LGO final determination

[appropriatelyemployed]

Absolute outrage that is the LGO's final decision has arrived.

Appparently, it is acceptable for children to be without statement provision as the Education Act doesn't prevent this??? Even though caselaw clearly does.

Oh and on my vexatious determination the classic suggestion ((on the fourth attempt) that the kindly Council, seeing there were lots of emails from the silly mum, said, let's make it easier by getting her to respond to one person.

The fact that the Council were lying to the LGO - ignored.

But then the piece de resistance, in this vile woman's covering letter:

In the relatively short period of time I have been involved in your case, you have sent me multiple emails and you have copied me into emails to other agencies over which the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction.

What? I have simply sent to her what I was asked to and I have NEVER sent anything to other agencies. An absolute lie. What appalling bias.

Can I get legal aid in DS's name to challenge the failing to arrange decision?

Sorry guys but look at this corker too:

"Your solicitor says that her experience is that councils will often put provision in place in advance of the issue of the statement. I do not dispute this but the Ombudsman?s experience differs. Until needs are defined it cannot be known what may be needed. I have addressed this in the Ombudsman?s final decision. A finalised statement may be challenged at first tier tribunal and the tribunal may order different provision. While exploring availability of provision is sensible, to seek to set it in place when it may be over-turned, for example on appeal, is not. It could also deprive other children of provision they need. In my view it would not be a sensible commitment of multi-agency resources until the Statement is agreed."

Seriously - are the Ombudsman SERIOUSLY suggesting that it is acceptable that children don't have to have their provision in place until an appeal is heard??

Sod the child eh?

Oh and yes, it's not vexatious, but the Council have been told to review their procedures to include a warning and they didn't use the policy as a last resort as their policy requires.... but heh, who cares, as this is only the parent of a disabled child.

I don't know that I've got any useful advice but I can see why you must feel outraged by this response. It certainly doesn't read like a response from a neutral party. Good that you can refute the implication that you are copying her in unnecessarily to emails if you can point out that it was on request of her/the council.

As for not putting provision in place once a statement has been finalised but where content is being appealed, I don't see how this can be right either logically (quite apart from morally justifiable).

lf LA issue a final statement, they are saying we have investigated child's needs and this is the provision we think necessary to meet those needs and we commit ourselves to provide it from now on. Even if the little they offer is crap, they are surely obliged to provide this much until such time as tribunal agrees with them or overturns their decision? By extension of the LGO's logic, no provision would ever be worth putting in place because it could potentially be challenged at the next annual review.

Have you tried ipsea or sossen for advice on the legal status of provision while statement is under appeal?

My complaint was support by SOS-SEN and my solicitor. They clearly just want rid of me because they messed up with the initial decision and now they are trying to paint me as the party in the wrong.

Who wants to get rid of you LGO or sossen? sorry if being dim.

re not vexatious - v. interesting - our LEA now has complaints policy and has issued template complaints policy for schools that conflates "repeated" and "vexatious" - eg if your complaint goes though the procedure and you complain about the same issue again, you are automatically dismissed as vexatious... complaint from vile woman seems tobe taking the same line - that mentioning something more than once is in itself problematic... that would be nice for them - ask once, if we say no, then tough titi

My complaint was support by SOS-SEN and my solicitor. They clearly just want rid of me because they messed up with the initial decision and now they are trying to paint me as the party in the wrong.

Or ask once, get ignored, ask again, get ignored, ask again, get ignored, keep asking, you're vexatious!

Anyone know a decent solicitor to look over this? Mine has been crap beyond belief.

I have stuck with her as I have paid so much it would cost me a fortune to transfer but it might be easier know the final determination is in. But all she has done is clock up massive bills without ever really offering direction.

I have now asked her about legal aid and she has gone all wet - she is clearly one of those who hides behind counsel all the time.

Can cunnalingo help? New poster.

Ooh, I say, what a name!!

Shamefacedly, I have to admit, I haven't been on here for ages as have been mad, mad, busy.

Is cunnalingo a lawyer?

Not entirely sure. She seems to know stuff. She might therefore know 'someone'!?

Could the council have tricked you into sending her too many emails, to make you appear weird and obsessed?

Maria - No, I haven't sent many emails at all - oddly for me !! Only what I had to to send stuff on for the review.

Star - Oooh, knows people and stuff. Sounds intriguing. Shall I flag up a post for her?

You might have to search for her. Not sure she knows about this part of the board. As I said she seems to be new.

Might not even be a she.

Dear Mrs Ombudman

I am sorry to need to send you this unsolicited email, the first which i have initiated myself. In your letter you state i have contacted you x times, which I understand you found excessive. Each of these email contacts were at the suggestion of evil-LEA-shire (see list)

I will be letting them know that ombundsman finds this level of detail unnecessary and i apologise on their behalf.

Thanks!

It is not a question of multiple complaints though but the woman adding her little aside to refusing to support my complaint that the Council improperly found me to be vexatious. She added in her letter that I had contacted her 'multiple' times in the course of the investigation and copied her in to emails sent to external agencies. The latter is completely untrue and the former was only me sending her the submissions for the review.

There have been four reviews of this very basic decision over a year and they find now something they could have found a year ago.

But seriously, what can you do? The vexatious determination rests on them saying the Council followed their policy. But they didn't and we have pointed out the ways they didn't but this has all been ignored.

It's nasty and bullying, and worse than frustrating incompetence.

Agree with Starlight that it is a nasty response, especially the snide comments about your emails.

Have to say that you are much stronger than I have been - I just decided that I could not be bothered to deal with them anymore and yes, I know that is not a very responsible attitude to take in terms of holding public bodies to account. I think they rely on most people acting as I did so well done you to get this far.

Trying- I don't blame you for throwing in the towel. It is incredibly stressful. But you are right, they, like the LAs, hope we will just give up if they keep ignoring us.

You're absolutely my hero AE. Supposedly any one of us is supposed to be able to navigate our way to where you are, and get a fair outcome. When most of realise the bollocks that it is we have to battle with ourselves wrt the injustice and whether or not we allow it for the sake of our sanity.

Did you find that poster?

I lost my sanity long, long ago!!!!

Haven't had time to track her/him down yet!