Solicitor for last shot via second tier tribunal?

[NotNewHereAlias]

Sorry to bug you guys. Has anyone done this?

If so, How much did it cost, and who did you use (PMs welcome too). We've been told only 12% succeed, and no-one wins without a hotshot lawyer. We are nearly skint (not enough for legal aid though).

SOS:SEN are too far and IPSEA don't do 2nd tier. We think there are some reasons in law, not be all that impressive, they sound a bit ranty, in that self-taught green-ink Professor Google QC way.

I have almost done it, LA backed down when we filled the application. Have not heard about the 12% though...

I used Kevin McMannanon from Levenes, he was great.

It might be worth trying barristers who do direct access, as that cuts out the costs of the middleman. David Lawson at Hardwicke Chambers has a good track record on appeal cases.

Agree with nenny...go with a direct access barrister ( I assume you mean you are going to upper teir?)

Be very careful whom you use for advice ( especially at hardwicke) I used a barrister from there and it was the biggest mistake ever. Didn't get advice to me in time, made me miss cut off, then said yes tribunal did use the wrong test but new test is " similar" so doesn't matter, didnt address some of the issues that were raised, they were an absolute pain!

There is a pro bono group that you can self refer to also..I can't remember the name but if you google it you should find if.

Thank you all very much. some useful suggestions to explore. babiki, your story of LA backing down has cheered me up hugely!

Another rumour: that second tier cases can be eligible for legal aid in child's name... would be very useful, but can't find anything written down to say if this is true or not. Suspect answer is no, but wd be nice to know for sure.

Tried ringing legal aid helpline today but they didn't know what SEND or second tier tribunal was, so couldn't answer if there's a loophole. Helpline couldn't ask anyone else (who might know) because 'you would need a full eligibility for legal aid for me to ask an adviser that question about whether you can apply in your child's name.' Sigh.

It's true I was doing it via legal aid, but I think now there are just three providers and only one is good.

lol @ babki..I can only assume you mean Coram as the other 2 are pains, especially THLC, they are the worst of the lot and still baffled as to how they won the contract.

The ones up north are fine if you get the right person and we all know that is pot luck.

It was a Hardwicke barrister who represented the LA against us at tribunal - the fact they are in the pockets of the LA would be reason enough for me to avoid them. (They lost by the way!)

Beautiful: what are the initials of the barrister? Hardwicke are seen as have a very good education set, but when i did my research I found that they are very LA friendly.

JF at Hardwicke represented us at Tribunal. Highly recommend.

Some firms are listed here

You can't get legal aid in the child's name for SENDIST appeals, and I'm pretty sure the same applies to Upper Tribunal appeals.

Barristers are self-employed so the fact that one acts for local authorities doesn't mean that others in the same chambers can't act for parents. However, from what I hear JF is to be avoided like the plague.

Nenny: of course that's is true, however some chambers for are a tad more family friendly if that makes sense?

Matrix ( whom do not accept public access) tend to be parent friendly, with that said the barrister working for the school on the DDA is from there, lol

Garden court are as well as Anne Lawrence ( she's moved from atlas chambers now I think??)

My solicitor told me you can get legal aid for upper teir under the child?? In fairness this was before the changes so god knows what the deal is now.

Anne Lawrence is brilliant but I don't know whether she does direct access. I think she's at 4-5 Gray's Inn Square now.

Nenny: she was doing DA when I asked about 3 months ago, but OP would need to double check if she wanted to go down that road.

The barrister who stood against us for the LA was CR. I felt really strongly that he wanted to win at all costs and that the needs of my child mattered nothing to him. I know his remit was act against us for the LA, but even so many of the arguments he put forward were very petty and about winning, not about genuine facts. He even tried to tell the tribunal that our offer of providing half of the transport to the school we wanted could not be taken seriously as we were too busy with our jobs. He knew nothing about us or our jobs and our ability to do this, and this was just a low shot at us to try and undermine our case. As it happened that then shot him in the foot later on and the tribunal awarded fully funded transport to DD, but that is another story!

Wow, this thread has been really busy. Thanks for the tip about direct access, the suggestions for who might be helpful, and racetothebottom's link. Accept that there will be some not to touch with a bargepole! Ta to hoxtonbabe especially for confirming I wasn't losing the plot in imagining I'd heard something about legal aid. No idea how to find out if its true though.... if it is, that would really open up the possibilities.

