Working Document - Does it matter who does the initial set of proposed changes? What if the LA refuses to make or accept any changes?

[ChrisInNeed]

My LA sent me the first version of the WD last week - around a month before the hearing date. The initial version they have sent is identical to the Final Statement. They have made NIL changes despite the numerous flaws highlighted in my 10+ pages thorough and detailed Reasons for Appeal which the LA have had for more than 3 months now.

They say they are waiting for their experts assessment reports before they will make any changes.

1.Any idea whose responsibility is to do the first set of changes to the WD - the LA or the parent?

2.From a tactical perspective is it advantageous for the parent to do it first or to get the LA to do it or it really doesn't matter?

3.What is the suggested course of action if the LA just refuses to make any changes or accept any of the parent's suggested ones before the hearing?

Thanks

My LA gave me a paper copy of the WD on the morning of the hearing! They were also waiting on reports (even though the final evidence deadline had passed) and so I got an order from the tribunal to send me a copy of the WD and then helpfully sent them a WD I had written, fully quoted and referenced with 5 Indi reports so they just had to add their bit, a couple of days before the tribunal deadline.

They should have sent an electronic copy and you amend following tribunal rules and send it back. The WD is supposed to be finalised before hearing but in reality is amended up to the day. I would go to town with the strike out, ask for more than you expect to get and so can concede the less important.

Essentially you want to have submitted the last version before hearing but your LA may do the same as mine did to me and produce a new one on the day.

the LA sent me it with no amendments - a bit like yours have and then we amended it - every time we sent it back the LA would strike out every single on of our amendments - they didn't have a clue what they were doing. they even complained that we were doing it wrong but when we came face to face in a meeting they were forced to admit that they were doing it wrong - think we got to version 10 before the hearing - the LA wanted ot and salt in part 5/6 but on the morning of the hearing they moved it all to part 2/3 so even on the morning of the hearing we were still negioating the working document

all you can do is do your best - if the LA wont play then they will have to explain themselves to the panel

The first working document the LA sent to me was far worse than the finalised statement - the LA had removed all therapies that were included (but not specified or quantified) within the finalised statement .

I really dont think it matters who amends it first tbh. Although the LA could be waiting to see what evidence you have before they make any changes.

The LA should email you an electronic copy of the Final Statement. This will, in effect, be version 1 of the WD (but, in reality, will be an exact copy of the Final Statement before appeal)

You then start work on your version and this will become Version 2.

On your version 2, put in your changes with the parent's markup formatting. Footnote every addition you make so that it refers back to one of your (submitted) reports (the footnotes will get removed on the post-hearing Statement but pre-hearing you don't want the LA to accuse you of making stuff up).

My LA didnt engage at all in the process - except by sending the electronic copy. Instead they turned up on the hearing day with the majority of my version 2 agreed. Because they did this, we has to delay the start of the hearing by nearly an hour to give me and my team time to read and digest their new version. The LA were not told off at all for not engaging with us. The judge just looked resigned that this was something she was used to.

There is a timescale for at least the first changed version of the WD to go back to Tribunal Services (so it can get included in the evidence bundle) - I think it's about 2 weeks before the hearing. But if the LA does engage with you, you can keep going upto and including the hearing with each different version.

Word of warning. Watch out that the WD doesn't become corrupt. It is a very flaky Word document which many inexperienced people will have worked on. In my DS case, we went to Tribunal with version 2. By the time the Judge had ordered everything, we got to version 9. These extra 6 versions were only to correct numerous LA typos. Somewhere along the line, the wrong formatting got "caught up" in the document making it look as if we had conceded stuff. We hadn't - the document had become corrupt. The cynic in me would say that the LA purposely caused this - but they hadn't - an inexperienced LA typist had worked on it and used the wrong formatting. It took some untangling on my part and didn't help post-tribunal nerves!

When I complained about my LA to LGO, because we were at version 9 when it became the final judge-ordered Statement, the LA had the cheek to tell me and the LGO investigator that they had fully engaged with us prior to the hearing because there was 9 version. I wasn't impressed!

TOWIE - my hearing was also delayed. It was fortunate that I had FS who selflessly offered to do all the practical work - which meant that she ran the show because she was the only one with an electronic version - and could demonstrate that we were not thrown. The LA had distracting questions regarding the origin of quotes (having removed the references) but I knew my bundle inside out and the Indi experts being quoted were present and could recognise their own quotes. So we were able to resume after an hour. An hour later the LA conceded.

I've never been in this situation but the LA will, of course, send you their Final Statement as the starting point of the WD because that is what they believe meets the need of your child and meets their obligations as an LA. You disagree, so you need to make amendments where you feel necessary, then they can counter that, etc.

I found there to be greatest disparity between what is written and what really happens to be the most intense at this point. Tbh if I had not experienced the WD finally appearing on the day of the hearing I would believe that the 10 day to hearing deadline would actually mean something. Only the experts with experience knew differently.

Guidance from the tribunal is that the LA should send a version with suggested changes on, but I suspect the majority don't and, from the parents' point of view, it's better if they don't try to guess the wording you want.

Don't use footnotes, for some reason the Tribunal guidance says not to. It's better to put the reference in brackets, and you'll probably find it's easier to use initials with something at the top explaining them (e.g. JS = Report of John Smith, Educational Psychologist). But definitely reference everything, otherwise you'll get the LA trying to suggest there isn't evidence to support what you're asking for and it'll take hours during the tribunal trying to search out which bit of which report supports which amendment.

If the LA refuses to accept any of your changes, I'm afraid you can only turn up at the hearing ready to fight it out. But I think quite often in that situation the tribunal leans on them to stop being stupid and they tend to get more accommodating when they're in the tribunal building.

An update and a question please:

*The LA sent me their second version of the WD with their proposed changes on 23rd May (The first version sent had Nil changes from the Final statement).

*I updated it for my suggested changes and returned it to the LA on 30th May.

*Hearing date is 16th June and per the guidelines a WD has to be submitted to SENDIST 10 working days before the hearing.

I rang the SENDIST office and was told that as I had sent the LA my updates it is the LA's responsibility to review and respond and submit the WD to SENDIST.

The LA hasn't done so as yet. They are also not responding to my polite emails asking when I could expect a response.

Any suggestions on what steps I should take next?

Would I be right in thinking that it would be in my interest for the Panel have sight of the WD before the hearing?

Should I submit my version to SENDIST immediately so that it is distributed to the Panel?

Thanks

Yes, if I were you I would send it to the tribunal with a note explaining that you are doing it because the LA hasn't, and because they haven't replied to your inquiries about it. Ask them to make sure that copies are sent to the panel members.