LGO crapness continues..........

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Over the last two years, I have become well used to the sheer crapness of the LGO but this really takes the biscuit.

The LGO, through their lovely lawyers Browne Jacobson, have stated very clearly that the LGO believes, where the courts do not, that there is a difference in law between 'arranging' provision and 'delivering' it so that it is perfectly ok for children with SEN to be without provision for several months - not because the LA didn't have a therapist, or someone was ill, just as a matter of routine with no explanation sought for it.

Also, despite the fact that the SEN COP states at para 8.109 that LAs must ?arrange the special educational provision...from the date on which the statement is made?, the LGO says this doesn't really mean that and that although the duty is absolute, delay is fine.

Seriously.

Anyway, given this tosh, we decided to ask for a case review and make a formal complaint about the conduct of this matter before proceeding down the JR route. I have additional evidence, my MP has made a complaint himself about the way they dealt with his evidence and we have had three provisional views and two final decisions in this case over two years. It took them 18 months to find maladministration on the facts they had had before them all along.

So solicitor writes to their lawyers and asks for details about the time frame to do so. I ask for time to make submissions. This is agreed in writing.

Then, before we can do anything, cue a letter today closing my file today! Says basically, we know you are going to complain about the failing to arrange as you keep banging on about the Education Act, but we don't agree with you so we're closing your file. Fuck off!

WTF Seriously, this is an Assistant Ombudsman. I am livid. What a fucking disgrace.

Arseholes.

3 or four months without anything in place and without any reason at all given is fine.

They don't even acknowledge what SEN COP says.

Seriously this is PUBLIC MOney!

JR is the way to go. Get yourself legal aid and a lawyer. Do not waste your time with this bunch of numbskulls and LA apologists.

I suspect that is the way they want it in practice. They don't want to set standards which they know LAs won't reach.

But the law is clear.

IE, This doesn't even make any sense.

First: The LA were reasonable to break the law
Then: When you challenge us we'll close your case

What on EARTH is the point of their office?

It is utter, utter madness. It really is. It is a Kafkaesque world of mad bureaucracy supporting bad bureaucracy.

That much I can understand in their weird LA focussed world but when it gets to lawyers, you just think things are more moderated.

In contrast, the case I have with the PHSO (which had an originally dodgy decision) has been assigned a new investigator who has spent about two hours in total on the phone with me so far making sure he 'understands the case' and he has gone off to get legal and specialist clinical advice which he will report back to me.

Why is there such a marked difference of approach? The LGO are clearly far too close to the bodies they oversee to have any sense of who they work for any more.

They work for us. And our children. And they should be promoting good administration not just identifying excessively bad administration - otherwise what is the point>

& Star gives the best case for removing this silly barrier to obtaining appropriate use of public funds & obeying the law of the land I've heard for a while .

Motion to :- Close down the LGO and reallocate the funds towards supporting legal aid for families @JR.

Seconded Bochead.

At the moment the public pays for the LGO and then has to pay again for legal aid so we can challenge the LGO when all along the real culprit is the LA which is also spending public money undermining kids and parents.

Still it is keeping lots of people in relatively well-paid jobs who might not find employment elsewhere.

The weird thing is, I made a complaint to the LGO for my brother who is disabled and they dealt with that very fairly. Is it just the SEN team that is fucked up? Probably all used to be SEN managers!

Nothing useful to add, other than bloody hell, what chance do the rest of us stand and how many children are being failed and just how far or how high does this corruption go

Much better. Finally they've admitted they can't resolve the case and so just given up and closed it. Now you can go talk to a judge, who (presumably) believes that the law is there for a reason .

Like a statement. "Just get on and finalise, so we can appeal"

Thing is, with health and social services, you don't actually have many legal rights to anything in particular. So complaints tend to be about being unfair / unreasonable / making errors etc, plus a few people complaining more persistently about small matters because of their own reasons (grief after a relative's death etc) and the odd genuinely vexatious one.

