Tribunal: how close did you get to a breakdown?

[mariamariam]

Approaching deadline to appeal 'failure to assess'. Namechanged now for obvious reasons, but still recognisable to regulars. The charities have given good advice but say they wont be offering more than that since we seem to know what we're doing and they need to concentrate on parents who havent a clue (i paraphrase)

School will be opposing the application (partly genuine difference of opinion, partly sheer ignorance, partly because in cahoots with the LEA) so i need ro make sure the case is spot on. And i have s tendsncy to obscess and waste hours in projects like this, but we can't afford an advocate. Definitely cant afford a solicitor/ barrister.

My main fear though, is that I can't personally afford a breakdown as 1. my job wd probably not be there on recovery; 2. the dc would lose more than we'd gain in getting DS an adequate education; 3. Ds1 really won't get a workable education without a statement.

Advice please!!!

Pipin, the tribunal system is not fair. It is arbitrary. If you are LUCKY, you get a fair hearing, but I fear that is increasingly unlikely with 2 recent changes.

1. The employing of salaried Judges who have no understanding of education enabling the LA to list in detail standard National Curriculum as their provision, and waste hours on how phonics is taught whilst impressing the judge.

2. The abolishment of the publications of their statistics. It is now impossible to know how many parents win.

There is some safeguarding in the new rule for the right to appeal following an annual review, but only those with the resources will be able to access this.

Bochead. I agree. SMART targets are not used because accountability is undesirable and for that reason only.

Teachers, SENCOs and HTs are graduately educated ffs. Why it is seeminly impossible to get them to understand what a SMART target is . The truth is they DO know, but don't want to be held to it.

'As I see it the SEN industry is bloated with parasites at every level, public & private sector, due to a refusal to embrace any semblance of accountability or measurability.'

Yes

Two out of three members of my tribunal panel (the Chair who is a lawyer and the EP) were employed by LAs. Its often only the lay member who is from voluntary sector / parent etc. I know of a tribunal where 2 of the panel members worked for the LA being appealed against. They won ABA actually I think the Panel would have been worried about being found biased. We won ABA with 2 Panel members who I would not have thought were independent. But we did have an avalanche of evidence of the total shitness of DS provision - which even by other LA standards was appalling.

I do agree that all parents should be legally represented and get free reports paid by legal aid. Panels expect to have good evidence to consider and its unfair on parents who cannot afford it. The Tribunal insisted we bring a particular witness back after an adjournment even though we could not afford to and we only managed it as everyone waived their fees for the first part of the tribunal (the tribunal cocked up and got us all there only to tell us it would have to be adjourned as a witness was ill when we had told them this the week before!) We faced having to pay double fees which would have been a financial disaster. I know of a recent case adjourned because they was no educational reason to support residential but the parents can't afford to go and get a report to prove the need and seemingly their own evidence is not enough because its not 'education evidence'.

a campaign for all children to get legal aid on their own finances would mean everyone could be represented and get proper reports. Then i bet many LAs would stop messing around as much as they do and at least settle the cases where the argument on provision is minor e.g. not quantifying etc leaving only the big money cases to go to an actual hearing. Proper sanctions for LAs who drag parents to tribunal just for the stress and delay (in the hope the parent gives up) rather than because they have an arguable case would also help.

I woud agree with the soundbites - write your 5 key points on a card and don't leave until you have said those 5 things. A lovely lay panel member we know told us that (there are some good ones). Also interrupt if the LA are wasting time and say 'thats all very interesting but I am here to discuss DS/DD' and just keep trying to bring it back t the actual child. A lot does depend on how experienced the chair is and if they keep control.

AE you might want to look at the Mencap JR against PHSO where they criticised Health Service Ombudsman for not using HR the name is quoted here

Depressing

Ok, my provisional plan informed by mnsn collective wisdom is:

Treat it like a part-time job (an important one, done properly),
Retain a work life balance
Trust almost no-one official, but try to still get them to do their best
allocate myself a certain time per week to case-manage DS,
just accept that being right doesn't necessarily mean winning,
book myself in to see our very nice family GP as needed

Ae, star, Leonie, boch, Agnes, insanity and anyone I accidentally missed thank you all so much. I can't believe how much people have gone through, in some ways i suppose the 'new' proposed system of an LEA being able to say, "yes, he needs x but our local offer only funds y" would at least be honest.

I agree the country either doesnt want to or cant afford the provision that ds with sen actually need, but moondog is right as always about there being a massive lack of simple, inexpensive things. I guess any sector has problems where there is provision without accountability

Leonie: good luck, if you talk like you post they'll definitely rate your argument more than the opposition's!

And thanks to wet, I'm going to find a little tune for
"Basic sen training for senco's would help"
and mentally hum it to myself at future school meetings

Might go in your favour! A few favourable comments about any aspects of the UK systems which you found good should offset lingering prejudices (did you say nhs OT is coming?)

It's staggeringly depressing to read all of this. The PCT/LEA I work for are far from perefect but I can't imagine anyone in my organistation going to these lengths.
The sad thing is that both sides are stabbing in the dark. As parents, you can't possibly know what goes on in schools on a day to day basis, even with the most watertight stetement in the world. I watch and listen to many parents aiming for what they believe is the best for their child and want to shake them and say' Wake up! The people who will be looking after your child don't know thier arse from their elbow' . But how can I ,without further messing up their lives? If they don't ask I reach the conclusion I have no right to offer na opinion, albeit a wellfounded one.

