Provision no good, appeal but CC say just go to early reveiw?

[kafkesque]

I am not happy with the Provision in the Statement and want to appeal at Tribunal. The Autism Advisory Service say if we are not happy with it, it would be quicker to go to an Early Annual Statement Review. But then if it is still no good it would have to go to Judicial Review which is much scarier than Tribunal.

They have FCUK'd us up for four years when requesting the Statutory Assessment with their misleading incorrect information. So now I don't trust them. Am I right in thinking just ignore them and go for Tribunal anyway as we are within date and Early Annual Statement Review would be out of date which also makes be suspicious.

Absolutely appeal! Is this advisory service part of the LA?

They 'said' that?

Put it into writing to them and submit that with your tribunal evidence and continue with your appeal.

Not sure about the accuracy of the JR information in your post tbh. Did they say that too or is it your understanding?

Bung in appeal now, then you can sleep on decision re early annual review. You can always pull out of appeal if provision sorted before the hearing.

What they 'said ' should be in the TAF notes (but I will not hold my breath) but will submit anyway if it is.

Accuracy of the JR information is my understanding unfortunately I don't have a clue as usual. When do I go to JR?

Thank-you, I am working on my appeal.

I had my provision at panel refused and the la said the same thing to me- early review. We've just had that but in the meantime I am also appealing as I'm within the 8 weeks. Appeal, if the early review helps great but once you're out of that 8 week point you lose the chance to appeal a final statement

Definitely appeal. It doesn't stop the early annual review happening, and if that sorts things out, fine. The problem with waiting for the review is that, if you have to appeal anyway, you've lost quite a lot of time. Also, if the review results in agreement to amend the statement, it could take the LA weeks to produce an amended statement. However, with tribunal deadlines hanging over their heads they will have to be reasonably prompt.

The thing about judicial review is wrong. If they refused to amend after a statement review the remedy is still a tribunal appeal.

This is when you use JR. Apart from jumping the gun by a long chalk, JR cannot change a statement and can only recommend how any amendments, or changes in provision need to be approached, leaving you not much further than when you started, other than everyone having had an official ticking off, as far as I can make out.
www.sossen.org.uk/reports/Judicial_Review.pdf

Stick with Tribunal. It has more teeth and, even though the process is slow, will still put the pressure on.

Related question: Do you use a JR if there is provision in a statement but the LEA are failing to pay for it (as in my case, where I am paying for it)?

Looks like it. That would come under "Failure to provide support specified
in Part 3 of a Statement of SEN"

This case from IPSEA may be helpful
www.ipsea.org.uk/AssetLibrary/How%20we%20can%20help/Taking%20Action/Case33.pdf

That's a helpful link, many thanks!

The Tribunal is in just a few weeks, so I will wait and see what comes of it, in terms of current/future provision before pondering any further action on their past failure to provide. (It's basically all about money in terms of the past failure, he's had all the provision that was specified, it's just that I and not they have paid for it all!)