help needed- not happy with hours on statement- legal?

[Lesley25]

I would really like some of your advice.
My daughter was diagnosed with Autism a year ago at the age of 3.
Since then we have been going through the statementing process and have received a provisional statement which has a banding attached to it. This banding correlates to support of 25 hours a week when she starts school full time in september. During the last year she has had access to the school and is familiar with the routines etc.

However, upon receiving the proposed statement 2 months ago, the school and myself sat down and queried the amount of support from the Specialist teacher and also the initial 25 hours. We all agreed to submit reports showing that my daughter would need 1-1 support for the whole school day which equates to 30 hours support and thus the banding should be moved to the one below.

We went to panel in July and this was refused.

I wuld really like to know what everyone thinks about this and if we should go down the formal appeal route with solicitors. One side of me says "its only an hour extra a day" and the other side of me says "we only have 8 weeks to appeal and need to get this right now.

Some advice from all you sen mums out there would be greatly appreciated.

If both you and school feel that your daughter requires full-time support then you should pursue this. I think only you can know your daughter's level of need.

Bear in mind that 'Panels' routinely refuse things without good reasoning, often to save money. You might want to pursue it.

pursue it with this logic! once you put the appeal in, you are taken more seriously. the money being given to you for 25 hours per week will start as it is from sep...your putting in an appeal will have no bearing on that money and as the day of the tribunal comes closer...LEA may want to settle.

Pursue it, you don't need to use sols you can draft an appeal and get NAS / IPSEA / SOSSEN to check it for free. If the LA don't back down you can always get solicitor involved later. Or use an advocate like Fiona Slomovic to check over your draft

I have had papers go to 3 panels and they all made unlawful decisions so i think they are just a useful cover for the LA who are the ones who make the decision really

concentrate on FT 1:1 for safety (is risk absconding, harm?), behaviour etc. Being passive and isolating / stimming is a reason for FT 1:1 as well as aggressive behaviour as its hard to get a child back on track if they have been allowed to tune out and isolate

If she cant learn without 1:1 then the question to ask is why is it ok for her not to be learning for an hour of school a day

Thank you all for your very useful advice.
You're right, all of you, i have to pursue this.
I have absolutely no faith left with regards to decisions made by so called "panels".

Just to give you a bit of background - what the statement does do is break the 25 hours down into what the support actually does and specifies the amount per group and also states 1:1 support in the mainstream class, but in my opinion (and the schools), it is not detailed enough.

I prepared a feedback document covering all the points myself, sat down with the schools SSA, Senco and SPLT and focused on what we wanted changed, drawing down on the detail and making the support clear as part of the feedback process. Myself and the school staff above also wrote separate detailed reports showing the LA where the extra support would go to - e.g support in the playground. The school also strongly believe the extra support is warranted, which is why i'm surprised., with everyone saying the same thing - the panel still refused it.

The notes left on file were to conduct another review in the autumn term but i have no faith left with the panel process. After all the effort we made to submit separate reports at the proposed statement stage and for them to disagree at panel still makes me feel like the longer they leave it any progress my daughter makes will justify their limited hours- even though the school, us -as parents, the SSA, school senco, SPLT all say the same thing now!

At this point i have no idea if they have also refused my feedback points that we need changed on the statement as part of the feedback process. Everyone's on leave and back next week but if these points are refused - that alone is grounds for us to appeal. I'm just worried that if we do go to the appeal stage, does that mean my daughter will be unsupported when she starts school full time in september? Would my daughter suffer in any way if i delay the statement by appealing?

We also submitted our private SPLT's report but i might also try and find an educational psychologist and occupational therapist so we can submit additional reports closer to tribunal stage.

Can i also ask everyone - do you think the appeal would have more "clout" so to speak, if it came from a solicitor?

If you can afford to hire fiona slomovic, pls do. For a year she can cost under 500 Gbp for paperwork and reviewing facilities.

Save the solicitor for later. You may not need one.

Tell the LA (in writing) that you disagree with the provision in the Statement and that you want (whatever). Then ask them to finalise the Statement to enable you to appeal it. That's important because you cannot appeal a Statement until it has been finalised - at the moment you just have a proposed statement.

Lodge your appeal and see what the LA's response it. I can't see them fighting it all the way to Tribunal for the sake of 5 hours per week (which I assume is "unstructured time" - dinner time to most normal thinking people.

The proposed statement with its 25 hours will be the final statement that you appeal and yes, she will only receive 25 hours unless the LA change their mind and up it to 30 hours without a Tribunal. She won't suffer in any way by your appeal - she would actually suffer if you don't appeal as without an appeal or LA voluntary agreement she will be stuck with 25 hours.

You may not know this but 'Panels' have no legal standing or responsibility. The sole responsibility for getting the right provision in place lies with the LA Case Officer / education officer i.e. the named person in the LA that you are dealing with). The named person may consult a Panel to get their opinions but the actual decision is the named officer's alone. So the name officer could put an end to this nonsense right now - worth bearing in mind when you are pushing. The Min for Ed actually reminded LAs a few years ago to 'stop hiding behind Panels' and remember that the named officer has the decision-making responsibility.

Thanks wetAugust, i didn't know this. Do you know how i find out who the named officer is?
I'll draft the letter and send it recorded first thing monday morning.
Thanks again.

The named officer is likely to be the person who signed the proposed statement/letter.

You should have been given their name with the letter informing you of the SA.

Funny thing is the named officer hasn't signed the proposed statement and an "officer" has signed on "behalf of" the named officer.
I can just about make out the first initial signature and the surname though...I'm getting more and angry at how tough they actually make it. Its almost as though the LA try and stop parents trying to access the right level of support.

No almost about it. It is exactly what they do. Their training encourages a culture and belief system that enables them to justify it.

sorry i didn't make that clear. The proposed statement signature area is blank - but the letter that came with the statement has an officer's name typed underneath the signature and states on "behalf of" and is definitely not the typed up name.

I think you need to ring them and clarify who the named officer actually is.

Star is right. You expect people you are dealing with in LAs to be honest, open etc. The reality is very different as you are now discovering. It seems unbelievable at first but they lie, deceive and do their utmost to deny support because support costs them money.

I probably sound paranoid but unfortunately I'm not - this is what you are up against.