LA want to reduce Statement by 12 hrs pw-appeal help please

[dietstartstmoz]

Posting here for more traffic.
DS has HFA and has full support in mainstream primary. He is just 6, and has just finished Yr1, going into Yr2 in Sept. He has made great progress but is still affected so much by his ASD (obviously). He requires full support, he has zero attention span, huge sensory difficulties, SALT, etc. His annual review was July, this week we have had a letter telling us they wish to reduce his support to Band B1, 20-24hrs pw. Obviously we are going to appeal and just starting to gather our thoughts for the appeal. Any advice ?

The usual thing is to say that progress has only been made/sustained with his current level of support and that if that support is reduced it will adversely affect his ability to access the curriculum.

What evidence from a professional is there that justify s the reduction in hours?
Was it a recommendation of the AR?
If not on what basis has the decision been made.

Thanks good points. All the professional reports reflected on his issues and the essential need for ft support. The recommendations from the AR were for the statement to be maintained at full support. That was from the senco, salt and autism specialist teachers.
Any more ideas what to say. Have been on ipsea.

If all the evidence points to continuing as it is then you have nothing to worry about. Appeal the final statement as the current provision will have to remain, and they'll give in.

They are probably doing it to all as if just one parent accepts this they save money.

its so bloody annoying though that it's always down to money. Starlight you are right though.

Definitely appeal as everyone working with him supports current level. I'd go further and warn them that if they reduce the hours and your child's abilities deteriorate you will hold them to account as they had been forewarned any reduction in current support would adversely affect your DS.

Good point to get in writing should you ever need to commence legal action.

What poor practice. There is no evidence to support their decision so it is completely irrational from a legal perspective. I would speak to a lawyer too about this to see if they can threaten judicial review. You normally have to go down the SENDIST route but if your child is having provision withdrawn and it will affect them detrimentally , there may be scope to look at JR.

Try one of the big firms, Levenes, Maxwell Gillott, Irwin Mitchell, Fords

Thanks. I have phoned the SEN dept today and asked for copies of the minutes from the panel meeting when the decision was made, so we can see what was said, and have also asked for information about how the new funding bands are decided and info on the different bands, as they have told us what band they propose to put him into, but there may be scope to find challenges there also.

The statement is no place for bands. You need to have the number of hours specified on the statement and cross out any band stuff or funding stuff. How they fund the HOURS is no business of any statement-reader and detracts from the essential information they need to support the child.

Thanks starlight-I will make that point

Bear in mind that they can't reduce it unless and until they formally amend the statement. If they try to do it before then, you can definitely take them to judicial review with legal aid.

If or when they produce the proposed statement, utilise fully your right to comment, demand meetings with them, ask to see their evidence that he's had this miracle cure so he no longer needs so much support, and string out the process as long as possible. Also ask how many other children they are doing this to - if it's part of a blanket policy you can certainly look at judicial review on that ground as well.

They have sent us his statement with bits crossed out and new propsed bits in italics. This Includes the reduction in hours and the points they feel are no longer applicable. Does this mean they can enforce it from sept? Can somebody explain what judicial review means?

I have asked for the minutes of the meeting where the panel made the decision. Haven't asked for a meeting yet but was going to outline our argument pointing out the changes are bollocks. Who would normally attend the meeting-any other professionals or school?

No, they cannot enforce it. At the moment it's a Proposed Statement against which you can appeal. Once you lodge your appeal the existing provision stays in place until the SENDIST ruling.

Panel's never seem to take Minutes and I doubt you'll see anything from that meeting. Don't forget 'the Panel' is just a smokescreen - it's the Education Service's Named officer who has the legal responsibility here. He/she will have made the recommendation to reduce support before he/she advised the Panel as to her action and sought their agreement. The 'Panel' is a rubber-stamp that I refused to even acknowledge when dealing with the LA - the real responsibility lies with the Named Officer.

JR is the legal process open to your when a public body had acted illegally / unreasonably - IE will explain a lot better. It looks at the decision that the LA made and decides whether the LA made the right decision or whether the LA exceeded their authority in making the decision etc etc. I wouldn't worry about JR just yet - you have the SENDIST appeal route too.

Ok thanks. The case officer at sen is on hols but they tried to fob me off with them giving me a call to talk about why I wished to appeal but I have told them I will be putting it in writing. Other than here where is the best place for me to find out about appeals process etc.? Would it be ipsea?
This is all new to us. His statement was granted without the need for an appeal

Sorry, Wet, that's not so. You can't appeal against a proposed statement; you have to wait till it's finalised. The point of serving a proposed statement is that they are consulting you on it, so they should have asked for your views and given you a deadline for supplying them. They should also have offered you the chance of a meeting. It is in your interests to string that process out as long as possible, but once the statement is finalised you need to zap your appeal in quickly. You might just be able to ask for the appeal to be expedited.

Once the statement is finalised, the new provisions do come into force. You could try arguing that the current support should stay in place till SENDIST has had a chance to decide on your appeal, but there's no obligation on the LA to agree. In some circumstances you might just be able to consider JR if you can argue that it would harm your child and the decision is unlawful or irrational, but to be honest it would be a very uphill struggle.

Look on the websites for SOS SEN and IPSEA for further information.

Sorry for the misinformation then.

I always though that the provision remained in place until SENDIST.

So, if a child is in an independent school as per mandated in Part 4 of the existing Statement and LA says they intend to remove the child to local mainstream can the LA do so merely by sending the parent a Proposed Statement, disregarding the parent's view's about their proposal and then finalising the Statement permitting the LA to remove the child from the independent school.

That would mean the parent had to go to SENDIST, win the case for independent school so the child could return to the independent school they were at previously.

Not good for the child at all.

That's why I thought that,when a Statement is already in force - rather than a 'first statement situation - because of situations such as this, the existing provision stayed in place until proposed revised Statement had been agreed by SENDIST.

In theory, yes. However, if the proposed change is as radical as a change of school you'd have a reasonable chance of persuading the LA to leave the kid in his current school till the appeal is heard, and if they refused you would probably have a good chance of taking it to JR for the reasons you have given. IIRC there has been at least one case where that argument worked, although it concerned a very severely disabled child who would have lost the independent school place if she were taken out.

I'd always understood that the provision has to remain that is written in the pre-amended statement until the outcome of an appeal against the changes.

That only applies in relation to decisions to cease to maintain the statement.

That doesn't make any sense as LA's would never cease to maintain, just delete all except part 1 and 4.

They did cease DS's first Statement at age 10.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, Starlight? LAs regularly do decide to cease to maintain. If the parent appeals against that decision, then the original statement remains in place until either the time for an appeal has expired, or until the tribunal has made a decision if the parent appeals. I've never heard of any LA trying to get round that by just deleting parts 2 and 3, and if they did I suspect both the tribunal and the court would be extremely unimpressed and would treat it like a cease to maintain appeal anyway.

It's in Schedule 27(11)(5) of the Education Act 1996 which says:

A local education authority may not cease to maintain a statement if -

(a) the parent of the child has appealed against the authority's determination to cease to maintain the statement, and
(b) the appeal has not been determined by the tribunal or withdrawn.

There isn't any similar provision in relation to any other type of SENDIST appeal.

I mean that I ceasing to maintain a statement gives the parents rights and the child funding throughout an appeal.

Simply removing all provision from the statement does not.

So instead of ceasing to maintain, a cost-saving preferable activity will to continue to maintain, but remove the TA support and put instead 'child to have access to pencils and crayons to help with their writing'.

I see Nenny, though ceasing the support in part 3 is the same thing isn't it?