is this correct, can lea provide salt and ot in a statement

[billiejeanbob]

I am currently appealing parts 2&3 of my ds' statement through sendist. the lea have sent me a letter saying they have recieved notification of my appeal and have no other option but to contest it as they cannot provide salt or ot in part 3 as they would be commiting the resources of nhs services, which it is not possible for them to determine.
is this correct? thanks

towie I dont know who their solicitors are, but the lea are sprouting this crap as if they honestly believe it themselves! they are so sure of themselves its making me question myself lol. I think they want me to believe im crazy for asking for this kind of provision, even though it has been recommended by their own OT!

sorry that should be starlight not towie! starlight could you possibly pm me the name of solicitors? Would be interesting to see if it is the same ones. hve just been having a good google and have found the leas new sen action plan. apparantly the plan is to not specify provision in statements as they have had children that have been over supported, whilst other children werent recieving the help they needed. they wont specify 1:1 based on hours, as it will reduce the number of statements given, as the ta that is employed by school, through statement funding, can support a group of pupils rather than just one! hence only one statement needed rather than say 3 or 4!

Print it out for your tribunal bundle.

The firm of solicitors has the initials BS.

Which is rather apt.

Very appropriate initials.

They also usually spout out a lot of totally irrelevant case law by incorrectly quoting it and twisting it to suit their purposes - they did for my DS's case - hence how they came up with the twisted case law that provision doesn't have to be quantified and specified - when case law is very clear that it has to be.

I'm sure LAs must believe their c**p.

And they get paid their fees by the taxpayer!

Said firm seem to make a habit of producing responses which are very long but which, when you analyse them, consist mainly of pages of legal quotes (whether they're relevant or not) plus a complete re-stating of what is already in the appeal grounds, but nothing of any substance in relation to why they're opposing the appeal. I think there's a lot to be said for parents who are representing themselves sending in applications asking that they be directed to produce a response that isn't pages of obfuscation and actually says what their case is.

OP, I think you need to make sure that you file both those letters from your LA with the tribunal. Your solicitor could maybe think about applying for the LA case to be struck out on the basis that, if that's their only reason for defending, it's not a valid reason and they are by implication accepting that ds needs the OT and SALT.

nennypops they have admitted ds needs salt and ot as his needs concerning these are very briefly outlined in part 2. although the provision in part 3 is mostly vague drabs from reports such as 'ds should have opportunities to practice motor skills' blah blah blah. they have incl direct 1:1 salt in part 3 but put that it is at the descretion of the therapist as and when to discharge. hence ds being discharged after 3 weeks. it is incredibly frustrating!
thanks for your advice I will file both letters with the tribunal, although the LA have also sent the tribunal a copy of one letter themselves lol!

I hope the can! My peadiatrition has asked for both to be included on ds statement! I will find out next week

I managed to finally get both Speech and language, and OT in parts 2 & 3. OT is great as bought in by LA through Barnados. Speech and language has been left to school to deliver with some recources recommended by NHS salt. staff still have not been on any training and been doing it for 8 months.
I guess salt will discharge soon and then will be back to square one and me paying for a private salt.

Putting in support that can be removed at the discretion of the therapist is also unlawful. It would mean that in effect the provisions of the statement could be amended without you having any right to appeal against it, which is illegal. I hope your solicitors are making all these points?

Just wondering is your tribunal soon and who your la is.

helpme sorry I would rather not say who my la is, as I fear it will out me.

have had the head teacher on the phone this evening to discuss my concerns. apparantly in15 years of leading a school he has not once come across a statement that is specified or quantified .

I see hundreds of statements in my work. Most are not worth the paper they are written in and are just drivel designed to fob you off. Most people are unfortunately.

Quite.
And even when you do get one, no one has the time to bother to do a proper annual review, so the original statement, worthless or otherwise, sits around for the next ten years, never getting updated, or never having the child's needs reviewed, and a 15yo working for gcses has a statement that hasn't been touched in years, and the original amount of support, whether they need more or less in the intervening years isn't important. It just gets rubber stamped and rolled over.

I had to leave. There is only so much one person can do and I feared for my mental health dealing with such a broken system.

But yes, of course you can have OT and SLT in pt 3. Dd2 had OT, PT and SLT in pt 3. Quantified. And 15 hrs 1-1. We let that ride as the school had two children on 15 hrs 1-1, so we agreed they would employ a ft 2-1. It saved further bother.

Ignorance in schools is one of the reasons LAs get away with unquantified statements. I'm a school governor, and when I pointed out to the SENCO once that part 3 of a statement was unquantified and unhelpful to them, she agreed, but it came as complete news to her that she could do anything about it. She seemed to think her role was to comment on part 2 alone. If schools would raise these issues when they are first consulted about draft statements, and at annual reviews, it might improve matters a bit.