He knew nothing about us or our jobs and our ability to do this, and this was just a low shot at us to try and undermine our case.

Beautifulgirls - I had to laugh bitterly at this. We didn't have the honour of a LA barrister, instead their lawyer tried to argue that if my DS went to their school, he could stay in the local community because it's only 10 minutes away. As my DH said, only if the LA supplied a helicopter from our backgarden to the school's playing fields! Their named school is 45 minutes in non-rush hour traffic down the M11 - or an hour in rush-hour traffic. It is hardly 10 minutes and is most certainly not in the local community. In fact there's quite a few towns and villages between us and the LA named school which, at a push and as the crow flies, might just be considered within our local community! But the LA named school could never in million years be considered "local community"

The lies these people tell staggers me.

Hoxton/NotNew, I was at a talk recently where they said that in one or two cases it has in the past been possible to wangle legal aid for a UT appeal by bringing the child in as an interested party and getting legal aid in their name, but under the new system that's been in place since April that isn't possible any more.

It is really interesting to read this thread as, until recently, I thought that having a bit of experience acting for LAs too might actually help a barrister have more insight and fine tune tactics.

But this week I spoke to one and I was very unsettled by the low bar set in their mind for what appeared to be suitable for a disabled child. Very much what an saw as a two tier approach to what was acceptable for 'SEN children' comparing what they get in terms of what others get rather than in terms of what they are entitled to.

Now I wouldn't want anyone who does LA work!!!

I wouldn't want any lawyer or barrister who does LA work anywhere near me! They've sold their soul to devil.

Slightly OT, could someone remind me of the name (or initials) of the lawyer/firm who is notorious for doing LA work?

Towie: Is it Baker small you mean? (or baker something, lol)

IE: Thats what I thought..i thought it would be great to have someone with insight, but it always made me think how could one swap sides so easily?? With solicitors most of them tend to either do LA work or the interests of the parent/child work, they dont flutter between the two, I would assume to due a conflict of interest, barristers don't seem to have this issue?!?

The problem is though, finding someone that is mainly pro parent/child, a bit easier if you have a solicitor to instruct as you have lots of choice, but instructing under PA, you are limited.

I don't think all barristers who act for LAs are necessarily evil, and in fact I've heard of cases where LAs are being stupid and/or obstinate and it's their barrister who's persuaded them to be sensible by telling them they're not going to win. FS at Hardwicke, for instance, acts for both sides and is really good. However, there are just a few solicitors who will never advise an LA to be sensible, no matter how bad the LA's case is, because they make their money win or lose, and are prepared to use unscrupulous tactics to win even a bad case.

I agree nennypops - definitely doesn't make them evil. My experience did make me wonder if it subtly shifts their perspective on right and wrong though!

The Tyneside case has a brilliant summary of exactly the type of unscrupulous practice you mention from Sedley LJ. Worth setting out here as it always makes me feel better:

15. What seems to me, as it seems to him, a particular cause for concern is that, although it has been evident from the start that the judge had made an error of principle which made his decision unsustainable, the respondent local education authority resisted the appeal up to the point where their counsel, Mr Rowbottom, rose to his feet in this court today. It is still not entirely clear to me whether the error of law which Elias LJ has identified reflected the case advanced by counsel for the LEA below or was of the judge's own making. Having heard Mr Rowbottom today I suspect it was a combination of the two but, when asked by this court whether he could defend it, Mr Rowbottom for the first time accepted that he could not. His skeleton argument for this appeal had made no such concession.

16. The result appears to have been the unnecessary incurring of a large sum in costs on both sides. The child's advisers of course have had no option but to bring the appeal before the court in order to secure the relief to which it is now accepted the child is entitled. The LEA has run up costs which presumably have to come out of a ring-fenced education budget. Yet it is clear that from the start there was no answer to the claim that the LEA was not complying with the child's statement.
    

17. There is no best endeavours defence in the legislation. If the situation changes there is machinery for revising the statement, but while it stands it is the duty of the LEA to implement it. In a margin of intractable cases there may be reasons why a court would not make a mandatory order, or more probably would briefly defer or qualify its operation. But, as has been accepted before us, this is not such a case.
    

18. Counsel have a duty not only to their clients but to the court (and, I would add, to the other party) to make a professional appraisal of their case and to advise accordingly. It is not acceptable for a party to come to court when it knows that it has no legal leg to stand on in the hope that something may turn up.