Meeting with LA legal advisor 2 weeks before tribunal - what to say?

[Doomsday2014]

Have name changed as don't trust that the LA aren't snooping. Our tribunal date is in 2 weeks, appealing parts 2 and 3.

I have been advised that because my working document is quite long, there is a risk that the panel might go for an adjournment which I really want to avoid. I've been told that the panel will be less likely to adjourn if I can show I've attempted to negotiate with LA. So, Ive arranged a meeting with their rep who is in the legal profession. In my mind, I don't want to back down on anything because everything I'm asking for is what the experts say DS needs in order that his SEN are met in school. His current provision is pretty poor given the extent of his difficulties.

Anyway, having arranged this meeting, I'm not sure of the form it should take and what I should say. Don't trust them at all and know that they don't have DS's best interests at heart. I don't want to concede on anything yet feel I might have no option if it means avoiding adjournment.

You can't compromise on your child's evidenced needs. That would be unethical and immoral and you'd be failing in your parenting duty.

However, you CAN meet with the LA to give them an opportunity to avoid a tribunal.

I had this and I met with them to go through the working document to trim it down as so lengthy. I remember the very good advice everyone on here gave me. We were able to reduce it but I didn't compromise in the points that I felt were very important. I just told the la when they out pressure on me that I would leave that for the tribunal to decide. I said very little and I was very business like and it really pissed the LA off as they could see I was not going to be intimidated by them.

At the tribunal they panel did comment that they were pleased that some agreement had been reached, the LA would then concede all the salt and OT. That the previous week before they had been trying to persuade me to take out so stick to your guns and if it has to be in there then make sure it is. I agreed things that may have been duplicated in the working document but that was it.

Is the rep an in-house lawyer?

Thanks . Yes you're right, I won't compromise on his needs and will try to keep the meeting business like.

Nennypops, have pm'd you.

I assume the meeting should follow the format of working through the points of disagreement in parts 2 and 3 one by one. It helps to be seen to be prepared to agree a little flexibility, but equally be prepared to be tough where it matters, particularly when they haven't got any evidence that counters your experts' evidence. They will be most resistant about anything that will cost them money or things that tie them down. Beware of attempts to introduce ambiguous wording, and if necessary keep referring them to the legal requirement that part 3 be specific and detailed.

Thanks nennypops. Unfortunately, most of the recommendations in the report involve more money being spent on interventions. Will watch out for ambiguous language (having just removed it all from working document!)

Does 'without prejudice' work then?

I very much doubt it with a particular legal firm and I don't much like it as a strategy as feel the process ought to be transparent as it is about a vulnerable child's needs, not a series of compromises.

From my experience at the tribunal, the panel would go through the disputed points in the working document point by point, line by line. Even agreeing on a particular word would take time, even if it doesn't directly imply any money. These are the points the pannel would love you to iron out with the LA. This will focus the time at the hearing on substantive points of needs and provisions.

The LA would be ready to compromise on some points of disagreement because they just keep them open for purely tactical reasons, as an exchange currency. They would be glad to save legal fees for another hearing (£3000?) by agreeing on some of the wording, especially if it comes from the reports and doesn't involve money.

However, be careful, as the main reason the LA may want the meeting is to get a sense of your tribunal argument, so they could counter or discredit it in advance. I was told by the lawyers not to talk to the LA and not to tell them anything.

If you see some of the lines or words you could agree on, just focus on those at your meeting with the LA and don't tell them a word about your main arguments.

i have found myself in a room with 2 LA officers and their solicitor with the barrister on the end of the phone. it was to discuss the working document and to reduce it. we did manage to condense it but were lots of point i refused to compromise on mainly having OT and salt in part 6!!!! they would concede that on the day. i got through the meeting by doing what i was advised on here to do and keep my cards close to my chest and say very little - it really made my LA angry that i was not in the slightest bit intimidated by them and stood my ground. one fo the LA officers was particulary vile but inside i was finding it all quite funny that for once they were the ones getting stressed about it because i wouldnt do what they wanted.

i would also find the LA solicitor emailing me offering me advice as i wasnt legally represented - i would post about that on here and someone on here wrote me an amazing response back to the LA solicitor

Thank you all for the advice. I had the meeting and it was very bizarre. For the first couple of minutes no one said anything, and then the LA opened with "this won't be going to Tribunal, I think we'll reach agreement". Then said they agreed with most of what the WD said and asked what my background was and whether it was in drafting (?). I am very because there are a lot of specific therapies in there that I'm not backing down on.