LGO and blardy solicitor

[appropriatelyemployed]

Blardy, blardy solicitor. Partner - leading firm.

She has been dealing with my LGO case which I have bored you with before. She got the help of a charity to write in support too.

I assumed then she wouldn't charge - silly me. That was another £700 added to the bill.

After the 3rd provisional view, I instructed her just to take over the final response.

That was 3 weeks ago.

The deadline is Friday.

I chased yesterday and got a response saying she is too busy. She won't be able to respond in time and there is no one else that can do it. And even if I ask for more time, they are all too busy.

I feel gutted. I was prepared to throw one last sum of money at this just to get someone else to do it for me as it is so stressful after all this time.

I raised specific questions of the LGO and they have responded but I sent it to my solicitor as I knew it would make me too mad/stressed/depressed.

Now it is coming right back at me.

Sorry - I just can't believe I've got to pick up the reins for this at such short notice.

Does anyone feels strong and sane enough to read through some doubtless batty LGO responses to some questions!!!

Hi
I am happy to help you with this. My ds, aged 4, has probable ASD. Have fought and have a statement in place now so he has help when he starts school. I am a Solicitor (not specialising in SEN) although have researched so much for own ds I am sure I could help you.
Let me know if you would like some assistance.

I'm not mad - didn't think first message had gone through properly!

We are arguing over same old ground:

1. Failing to arrange - we say law is clear. Duty on LAs well-established. Provision must be in place from issue of statement. It says this in SEN COP. Case law does not permit 'best endeavours defence'. Need to look at efforts made to get provision in place before issue of statement

LGO say LAs don't need to do anything until statement issued and money released. Not acceptable for them to do nothing but as long as they do something that is ok. A three month absence of provision (we say it is 5) is acceptable and delay is 'inevitable'!! This completely undermines children's rights.

Addtionally, LGO say head thought visits were timely so that's ok!

And LGO has sought no evidence that TA received any training but has said head said she was trained so that's enough for them.

1. Vexatious - it is agreed that council didn't follow their policy or LA guidance. They didn't issue a warning, didn't review it, didn't give reasons. They have been told to change their policy and practices. But say LGO.... this is not maladministration!! This particular conclusion is a complete headf**k!

Go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority - what she has done is professional misconduct and you should report her. You may well have a claim in negligence against her - that's cold comfort now, but you could use it as a bargaining chip? If you want a legal professional to draft responses for you then you could try a direct access barrister? They actually work out cheaper than solicitors in the whole because they don't charge per hour, but a fixed price for a job

I'm sorry I don't have any expertise in SEN work, but good luck!

I'm sorry. I'm really new to law processes etc. but could this guy find you someone to help?

But not this person

We used here for the Judicial Review that never happened. Very approachable and straight talking and obviously had our LA spooked as they folded at his first approach.

Thanks. I have drafted it all myself now. She did pull her finger out under pressure and cobble a response of sorts.

Isn't direct access just for court? Can you use it to get someone to advise on judicial review?

Yes AE you can use this scheme to get advice on judicial review. The bar council has a list of barristers approved under the scheme and you can search by area of practice:-
www.barcouncil.org.uk

how the frig are parents supposed to understand let alone navigate all this?

Interesting CVs some of those lawyers have. Don't think I would have touched Star's with a barge pole.

Noted that Insanity's was involved in this one:

P v Swansea County Council & Davies [2000] QBD TLR 1
Although exceptional, it was lawful to name a pupil referral unit as an appropriate school for a child with special educational needs pursuant to part IV of the Education Act 1996.

Must look into this particular case law as there seems to be an increasing push these days to dump our kids in a PRU rather than make appropriate provision.

Ooh, that's interesting Wet, - particularly in terms of a recent thread on here.

Btw, which one would you not touch, - or both!?

The former teacher now Tribunal member.

I can't find anything about the P v Swansea case. Could one of the legal bods see if they can find more on the law databases? It would be very useful (especially for Starfish) to be able to quote this precedent.

She seems to be a tribunal JUDGE!!!!

Wet, I couldn't agree more with you in relation to the use of pru's. Personally I think it's quite scary and says so much about the value bases of those that have the positional power to make these decisions.

I have come across a number of very young children being placed in pupil referral units, I cannot understand the rationale for this.

I will look up the case on westlaw when I get my computer o. - in bed with the iPad at the mo!

I hate the LGO, and I really feel your pain. My lot can not account for 1.5 years of speech therapy following an independent SLT they employed, I put in a formal complaint, went via all the steps and each time came back as she did nothing wrong which they were not going to admit to as the SEN team would be stuffed.

