if the LA issued a final statement last week, can the LA issue a revised final statement next week??

[bjkmummy]

its Saturday so of course today I will get a response back from the LA!!!!

the LA been back to their barrister clearly and now say

' as a result of this I am now in a position to inform you that the LA will issue a revised statement ie final statement next week'

the finals statement is as the consent order states a holding statement. The LA intention was to take into account as part of the EHC assessment process the 3 indie reports (and other reports which may be gathered) which were submitted after the NIL.

The LA will now reference these reports in part 2 of the statement and annexe them to the same.'

so how can they now issue another statement (which ive already lodged an appeal against) and only mention the indie reports in part 2 but no mention in part 3

they say nothing wrong with the amount given in part 4 and school can give up to 15 hours or more if needs be.

they tehn say the ehc assessment will be completed by 1 may but don't answer the question that I asked namely - is that when the finalised plan will be issued or is that just the 'assessment' only

so now I have an appeal lodged against a statement which the LA will try to change next week - surely they cannot change a finalised statement cos they've realised they've cocked up on something - can they????

No it's not a JR it's a review of the tribunal decision. I need to ask them to amend the consent order to read that they've ordered to issue a statement and not an EHCP. Can't see my LA allowing that one can you?

Knowing what you know now from MNSN, ipsea etc, would you still have agreed?

With a chance to compare the old and new sencops, would you have agreed?

With legal advice, would you have agreed?

With adequate time to think, would you have agreed?

With a decent explanation from Tribunal, would you still have agreed?

Think the answer would be no to all of those questions

If this was payment protection insurance, or a new mobile, you'd be refunded. If it was cosmetic surgery you'd get thousands in damages. If it was a divorce settlement it'd be overturned. If it was a will it'd be null & void. If it was a lasting power of attorney the court of protection judge would beat up whoever was ripping Granny off well, maybe not quite that extreme

Even the LA barrister won't really have expected to get away with this.

Well the revised final statement has come and they have attached my indie reports. In part 2 each report has a small paragraph highlighting the dx she has been given. DK report quotes she has extreme reactions to change, restricted interests and considerable sensory processing disorder'

They have added in the dx of asd to her list of difficulties plus auditory processing.

But although the reports are now briefly mentioned in part 2, nothing relating to them is in part 3 and they have left the hours at 11 hours of support!

I have the opportunity to phone the solicitor tomorrow who has drafted my paperwork to review the consent order so will have a chat with her tomorrow and in the meantime will send them this pile of rubbish as well.

They now on the front of it are calling this one a revised statement so the word 'final' has now gone and a generic letter is it a revised (final statement)

Par for the course I'm afraid.

Its the LA way of claiming that a diagnosis of ASD 'makes no difference' to the provision in a statement which is based on 'need' - identified by their experts only and 'met' as cheaply as possible, if at all.

I found this little gem in a local secondary schools SEN policy:

"If the student has a statement or an EHCP the provision will be set out in the document and the school will do its best to provide the support if it is appropriate to the needs of the student at the time and within the resources of the school."

Three get-out clauses in one sentence. It should read:

"If the student has a statement or an EHCP the provision will be set out in the document and the school will provide the support." End of.

keep you are spot on = that's what they are doing but they have now appendiced the indie reports but ignored the provision which of course they will as the indie reports are all specified and quantified.

for me what makes me angry is that the judge made it clear to the LA they cannot ignore her needs so the LA getting round that by accepting the dx but then providing no provision for it. like you say par of the course and we know where were are ultimately heading.

the gem you found does not surprise me and I expect we will see many more such gems over the coming months

KeepOn, can you send that to the local authority and indeed the Department for Education? It's blatantly unlawful, and really the LA should pull them up on it as they give schools SEN funding in part to meet statement requirements, not to supply only what they feel like supplying.

I do feel a bit sorry for the schools at times. I've seen several statements for year 6/7 dc where no updating has ever happened, other than maybe naming the new junior school or secondary in part 4.

if parts 2&3 still have their Reception data and early years provision, and the schools various AR reports aren't even appended... you can understand them ignoring statement

The goslings are a bit odd- they usually have parents who've made damn sure the statement is sort-of-ok. Most people have no idea how to make reluctant LAs do their job.