Additionally, the people you will be up against at tribunal haven't a clue what goes on in the cleassroom (the only place that matters). They probably haven't even met the peopel supporting your child.

I used to despise outfits like McDonalds. Know I admire them. If, in an LEA we had a smidgen of the solid outcomes and accountabliltiy of these place,s your children would be a thousand times better of than they are.

It is all utterly rotten to the core.

"Proper sanctions for LAs who drag parents to tribunal just for the stress and delay (in the hope the parent gives up) rather than because they have an arguable case would also help."

Truth

But they can already order the LA to pay the other side's costs. They just don't apply it.

It just never happens!

Why not though? Is it because if the parents win they are expected to just be happy about it.

We didn't win, but we coukd not have not gone to tribunal with the illegal crap statement. We didn't get what we wanted, but we at least got a vaguely legal statement.

We got the part four we wanted when the barrister got leave for Judicial Review. At 9.30am on that day LA told independent SS that they would not place ds with them. At 11.44am I got an email saying LA had agreed to place ds at independent SS. In between those times LA were informed we had leave for Judicial Review on the grounds of irrationality. LA didn't inform the school though until two days later that they were placing ds there.
The LA subsequently issued a final statement which was basically the statement they had written for a mainstream sixth form which the school he was placed in wouldn't have been able to meet naming resources they didn't even have and ignoring the on site SALT and OT.
Still LA forced us to go to Tribunal to amend parts two and three which meant independent reports and solicitor's fees whilst LA did precisely nothing and then agreed our working document word for word after a minor spat over 45 minutes SALT three days before Tribunal.
There was no reason for them to push us to Tribunal for parts two and three because getting ds's statement accurate wasn't going to cost them any more than the fee they were already paying.
So what did they do it for? I suspect it was vindictiveness they wanted to turn the financial screws a little bit more after being forced to fund the provision for ds when they aimed to lapse the statement and get him into the local college.

I think they do like to turn the financial screws. I was doing my own case until they stopped me from talking to them with a vexatious ban and I had to instruct solicitors.

In retrospect, I should have written to the Tribunal and told them just that when we didn't attend (they moved the hearing 30 miles away the day before the hearing and I would have had to attend against Shitshire on my own knowing it was pointless as he needed a decent school and not more crap S&LT).

It would have made no difference to the judgment as they slated us anyway.

AT - did you win @ Tribunal?

I'm not expecting to go to tribunal this time. Our case is too strong. However, we are expecting to and have budgeted for the full cost of tribunal plus a bit more for tidying up paperwork/complaining and possible JR, as we know we'll be forced to 'pay'. It's about punishment and sending a message to families behind us.

That's reality.

This is what really gets my goat - the personally directed spite.

These are people paid by the tax payer to ensure the education & welfare of kids with disabilities. What kind of sick mind decides to punish the parents of a CHILD with disabilities via financial penalties that will inevitably impcat on quality of the child's life or abuse the process to DELAY support to a kid that really needs it? (despite all early intervention evidence etc)

I get that there are a few very rare cases where professionals & parents do disagree on the best way forward for a child. Tribunals are not the arbiter of absolute last resort they were conceived as, but instead have become an integral, every day part of the core statementing process. This has created an entire industry making an army of fat cats plump and contented. How many lawyers are hired and private reports comissioned every year?

My case and every other one I've come across anecdotally wasn't about genuine differences of opinion about a child's educational welfare, it was about protecting the jobs of the incompetent, political posturing, spite - virtually any motivation BUT making the best use of available "limited" resources to help a child in need.

I'm beginning to think that until some heads are SEEN to roll, and LA officers etc have to take some personal financial hits then nothing will really change as the current system perversely actively incentivises the immoral and unethical current status quo.

The child is not the beating heart at the centre of the process & this is wrong.

Im not even at Tribunal stage yet and the accusations are flying. Its very difficult not to get caught up in defending yourself, as oppose to staying focussed. I keep telling myself this isnt about me, its about ds.

We had agreed most of the amendments by then and what was left to Tribunal, they agreed with the LA without even reading the evidence. Their decision was undoubtedly appealable but, again, why spend thousands on that.

Especially as, a year on, much of the agreed provision still isn't being implemented.

Decent oversight would make such a difference but the LGO's provisional view is that it is acceptable to take at least three months to get statementing provision in place. Three months! Despite what the law says about 'no best endeavours'.

Going to oversight mechanisms just feeds the sense of impunity these bodies have.

Our LA forced us to take the action we did not because they believed that ds's needs could be met elsewhere because once the school they named that had already on three occasions had informed that they couldn't meet his needs was taken out of the equation they had nothing else to suggest.
They delayed and procrastinated because the ASD resource at the local college was due to open in October but in fact didn't open until April so they banked on ds going there. The other placement mooted hasn't been built yet because of the buildings for schools programme being abandoned.
Each of our independent experts said the school is exactly right for ds despite LA repeatedly saying ds didn't need that provision although they never asked the ed psych to see ds.
They did it purely to avoid funding provision and nothing more in my case the fact they pushed ds towards a breakdown and placed our family under intolerable strain financially and emotionally was considered to them to be nothing more than a minor inconvenience.