I suspect that's the reason that NHS and SS failures and complaints are not quite as acrimonious. If there's slightly less incentive to lie and cheat in the first place, then the pervasive institutional culture of avoiding getting caught out isn't going to be quite as widespread.

Though I doubt the PHSO would've handled the initial complaints about Winterbourne View, Mid Staffs and Bristol well either .

when it gets to lawyers, you just think things are more moderated

Nah. Customer's always right, innit

Now there's a tweet: Close down the LGO [&] reallocate the funds [to] legal aid for families @JR

#pointlessincompetentbarstewards

Like it Mareeya

Love the approach in the one page letter which basically says (I paraphrase natch):

I am an Assistant Ombudsman and I have reviewed this complaint very, very carefully (even though you haven't actually made one cos I am good like that).

I have carefully looked at the file and carefully looked at all the papers and been very very careful.

But the complaint decision was made by a senior investigator and I have no reason to doubt that she did a good job as I can see she did what she was supposed to and spoke to her boss before the decision was made.

So I know you keep on banging on about the Education Act and legal stuff (and we are assuming that is what you were going to complain about her too) but we are not listening to you and are closing your file cos we are actually really thorough and ace even though we look like biased LA poodles

LOLS

Assistant Ombudsman on salary of at least £55k one would assume

And what the letter should have said was

"Our staff have very carefully looked at your complaint and have no idea where to start with it. We are in a dilemma.

Most LAs tells us the law is an ass, and it appears that there is a professional consensus that good practice is to ignore the law altogether. Other LAs tell us they do comply, but that the law doesn't actually mean what is written, nor what senior judges think it says. So we prefer to maintain an air of bemused ignorance. If we start insisting that LAs follow the law, more parents may find our services really useful, thus saving themselves the costs associated with JR. Our workload will spiral out of control and we, and the councils, will be really unhappy.

So we have been very, very, very careful to thoroughly investigate any processes peripheral to our core failure to deal with the actual complaint. And we think those bits were ok. So we're closing the case. With care.

That's it MD. They are looking at it all and thinking 'WTF?'

They are also thinking 'This could potentially lead followers to believe they have a chance'.

My LA was a 'no because I said so' LA. The have been crap wrt SEN for quite some time. No doubt they have been dragged all the way to the LGO who basically congratulate them. They are now a 'no because I have prior agreement from the LGO to say so without reason' LA.

I was walking down the high street yesterday and two men were walking alongside holding takeaway cups of coffee. One said to the other one 'Well if they change the law, I'll happily comply'.

I wondered if they were public servants. Most probably.

Very well put Mareeya.

I have looked back at my correspondence and I actually wrote and said to them:

A pre-action protocol letter has been lodged and I would be grateful if you would confirm whether you wish for that matter to be resolved before considering the complaint I have about the handling of this matter or whether I should file that complaint now. In any event, I would ask for confirmation that you have not started a case review as I have further evidence to submit from witnesses the LGO made no effort to contact.

I then got a response entitled 'postpone case review: confirm' which said they will await my further submissions.

My solicitor confirmed this in writing too.

Seriously ....WTF! I could have filed my concerns months ago if they had let me.

or vicars?

"They are now a 'no because I have prior agreement from the LGO to say so without reason' LA."

This is what makes them so dangerous. They encourage LAs to act like this because they know the LGO will do bollocks all about it.

But when you have a solicitor involved writing to other solicitors saying let us have the time scale for filing complaint submissions and they just do this. I am flabbergasted. They are completely thoroughly corrupt as this bears no relation to any type of good practice.

Oh, and they finish off with 'we won't be answering any more correspondence'.

Really, truly disgraceful. The Ombudsman herself - Jane Martin - was written to by my MP about this and it is simply outrageous that they don't even bother to respond to him.,

Rancid and rotten to the top.

Where next?

Is there a next?

Are you going to end up in European Courts?

Lawyers are acting pro bono at the moment so will have to see what they say but the LGO are just fronting this out.

I can understand this institutional closing ranks from the police, or the NHS or even teachers but an Ombudsman? It's truly unspeakably bad.