?? Not even liar arse school say that.

We didn't say in detail as why go through all the dirt so do please ask school to comment, and not us and then do please ramp up what you think school are saying to make us look like loons.

I do not know what the problem is in failing to provide cases. The law is very clear:

1. The duty to arrange provision from the issue of the statement is set out in SEN COP (although the LGO neatly rephrased this to a duty to start to arrange provision )

1. It is supported by caselaw - North Tyneside et al

1. It is non-delegable and owed to the child - confirmed by caselaw so that even if the school is failing, the LA has a duty to step in

1. It does not depend on any 'reporting duty' by parents, particularly when it relates to external provision e.g. S<, OT where the LA should know it's not in place

1. This is not 'unfair' on the LA. The law deems the statutory assessment period as sufficient time for the LA to get its act together and start to get the provision ready. There may be delay if the provision is particularly tricky or specialist but there should be no reason for delay in the case of something like bogstandard S< from a S< working on a service level agreement. The LA should have a system

I am not surprised by all of this. I am so sorry Op. But not surprised. The lying and cover ups of Claw(3 now 4) was sickening, but also not surprising.
I had 2 grievances upheld at work, over bullying and terrible things said and done. Got a payoff in the end. Great, how does that really change anything?But you never get an apology, do you? And it changes NOTHING. Really it changes NOTHING. The 'machine' continues, as it did before, regardless. That's what's so demoralising.

I agree, not surprising on reflection, but, I still stupidly think that someone somewhere has a bottom line and does their job properly.

I was talking to lawyer this morning who said he was now telling clients not to even bother with the LGO as they are worse than useless, they actually validate poor practice, effectively making things even worse.

I totally believe that is what has happened here.

Maybe I should apply to do a bit of Tribunal panel work?

AE, you might not be accepted.

My mum failed Ofsted training twice (after never failing a thing in her life) because she was 'too challenging' and not churning out rote answers with no evidence base.

Yes, I can well imagine. Although, I do know of a couple of very challenging lawyers who sit on Tribunal panels. If only you could guarantee getting them!

star thats why I wont do the OFSTED training...there is no way in hell they would pass me

Difficult? Moi?

AE As many many others have already said, I am saddened but not surprised Just be careful....media involvement is a double edged sword I think...I second the poster who advised bringing it the attention of the opposition.

I actually think the media would not be remotely interested unless I can establish maladministration.

At the moment, the LA languish behind the LGO's protective shade.

Again, I am not at all sure that anyone in the opposition would be interested until I can establish some external validity to my complaint - either by the LGO confirming maladministration, or, perhaps, once I have got some other bodies to support my complaint.

But for that, I await my solicitor signing off on the submissions - still.

This is why a properly functioning LGO is so important.

Think we are living parallel LGO lives, AE. You are so right about LGO judgements validating poor LA practice. Happened in my case too. Bastards have repeated previous errors \ maladministration with new Statement, no doubt emboldened by LGO's weak telling-off and 'suggestion' that they apologise last time. And my LA have used LGO judgement to excuse unlawful acts again. York office especially poor, I think.

I know - it is outrageous. They actually make things worse and not better and that is unforgiveable.

If they don't know how to apply the law, they should ask or go and do another job.

But then you tell them which bits of the law they have ignored/ misunderstood, as I did, and you get 'my interpretation is...' (well, you're wrong, and case law shows that), 'notparanoid feels that this contravenes the blah blah act but the council feel that they did their best' (because clearly doing your best trumps the law ) and (clearly through gritted teeth) 'I have revised my opinion and conclude that the LA were at fault not to blah blah'.

Did you get them to determine maladministration then?

What I can't understand is that you send them the legal position, as you say the caselaw is clear, and they still make stupid excuses.

In my case it was that the 'the LGO looks at the way the council exercise a duty" and there was nothing they could have done which would have led to a different outcome.

Eh

Duties have to be performed - powers are exercised.

The duty has to be performed, if it is not being performed, end of.

As for what they could have done differently? Well they could have put the provision in place - genius

The most galling thing was that these things are said without any reference to evidence - no mention of what the LA actually did at all.

Spectacular!