Please or to access all these features

SN children

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.

My appeal for contents results

13 replies

2boysnamedR · 07/11/2015 11:53

I technically won my appeal but in reality I lost. I got no 1:1 at all. Slt is going to be once a month. My slt asked for once a week by qualified slt and la asked for twice a week by ta but the panel decided on neither option. All the OT was rejected. The panel didn't quantify or specify the slt time and when we asked them to they wouldn't.

So zero funded and still not quantified and specified. If I want it Q & S I have to appeal. School said they don't implement anyway at the appeal so I have a lot of mess to sort out even I wanted such a weak statement implemented

OP posts:
Mrsmoneyworries · 07/11/2015 17:24

That doesn't sound lawful at all. How can that be justified. Must admit, I have never been through appeal so don't know if this is normal or not.

I'm really sorry it's not really appropriate.

chocadd1ct · 07/11/2015 17:26

sorry 2boys. not sure what to say. things have been seriously shitty at your end?

GruntledOne · 07/11/2015 17:42

It does sound like it's appealable. The law is so clear that provision must be detailed and specific, I don't see how any tribunal can reasonably say that it would be wrong to comply with that requirement, even if they don't agree with the amount you are asking for.

2boysnamedR · 07/11/2015 22:47

I know! I feel like my life is turning into a textbook case of all scenarios that can go wrong. Sendist want me to appeal under one rule but ipsea are quoting another rule that means they just need to correct it. Then I have to try to get the LA to agree to the time the TA will work on it ( fat chance!) school don't pay the ta to be in for the hours he needs "access to" a ta in class.

I feel very discounted in sendist. It certainly makes me realise I'm not going to appeal for my autistic toddlers school place or ehcp. Appeals ( to me) feel like they are worth doing for assessment, issuing and placement. We had a very strong case for slt and 1:1 but it was as good as ignored.

OP posts:
2boysnamedR · 07/11/2015 22:49

If my non verbal toddler goes into ms with no ehcp it's schools problem to resolve.

OP posts:
Ineedmorepatience · 08/11/2015 09:17

I am sorry its all been so shite for you 2boys. I hope IPSEA will be able to sort some of the mess out! Sad

GruntledOne · 08/11/2015 09:39

You don't have to worry about which rule you're appealing under, it makes no difference in terms of the procedure and forms. What you do is send in a form asking for permission to appeal, setting out all your reasons. A judge looks at it and, if they think there was a clear error of law, they can send it straight back for reconsideration (which is probably what the Ipsea person was thinking of). If it's less clear but there is still a possibility of error, they can give permission to appeal and it then goes to the upper tribunal. If they think there is no error they will refuse permission, but you can reapply to the upper tribunal. But you really need a lawyer to look at it and identify any errors. I think both SOS SEN and Ipsea have people who could do that.

2boysnamedR · 08/11/2015 09:50

Ipsea legal are looking at it. I really don't want put too much mental effort into it as I could loose it at in April.

It's just disappointing that there was no LA EP there yet the 1:1 was totally dismissed.

Also I didn't know the LA had emailed the WD to sendist but not to me ( found out that they was all working to that a hour into the hearing - no one had told our side). No one seemed angry I hadn't been given it.

The panel seemed to aware of things that I hadn't disclosed in the bundle. They made reference to my problems with the school which they said ( not in these exact words but it was the gist) was mostly imagined by me. How they knew there's bad feeling I don't know. The only thing that came close to that was senco saying the school don't implement his statement but I remained silent on that.

OP posts:
Youarentkiddingme · 08/11/2015 19:55

What amazes me - still - is how the school can admit they don't implement statement and won't even if it's quantified and specified.

If no ones going to hold them account to the law then no ones going to worry about being accountable.

2boysnamedR · 08/11/2015 21:24

Depressing isn't it? I told the head that it's a legally binding document and I would JR.

He told us to leave. I got back onto the LA who are going to sent one of their henchmen into school to ensure it is implemented or give the head and senco awards for being penny pinching wankers who have sent a very clear message to the Sen parents of shut up or piss off

OP posts:
KOKOagainandagain · 09/11/2015 15:20

My experience is very close to 2boys. Some schools seem to have decided to draw the line on SEN delegated budgets (now that time has passed and so they have 'forgotten' that actually the overall budget includes SEN) and they seem to think that their 'can't pay - won't pay' attitude is morally justified as the policy itself is unfair. The arrogance is staggering because it openly flaunts the law.

To ask the question 'what must be the case?' for teaching staff to behave in this way (where the real people at the front-line of the battle are disabled DC and their beleaguered families), either, they are all (apart from a few good apples) morally bankrupt and rotten to the core or these kind of experiences are the new reality. Maybe we are feeling loss of power because ultimately appealing and having a water-tight statement means sweet FA if the school won't implement, LAs won't force them and legal recourse is pointless, expensive, stressful and time-consuming.

I spent an hour on the phone to IPSEA this morning. I have a meeting with the HT the SENCO and the LA this week. Despite the fact that we are on the run-up to Tribunal, the LA only managed (by attending meetings, writing short-term targets etc) to get the school to deliver all the support in the existing statement (it will be more following appeal) in mid-June. A week later the HT made his Statement to Tribunal detailing provision that had only been in place for a week. The detailed provision was stopped at the end of term a month later and never restarted in the new term in September. At the beginning of October the Senco gives me a proposed new IEP which officially removes all the short-term targets.

Courtesy of Data Access request to the LA I have copies of emails and notes of discussions where the HT and the Senco as good as claim that parents have delusional beliefs that have resulted in a statement being given purely due to parental pressure, that DS2 does not present with any issues and so the school is finding it hard to meet the statement requirements and, worse of all, that supporting DS2 is 'hampering his education'.

The recent report of 2nd opinion from the HFA clinic at GOSH recommends autism outreach and continuing SALT and OT. The school have spent the last year arguing they are not necessary - even though he had them in his previous school.

I want the LA to kick ass and I want an apology - preferably on the front page of the school homepage right next to the SEND offer.

2boysnamedR · 09/11/2015 21:33

I feel your pain. Not sure if the LA has contacted our school yet about the non compliance.

Next time I'm going to put my efforts into going around the local schools with our issues and seeing which ones will accept him ( surprisingly quite a few haven't been phased) and are willing to support getting things done.

Or in the case of my asd sons more severe needs I'm not planning on doing anything. I'm batting it back into their court. Let them teach a non verbal child to talk read and write. If they can than every one is a winner

OP posts:
MeirAya · 14/11/2015 22:36

Have DM'd you

New posts on this thread. Refresh page