So now I've got TWO LAs following me about online.....

[StarlightMcEggsie]

Just received evidence.

I think they just delay stuff because they are incompetent and/or nasty and it is yet another tactic in their arsenal of shitness.

You can't give an address when you have no idea what it wil be, nor by LEA own rules have you moved/plan to move until you have certain documents in your hand such as tenancy agreements/utilitilities and council tax docs. Every parent who has gone through a standard state school admin process knows this - so does the Tribunal.

It's just yet more smear tactics. Frankly that's a tactic so overused by now you'd think Tribunals would be utterly bored with it.

If YOU have no reason to delay the tribunal then all parties need to just get on with it.

Thanks boch. I've written a statement.

I have been accused of being dishonest for not disclosing that we have stayed in a hotel near his school.

I haven't read the Education Act in detail very recently, but I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement to, nor is any other person with a statement required to inform their LA when they have an overnight stay somewhere

They need to be very careful about straying in to Article 8 territory here. You have a right to privacy and family life and any interference with that must be:

(i) Necessary
(ii) in accordance with the law
(iii) and proportionate to a legitimate aim

What's article 8?

Okay found it.

What is it with HR laws being kept at arms length from SEN laws?

They shouldn't be at arm's length!

The Human Rights Act which brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

The ECHR affects the actions of all public bodies - local authorities, courts, LGO. They should all respect the act when they carry out their functions.

But the HRA goes further than just requiring compliance with the ECHR. Its stated intention was to create a 'human rights culture' so these public bodies should seek to promote rights as well as not breach them.

LAs should not be snooping around about people's private lives UNLESS there is a legitimate reason.

You are pregnant. Avoiding a potentially distressing daily commute on public transport with an SEN child daily in your current condition isn't being "dishonest", it's being sensible! (A midwive's note to confirm this would make the LEA look really evil )

You've more or less been hounded out of your "home borough". (yes I do hope you are reading this LEA snoop!)

you couldn't make this up really could you
in fact if this wasn't on SN you'd be getting the faces

I hope that your stalkers feel really uncomfortable after reading this thread. Appalling behaviour

The LEA would argue that they have right under their duty to protect public money and resource in justifying their right to investigate. This does not make it right but it will probably be their starting point if questioned.

Sure squid, but why is following me about online better than calling me and speaking to me?

The intervention with your private life has to be in accordance with the law and in the interests of the legitimate objectives.

It also has to be necessary - this is where proportionality comes in. If it was possible to achieve the interference in a less intrusive way, e.g. by asking you, they should have done this.

Note that the only legitimate objectives set out in Article 8(2) for interfering with your right to privacy are:

·Acting in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country.
·Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime.
·Acting for the protection of health or morals.
·Acting for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

None of these apply