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.

Just once again:

"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".

Shouldn't this be sent to every LA in the country!!

I think that case is one where every education lawyer in the country except Mr Rowbottom knew his case was hopeless! What concerns me more is the solicitors who know a case is hopeless but then use every unscrupulous tactic in the book to try to win it, including trying to intimidate unrepresented parents, last minute changes of case and service of documents, and outright misrepresentation of what the law is.

Indeed, but whether it's delay, prevarication, incompetence or meanness, it has the same effect.

Oh I can assure you that the LA's will also use every unscrupulous tactic in the book to intimidate represented parents too. Including 48 hours before Tribunal applying for a 4th witness - dispute refusing to allow my grown-up DC to be present as observers in the hearing because "the room was too small". Trying to remove a medical diagnosis and then claiming that my DS did not need an escort because he did not have a medical diagnosis (so that would explain why they tried, but failed to remove the dx ). Claiming that transport is not an educational requirement so does not have to be included in the cost of provision (despite there being case law that transport has to be included in the cost of provision).

And my all time favourite one, maintaining that dyslexia is actually a speech and language problem and continuing to argue this despite being told 4 times by the judge to "shut the f* up". Well, not quite, but the Judge was very very insistent that the LA's EP should stop her line of evidence because it was unlawful as she was introducing new oral evidence into the hearing which hadn't been previously disclosed.

Crikey..maybe I should appreciate my LA a bit more, your lot sound like a barrel of fun Towie.

Hoxton - why do you think my nickname is TOWIE! The only way really is Essex!

My all time favourite telling off by our judge during the hearing was when the HT of the LA's named school slightly leaned back in her seat all casually and said "whilst we are having this conversation" - to which the Judge immediately took her glasses off, looked down her nose at the HT, and said in a very school-ma'm voice "I sincerely hope that we are NOT having a conversation. I sincerely hope that you are giving EVIDENCE".

AWWW that sounds like a good judge..I can only pray I get one like that as where really are some very stupid ones also, you couldn't get much stupid than my lot, although I think it was more the panel that influenced my judge, she seemed inexperienced and did not keep much order in the room, and was the more experienced panel member that gave the senco a dressing down when she got a bit above herself, but that was only when she got cheeky with him, not when she was getting cheeky and attacking mode.

Towie, love your judge.

tribunal hearing was a pleasant contrast to LA meetings