I proved and showed evidence that the SLT did nothing, and that the council were unethical and went againt their own flamin policy of their so called independent investigation by allowing the person was complaining about to view and amend the reply they were sending me....How is that independent when they are allwed to construct their own complaint reply?!?! LGO came back and siad no wrong doing becasue the school said the SLT did her work (no evidence of any sort by the way) and took her word for it, and they totally ignored my evidence

The solicitor sounds terrible, I would complain to the Legal Ombudsman, although if they are anything like the LGO maybe I wouldnt bother...I dont know why the LGO are not regulated, thay are so biased and dodgy

I think this is a real problem with the LGO.

it is often said that complaints about the LGO only come from those who are disgruntled - when the case didn't go their way.

But, this overlooks the fact that many of the complaints follow very similar lines and nearly all contain accusations of apparent bias or at least an unquestioning default position of simply accepting whatever the LA say.

This might be because it makes life easier to do that then to battle a council but it is also a cultural mindset.

In my case, whenever there is a dispute, it is resolved in favour of the Council even when there is no evidence to firmly support what either side say. There is a difference between saying we can find no primary evidence of x,y or z and saying the Council do not accept what you say so we believe them. This is what makes people conclude bias.

I am dealing with an Ass Ombudsman and even she falls into this pattern time and time again. She has also started to make up things to defend them as she has run out of evidence or even supposition.

So she will say, I am sure the appointments with external agencies were not made earlier to avoid disruption in school. Now, no one has ever said this, not the LA or school. But backed into a corner, her desperation to support the existing verdict leads her to this situation.

It is a simply appalling situation given the abject lack of oversight and accountability in local government.

Swansea case

I have transcript so PM me with email if you want it.

Summary
P appealed against a decision of the Special Needs Educational Tribunal to name the Pupil Referral Unit, PRU, as a suitable school for her son, A, under Part 4 of his Statement of Special Educational Needs. A, aged 14, had emotional and behavioural problems which had resulted in him being excluded from mainstream schooling. P wished him to attend a residential special school, but SC took the view that the PRU could best meet his needs. The tribunal upheld SC's view. P argued that (1) the decision was irrational as the tribunal had no power to name the PRU as a suitable school; (2) the tribunal had failed to adequately detail how A's needs identified in Part 3 of the Statement should be met, and (3) the local education authority could only use the PRU as a temporary solution to assist with A's problems, until A's re-integration to mainstream schooling.

Held, allowing the appeal, that (1) the matter should be remitted to a fresh tribunal to be reheard as this was an exceptional case, one for which a PRU could be a statemented school; (2) although the tribunal did have power to name the PRU, as it was a school for the purposes of the Education Act 1996, the decision was far too vague in relation to what aspects of the National Curriculum should be taught to A and in what manner, and (3) the tribunal also failed to give clear and substantive reasons as to why they were departing from Welsh Circular 3/99, entitled "Public Support and Social Inclusion" which stated that generally a PRU should not be named on a Statement as an appropriate school for a long term placement, R. v Islington LBC Ex p. Rixon [1997] E.L.R. 66 applied.

This site is interesting..and shows just how unreasonable the LGO are.

www.ombudsmanwatch.org/

They were quite helpful for me more for the fact that I felt less crappy when I realised that the LGO is flawed beyond comprehension, and seem to make stupid decisions more often than not

I would add that if anyone would like a copy if my submissions or the legal annex I prepared for this - PM me and I will email it to you.

I am still waiting for the investigator to get back to me from my second LGO complaint in February. I ring and leave messages every fortnight and email too. He keeps emailing: 'sorry, unavoidably delayed by another case; I will contact you in the next couple of days'. Doesn't.

Sadly for him, he has a fairly unusual name. I ALWAYS google people who get involved in ds's 'case' (and found out the last LGO investigator used to work for an LA SEN dept that way, which depressed me but helped me see what I was dealing with in terms of mindset.

ANYWAY, also sadly for him, he writes about 40 tweets a day on Twitter. During work hours. Often about work e.g. slagging off the names of the children of complainants; taking the piss out of an angry phone call made by a complainant; saying how he can't understand one of the legal Acts he is trying to read; saying how he hates his job.

It's making me so angry but not quite sure what to do about it...

My point (finally!) is that the unprofessionalism within the LGO that we have suspected is TOTALLY confirmed by this guy. Not doing much work, contempt for people complaining, and making up knowledge of the law as they go along. At least it's not personal. I think that's an 'at least', but I suppose it's also a
very bad state of affairs.

appropriatelyemployed, have no experience of what you are going through and haven't posted on this thread but read through this morning and I would really love that transcript of the Swansea PRU case please. Will PM you, thank you.

Sickof - Half of me says bring that to the attention of his employers. The other half says if you do that, they will slate him as a bad apple but everyone else is great.

On balance though, I would not want someone like this dealing with my child's case and I would raise it.

Star 1will send copy. It is not marked as overruled or cited elsewhere.