Working document

[TwiglightZone]

I appear to have entered the Twilight Zone of final run-up to Tribunal, so I have joined the ranks of being a name changer.

Now the evidence deadline has passed, the LA, having ignored all our letters and requests for meetings for nearly a month, now want to start jointly working on the Working Document.

Because of the way they have been over the last 18 months, I firmly do not believe we can negotiate anything. I do not want to incur even more legal fees when I know we won't agree anything. Particularly as on costs alone it is not in the LA's interest to negotiate anything because, at the moment, there is only a minor amount of financial difference between the indie school and their school. If we agreed just a tiny amount of contested provision, we would be tipped into the zone where the LA school is more expensive. So I would rather the judge decided during the Tribunal and I did not run up a massive bill for a pointless exercise.

Will I prejudice my case if I don't negotiate the Working Document before Tribunal?

Yes, you would prejudice your case. The tribunal would be mighty unimpressed and the LA would have a lovely time telling the panel how unreasonable you are and how hard they're trying to help the tribunal despite your attempts to thwart them.

It also helps to make the hearing run more smoothly. If you do manage to agree anything, it means that you won't waste time arguing about that, and it will mean that there is in place a document which neatly demonstrates where the areas of dispute are - the tribunal won't have to waste time trying to identify all that from the other paperwork.

Plus, it's an other opportunity to make your case. You can set out in part 3 which either the LA school can't do or can only do at a cost. As you say, if the tribunal agrees only a part of that so that the LA school is more expensive, then they have no choice but to name your school.

Thanks nennypops. As I wrote my post, I guessed that would be the case so I've just started work on it.

What nenny said. It's worth meeting them before the tribunal, or at the very least showing a willingness to do so.There's definitely an art though in negotiating the Working Document in a way that doesn't give the LA a full glimpse of the lines of argument you'll be deploying on the day...

It doesn't have to be several times though - there's also usually a chance on the day of the tribunal itself to settle some issues before the panel open for business. Our friendly neighbourhood LA conceded vast swathes of provision 10 minutes before the tribunal started - provision they'd fought like rabid mutts to deny DS1 for months.

Talking of which. Is anyone dealing with A Certain Firm of Solicitors habitually employed by local authorities and based in Milton Keynes? And have you managed to extract any sense out of them in relation to working documents? I've heard from a couple of sources that they seem to have given up bothering even to acknowledge the parents' version, let alone actually giving any sort of reasoned response.

I agree, meet them and show willing by attendance, but don't give in to anything they ask. You simply state the case of what you want and then agree to disagree if they do not give you anything on that wording. Nothing wrong in occasionally pointing our that x report supports this statement or therapy to back you up, but you really don't have to go to compromise here, just to show the panel that you have made an attempt.

As posted here already, our LA conceded a fair bit on the morning of the hearing (and the panel then awarded us the complete statement as we wanted it!)

nennypops, does this Certain Firm of Solicitors send their own solicitors or their own barristers to Tribunal?

Firm of solicitors?

It's a one man band as far as I recall, which means the website declaring 'we' all over the shop contravenes the trade descriptions laws.

Just state what you want like a broken record. If they ask why just say the evidence supports it and leave it at that.

Don't give your arguments away.

He is a very poor one man band! There was so many factual errors in the original Reasons to Dispute the Appeal (or what ever it's called!!), that I'm amazed he got my DC's name right!

Thanks everyone with the advice. Keep it coming cos it's really helping me!

If it is the same solicitor, don't underestimate him.

He ain't bright, but he is dirty.

Oh I know he's dirty - I know only to well exactly how dirty he plays. In fact, I wonder how he sleeps at night knowing what he tried to do in my case.

Twiglight, they usually send their own solicitors, I think.

There may be only one partner, but there's now quite a long list of sidekicks on his website including two solicitors, one of whom also does education law.

I think he churns out more or less the same response reasons irrespective of what the case is about. He cites lots of case law because he thinks it impresses local authorities, and for all I know, it does. A friend of mine received a whole list of cases disputing the need for residential school, which was a trifle strange as the council was naming a residential school in the statement. The trouble is that she just can't get any response out of him for the working document so is probably going to have to go ahead with a hearing even though the school is agreed.

Yes, his tactic seems to be to have the most confusing waffly case ever with NOTHING agreed at the outset to bore the panel out of their minds with meaningless wording arguments that go on for hours, break the will of the parents and push any hearing into more than one day long (as this is a parents worst fear wrt to expenses).

This seems to be a common tactic. My LA did not have legal rep at the hearing but we did not have sight of any other version of the WD other than the one at the outset that replicated the statement. We had to guess its contents by the costs that the LA had submitted - ie cost for SALT, OT, how much 1:1. The WD we had seen had no SALT, OT or 1:1 so we knew that they must have agreed some things.

We had no opportunity to agree anything prior to the hearing. The LA had queried multiple references so that we would have to waste time referring back to the bundle. Their tactic did not work though FS put a time limit on it and we focused on provision in part 3. Also I know my reports so well, FS had read through the bundle several times and the authors were witnesses and so we could quickly identify who had said what.

I also think it is important to put details in part 2 that make no difference to the provision in part 3 and that you are happy to concede. Think of it like bartering. Immoral I know but the pill is easier to swallow if you start off asking for more than you want.

This solicitor also litters his documents with case law that is often quite irrelevant.

This is intimidation tactics as parents don't easily have access to case law databases (or LA employees for that matter) so it gives the illusion of insider professional knowledge, which justifies his fees and makes parents nervous.

David Woolf and Douglas Silas are good at making case law available to the masses though if you research them.

Ah yes, the irrelevant case law! Or the slight twisting of relevant case law but twisted to suit his particular point!

Yes, David Woolf's stuff is very helpful. I'll have a look at Douglas Silas.

I wouldn't worry about referring to case law, tbh. The tribunal should be familiar with it already, and I strongly suspect that, when presented with pages full of stuff that already know and that they've seen several times before from this solicitor, they simply skip over it.

nennypops - hopefully we are past case law now on most of the issues. But I've had some great twisted case law flung at me in the past year.

Tis a strange thing doing the Working Document. Having to re-read every single report from the last 18 months and every single communication from the LA brings back all the stress and all their lies and mistakes.

Now that they've conceded certain bits, why the hell didn't the LA get it right in the first place! So much wasted time and enough. I'm not asking for the moon - just 'adequate' provision so my son can have access to an adequate education!