Are the LEA lying?

[kmummy]

Jut had DS amended statement back. They have said they cannot add 1:1 into the statement as ultimately it is the schools decision as they are given the funding and have to work out how to use it to cover the provision in part 3, and I need to discuss this with them...!

They are lying. The statement should be specified and quantified with the support required and how much. They are trying it on. Have a look at the SENCOP under statements.

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581-2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581-2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf

Who is lying? There is no 'they'.

But yes, this person is lying.

yep, LA is lying. they know they have to specify/quantify privision. we had this as well. an appeal sorted it pretty quickly.

somebody here posted a link for case law this week (noddy guide or so). very useful when you put your appeal in.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/special_needs/1796173-Case-law-for-Statements-of-Special-Educational-Needs

Should I quote the case law? I don't know how it's best to go about it. Phone, email or letter? The caseworker has stated it isn't down them to specify and that the school need to decide what he needs by reading part 3 how they use the money that's been awarded! It's infuriating! I've seen the advert they have done for a TA for him and its a temporary post and the hours will be confirmed once final statement has been received and its only temporary due to SEN funding!

Yes they are lying: here

You can quite properly write to them and remind them of the law. You can quote cases if you like.

The law clearly says that the statement must be quantified and specified and flexibility is only allowed if it is of benefit to the child and not the school.

Happy to help you draft something if it would help.

Local authorities may try and argue that it is best to keep things 'flexible' for the school but the case law categorically rejects this IPSEA v Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 07. Any flexibility in a statement must be for the child and not the school's benefit.

Who gave you this misinformation?.

The LEA know as well as I do that the statement has to be both specified and quantified as per case law, their apparent ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I had to work hard and long along with our school to get a full statement. I dont know how may hours yours is for but it is not up to the school. You must have the statement in print. They have to spell it all out in black and white. Its not up to the school. How dare they tell you they need the funds elsewhere, its a load of rubbish, they have no right. get in touch with the childrens services team in your area, they will help

The SEN case work manager who drafted the statement says on her attached form 'CSET allocate an amount of funding to the school and the school use this funding in order to provide the provisions as indicated in part 3 of the statement'. She continues but keeps saying its down to the school and I to arrange between us. This is response to me asking for a full time 1:1 to be written in after I received the first draft.

Tell them in writing that you have no interest in discussing the funding, only in receiving a document that clearly states your child's educational needs and the legally enforceable provision required to meet those needs. Tell them that the school has not carried out the statutory assessment, they have, and the school is not responsible for meeting your child's need, they are, and could they please arrange a training session urgently with their legal team because such basic knowledge is part of their responsibility and duty of care to the children they are responsible for.

Only one way to check. Were their lips moving?

Not "lying". Gets you into a pointless pantomime routine, "Oh no I'm not, Oh yes you are".

Always much better to insist officials are "Mistaken", "Typing error", "Didn't have all the information to hand". "Working within the new / old / draft / early years / planned framework, but we're still using SENCOP"

I would agree with MumuDeLulu - even though you know that they are lying, using other terms which are less 'in your face' confrontational, makes you appear absolutely reasonable.

When my LA tried to bring a very large Costs application (thousands of pounds) against the solicitors I used when my son was refused SA, in their response, my solicitors never used the word 'lying' - even when it was very obvious that the LA was lying through its teeth. Instead, the solicitors used the terms 'misleading', and the terms I love, 'if the [LA] were undertaking its duty properly...', 'hard to determine why [LA] had such trouble reading these documents [reports]...'

(This appears to be one of the many tactics my LA uses frequently - if you dare to Appeal any of their decisions by using a lawyer, they will bully you (the parent) for months saying they are going to bring a large Costs action against you, then at the last minute switch the action and go after your solicitor for Costs. They will then send the Tribunal a legal document full of lies misleading inaccuracies.)

Absolutely - I am sure they simply need to be reminded of their legal duties! Will do you a PM now.