Recent activity on twitter re certain LA solicitor

[StarlightMcKenzie]

It ain't him tbh, but a particular gleeful respondent to one of his tweets. Made my stomach churn.

Before wetaugust's comment I didn't know what you his were talking about. How do I see this tweet? And what firm is this? I know you guys can't name names. But atleast some hint on what to google?

I've pmed you Salondon.

Of course it is nenny. A family that didn't employ a lawyer may well not have the resources to fight at Court (like the majority who have struggled to meet the costs of a legal team for the first tier) and the persistent and 'vexatious' nature of this kind of appeal has surely 'bully the parents' at the heart of it.

Good on IPSEA to take this one on.

I am horrified to see that the same lawyer is now tweeting that there should be a fee to take an appeal to Tribunal. Of course, as it's parents that appeal, it'll hit vulnerable children once again.

As we know, LAs are using illegal blanket policies and refusing SA but then backing down weeks before Tribunal. No doubt, if there was such a fee, in these cases the courts would not order the LA to refund the parents a Tribunal fee.

I just saw that too TOWIELA

I don't disagree with a fee, but it should be paid by the LA if a parent appeals on the basis that THEY did not do enough to head it off.

And particularly given the recent behaviour linked here of the upper tier appeal of a first tier tribunal order to assess. How in the world would that be a better use of tax payers money than the cheaper path of simply assessing the child and give them a note in lieu?

I don't disagree with a fee, but it should be paid by the LA if a parent appeals on the basis that THEY did not do enough to head it off.

The problem is, it won't be, it'd be paid by whoever brings the appeal. And, like the very very rare occasion when costs are awarded now, even if the LA caused the appeal, the courts would never order it to be repaid to the parents.

It's all part of the mentality reflected by the DfE in response to our submissions on the CFB - namely, that parents drag out cases by 'upping the ante' on the advice of 'parental advocates'

Yet every month LAs drag things out is a month's costs saved and no one seems remotely interested in that.

'it may promote mediation and would make all parties think 2 about going to the Tribunal'

This is the response to why fees should be charged which is fundamentally flawed because:

a)Parent's think a lot more than twice about it. They face the fear, the costs and the emotional turmoil because they HAVE NO CHOICE.

and

b)LA's have no reservations about spending money to meet their own agendas regardless of the needs of the child.

What makes him think fees would put people off? In most appeals you've got to stump up for experts' reports as a minimum, and some people end up spending a lot more on representation, so why would a fee make a difference? At the other end of the scale, the fee would be covered for people on legal aid. The only people who might be put off are those who don't qualify for legal aid but who are really struggling financially, and I really can't see any justification for depriving them and their children of the right to go to the tribunal. The more I hear of this man, the more unprintable my views become.

If you read the rest of the twitter feed it is clear that the tone of the exchanges is one of concern/disapproval of the changes - the Person A response is ironic in that context.

MissBeeHiving, I disagree about the comments being ironic.

It is my understanding Person A is a LA employee, involved in Education, and that is the reason why she is so happy about the unspecified, step backwards that an EHC Plan will result in.

Re: Costs/fees and tribunals, what we need and many people, including myself have repeatedly asked the DofE for, is that costs should be awarded in cases where LAs have clearly acted unreasonably, e.g. withdrawing an appeal the DAY BEFORE Tribunal, causing maximum costs and stress to parents.

The SEN reforms will do nothing to change the fundamental injustice in the system, which is stacked against parents and their vulnerable children.

No wonder Sarah Teather is quitting politics.

Yes, Starlight, I truly resent the implication that parents got to Tribunal lightly.....it is a massive undertaking, financially and emotionally. A fee will make no difference, in the context of the expense of obtaining legal advice and expert reports.

Ah well, couldn't help myself in the end.....

I've had to step away from the keyboard because of his tweets.

Parents are more streetwise than LAs

LAs are cutting back on SEN professionals against BS advice (bet BS haven't advised LAs to cut back on their legal fees!!!)

Poor lamb has got a hearing on Monday and he's wondering if he'll get there. ( A small inconvenience for him but agonising for some poor sod of the parents)

I really have had to step away from the keyboard...

He seems to have noticed the new code of practice about three weeks later than everyone else.

This is the bit that had me :

"I am surprised that parental groups are not fighting to save Statements"

What the hell does he think has been happening? And if he thinks it's that important, why wasn't he there helping?

To be honest though, I have not seen much fighting to save statements.

Many of the big organisations took Government money to pilot the reforms and have been reduced to 'collecting views' and not doing much with them.

There has been no work on the pilots in terms of analysis and much pedantry around wording.

There has also been lots of tea with Timpson and photo opportunities and talk of a new era of parent co-production by some 'activists'.

I haven't seen one lobbying document that says - stop the Bill, enforce what we have.

I agree. Organisations have been bought with money, and parents have been bought with promises of money/Personal budgets.

But I know that Ipsea, for instance, has been doing a lot of work direct with the DfE on this. There obviously did come a point when it was obvious the government was hell bent on the new legislation and nothing was going to change that, so they changed focus to trying to improve the new regime, but they certainly did try to retain statements.

On another tack - that tweet about whether he'll be able to get to his hearing tomorrow. Isn't he always after any excuse for an adjournment? What's the betting he uses the storm all week?

Oh yes, parents with limited resources are much more 'streetwise' than LEAs. It's really easy to fight the council(!)
indeed!

Do parents do tribunals for fun then? Do they have time on their hands to hang about the 'streets'?

And so what if they ARE informed. It isn't their fault if LA's who are paid to be aren't.

This attitude explains an awful lot about why the laws are often flouted and then flouts supported by those charged with policing. It is obviously a belief of those in the system and policing it that LA's are the victims of 'streetwise' parents.

This wouldn't be in relation to a pathfinder authority would it?

I think it is just much easier for people to think they are doing an 'honourable' job if they try and characterise those parents who take them to Tribunal as streetwise, middle class, pushy parents wanting something more than they are entitled to.

But the sad fact is that many don't pursue this route, not because they are more 'reasonable' but precisely because they don't know their rights or are exhausted or lack funding, support or advice.

But who is going to admit that to themselves?

I agree, inappropriatelyemployed.