LA not issuing statement as ordered by SENDIST

[billiejeanbob]

We appealed against part 2 and 3 of dds statement to SENDIST. After 2 lengthy ( 2 whole days) hearings SENDIST issued their decision ordering that dds statement must be finalised to include all of the recomendations as set out by the indie experts. This was documented as version 11 of the working document and the Judge included that this was ordered as dds final statement - including quantified and specified slt, ot and specialist teaching.
Now it has been 5 weeks since the date of the decision and I have recieved nothing from the LA. I rang the senco today to ask if school had recieved anything to be told that they had recieved a 'draft' from the LA and they are meeting with the LA EP at the end of the month to discuss potential amendments!

FFS! so now we are going to have to go down the judicial review route. does anyone know how this works and what the purpose of this is? I can't believe the LA can do this and get away with it. I am now left wondering why the hell I bothered to appeal if the LA are just going to ignore the order!

sorry to rant here but I am really losing the will to live with this now...

What a nightmare. No real advice here - but...

Can you find out who the bigger cheese is at your lea? The person above the person we send sa requests to? So the directors boss? It's worked for a friend of mine.

Also official conplaints to the director cc'ing in anyone who has ever worked on my sons case.

I just said " I want to raise a official complaint about the target date for ds nil and for all staff involved refusing to cooperate with me". Nil turned up then after two days...

Yes, we are basically fighting for a pile of poo mostly. It's never easy is it?

They have 6 weeks to put it in place. The School may have some concerns about the wording of the statement and be unaware that the law means it is staying as is. Also when she refers to the 'amendments' and 'draft' she might not mean the actual statement document but the funding arrangements or perhaps they are simply arguing about who will be responsible for the implementation of some of the aspects.

Don't assume yet that it is all going wrong, though it won't hurt to do some preliminary research into the JR process so that you can a)not feel overwhelmed by it if things do start to go wrong and b)talk knowledgably and confidently to them about it the instant you find out about anything happening that shouldn't be.

Have you told the school that this has been ordered by a tribunal so "potential amendments" aren't an option?

Don't worry too much about the judicial review route. I suggest you write to the LA now pointing out chapter and verse about the date by which they were supposed to have issued an amended statement that complied with the tribunal's order - it's in the regulations printed at the back of the Code of Practice. Tell them if you don't have the finalised statement by Monday you will have to consult solicitors with a view to judicial review action. The fact that you make it obvious that you know the law might well bring the LA to its senses.

If that doesn't work, you need to go to a solicitor able to do do education legal aid work, because if you did have to go to JR it would be in your DD's name and she presumably qualifies for legal aid. If you don't qualify for legal aid yourself you are likely to have to pay for the initial pre-action letter, but it shouldn't cost too much. I suspect that a decently drafted pre-action letter will bring the LA to its senses anyway and you probably won't have to take it any further than that.

the school are fully aware that the statement has to be issued inline with what the judge has ordered as the senco (the one that is disputing the order) attended both hearings as a witness. I have also handed her a copy of the judge's decision and the ordered working document so she can see for herself what the judge has ordered and their reasons behind this.

the LA during the hearing actually told the panel that they would not fund the therapies under any circumstances.

This is banana republic fucknuttery of the highest order. If the rule of law means nothing to the people you've been dealing with, then you might be able to get somewhere by directly making it a problem for their seniors.

Do what ici says, but don't waste your time with your normal LA correspondents. Write to the person two levels above the LA rep who attended the hearing, copied to the person three levels above. This is likely to be a Director of Children's Services, and/or a deputy director with broad responsibility for SEN amongst other things. These people won't give a specific shiny shit about your DD - but they don't like to be embarassed by the conduct of their subordinates, particularly when it is clearly legally unjustifiable. When your case is as clear and legally-sanctioned as it is, there's a chance that they might lean on your LA rep.

Pretend that this senior bod knows little about the practicalities of tribunal stuff. Attach the decision notice to the letter, explain the timescales they have to adhere to (5 weeks), and SENDIST's guidance about what to do if the LA does not abide by the decision (JR & LGO complaint). If the decision notice says specific things about the conduct of the LA or the quality of the evidence, chuck that in too.

Say that you look forward to the new spirit of co-production that the new legislation will bring and try not to die laughing while you type it - but for now, you have no alternative but to ensure that your DD's legal rights are upheld. Say that you have come this far, and that you're willing to proceed to JR and launch an LGO complaint if you have to. As Ofsted also inspect children's services (and are considering specific inspections of SEN services), you could usefully add that you are considering bringing this case to the attention of Ofsted's regional director.

Yes complaining to big cheeses isn't going to make anyone look good on your case.
When I did this it really worked. I presume they all got a massive bollocking as got a lot of apologies from people who had been ignoring my calls and emails for a month!

thanks for the advice! have spoken to the head of SN this morning and apparently the statement will be posted to me today. yet they have still not employed any therapists yet!

Is it possible they are going to say they can't do it at that school?

that is what I was wondering. can they do that if the school is named in part 4?

If they name a school in part 4 and then don't provide part 3 you can start a judicial review. The review will stop if they then rectify by naming a school which can provide part 3. If you do not agree with the school they name you would need to take them to tribunal again. We were in a situation where they had agreed to 2 and 3, finalised the statement and a couple of months later said they couldn't do it at his then school. They agreed to name an alternative school that we wanted in part 4 and he is now getting part 3.

Today I finally recieved the final statement as ordered by SENDIST . However it also arrived with a covering letter stating that the LA will be in touch to discuss the ordered therapies once the resources become available!

So on monday my solicitor will be sending them a letter threatening JR.

I will be suprised if the LA allow the school to claim that they cant provide part 3 as I think the only other option would be an indie specialist school - which would obviously cost the LA more.

Could a MS school refuse to comply with full time 1:1, 2:1 specialist teaching (hr a week), 1:1 SLT and OT (weekly), 30 mins a day TA OT programmes, 30 mins daily SLT TA programme, training from specialist for senco, CT and TA, multi sensory differentiated curriculum devised by the SLT OT and specialist teacher, termly meetings with EP, SLT, OT, CT, SENCO and specialist teacher?

Ds has something similar on his statement and ms school said it couldn't be done and LA didn't push them on it. Independent SLT and OT would have been needed and LA didn't want that. School said they didn't have appropriate space. Ds is now at independent specialist.

oh no . tbh I would prefer indie specialist anyhow but I am worried about the timescale. it has already taken 2yrs since I first sent off the request for SA. my dd urgently needs this therapy. thanks for all of your help.