Tribunal yesterday

[Sally44]

Well the big day finally happened.

 

We got the overall impression that it went well for our side. But you never know until the final decision.

 

We didn't really go through parts 2 and 3 in the way everyone usually does it. The Panel wanted the witnesses to give evidence ie. both EPs, then both SALTs etc. And the Panel asked questions and allowed me to come back with comments to things the LA side said.

 

The LA did not come up with anything additional. It was agreed that the Autism Unit is both full and not suitable for my son. So all the LA could suggest was more of the same, putting in the level of provision at his former school - which he is unable to tolerate for more than 2 hours a week child led activities, and where he refuses to go into the playground.

 

We had late evidence of an Anxiety Disorder to submit, which proved he has deteriorated even further and has mental health issues that only the independent school could meet as CAHMS/CP work with the school team.

 

The LA did throw a number of accusations eg. that our son had not 'refused school', but that I had 'withdrawn him'. I was allowed to respond to that and detail the papers which demonstrated that I had actually been ensuring he had attended school to the point that both I and CAHMS were uncomfortable with the level of force I was having to use, and that once that 'force' was withdrawn he did not attend - and indeed would have been out of school months/years earlier if it had not been for my determination to get him in.

 

At the end the Panel allowed each professional to raise any major issue that they felt they wanted the Panel to hear. And they allowed me to give a closing Statement [which I put together to respond to each LA witnesses on details I felt were inaccurate or not a true reflection of what had happened or what had been done.

 

I feel that I said practically everything I wanted to say, and that everything else is in the Bundle.

 

The level of provision for SALT/OT/Dyslexia Teaching that our expert witnesses had recommended was agreed and none of the LA side challenged that. So the Panel have to decide if that provision/therapy could be provided within his former school. Which we argued it could not because (a) he won't attend, and ( it is not cohesive or flexible enough, © any funding is year on year and not standard and (d) he moves to secondary next year.

 

It also went to costs with the LA trying to provide figures of 'no cost' to the LA. I had obtained the costs of what his placement funding actually is from LA documents and the SENCO had confirmed that figure to me in an email, which the LA tried to refute, but couldn't because it was from their own documents. And we used the Judgement whereby the cost of provision has to be applied to both sides [LA placement and Independent Placement], and if that is adhered to, the independent placement is better value than the LA buying in the provision.

 

We also pointed out that my son is due to transfer to secondary school next year. That there has been no Annual Review for 20 months. That any provision into an LA maintained school is 'year on year' funding, and not standard.

 

We've not slept at all last night, going over and over what everyone said and how the Panel responded to it. The Panel were VERY annoyed at the LA Officer who having agreed the level of SALT provision our son needed as per our independent report, then said they could provide that within a budget of £1250! The Panel commented that that would just about cover the SALTs travelling expenses.

 

My side kept telling me that the Panel will read through the Bundle again, and that I must have confidence that they will not only read what is there, but also what is not there, and what the LA/school did not do.

 

I really felt like my son finally had his day in court with a Panel who were listening. Can't ask for more than that really. I just hope they see the futility of trying to work with his current mainstream school, especially as our Independent EP said he was not mainstream material, and the LA did not argue that point.

 

The SENCO tried to argue that he had made progress, but my independent SALT pointed out that since 2006 the number of words he can read/write has halved. To which the Panel responded to the SENCO "are you still saying that he has made progress?"

 

Anyway, we've got the agonising two week wait. And obviously will post the result.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Sally44

[Sally44]

I just wanted to add that we had been really worried about a possible adjournment too (as nearly 3000+ pages of evidence).

 

But the way the Panel approached it was totally different. It was almost like the provision recommended in parts 2 and 3 were not even under dispute from the start. The LA/Independent SALT both agreed the wording for parts 2 and 3 outside within 30 mins. And I was told by everyone [on my side], that that level of provision can only be delivered in a specialist placement.

 

So there was no arguing over the wording at all. The Panel were really good and we only looked at the major issues.

 

The LA did not have any arguments to counter our evidence at all.

 

The LA EP stated that 'learning and losing' learnt information is typical of an ASD. However I countered that with, "children with an ASD do make progress when they are in the right placement, with the right level of provision and therapy".

 

The LA also argued that my son would not tolerate the taxi drive - not sure what they were trying to prove because he has to go by taxi to his current mainstream school. We pointed out he was going out in different cars with different people and that the family had driven through Europe for our holidays and had no problems. If that was the best argument they could offer, it wasn't very good.

[Grace]

Hi Sally,

 

Excellent! Well done! So pleased for you; sounds like the Panel were not impressed with the LA at all and I can see why - the LA did not really have anything to fight with did they?

 

Pathetic really - no sound evidence from their end at all; it's like they thought they might as well turn up and give it a shot, but could not be bothered to put together anything to fight you.

 

I can't see how you can lose, which I know I shouldn't say, but as the LA had not got an alternative school (amazing that they did not even come up with a maintained special, however unsuitable)and I think it's pretty clear that your son needs a specialist placement, then what else have the Panel to choose? The LA agreed the unit was unsuitable and full, so they just came empty-handed!

 

Horrible two week wait now!

 

Please PM me your Ed Psych and SALT, as they sound like they did a fab job.

 

Be keeping fingers crossed/x

[Kathryn]

Well done!

 

I had thought you would need an adjournment but not having to haggle over parts 2 and 3 must have helped to shorten the time considerably.

 

Did you prepare your closing statement beforehand or did you make it up as you went along?

 

Who can say which way it will go, but it sounds as though you had strong arguments on both the suitability and costs issue, and normally if you win the suitability argument outright the panel wouldn't even look at costs.

 

I think it takes a long time these days to get the Decision out, and if it's a complex one it usually takes longer anyway, so try to relax and forget about it as far as you can. Hope you have some nice distracting things planned!

 

K x

[workingmum]

Hello Sally44, rooting for you. Hope the tribunal see through the LA and you get the suitable school for your child, we went through same process as you, got the suitable school and my DC is making progress - surprising everyone. Goes to prove the point.

Edited October 11, 2011 by workingmum

[Suze]

Keeping everything crossed for you ...let us know as soon as you hear suzex

[Sally44]

Well done!

 

I had thought you would need an adjournment but not having to haggle over parts 2 and 3 must have helped to shorten the time considerably.

 

Did you prepare your closing statement beforehand or did you make it up as you went along?

 

Who can say which way it will go, but it sounds as though you had strong arguments on both the suitability and costs issue, and normally if you win the suitability argument outright the panel wouldn't even look at costs.

 

I think it takes a long time these days to get the Decision out, and if it's a complex one it usually takes longer anyway, so try to relax and forget about it as far as you can. Hope you have some nice distracting things planned!

 

K x

 

I prepared an opening Statement and then was asked a very specific question and so had to think off the cuff. But for the closing Statement I had made notes on each professional and what they had said that was inaccurate or an outright lie. And I complied by closing Statement from that along with other bits of info I felt I needed to remind them of.

 

We had to look at costs because the Judge had already issued a Direction which stated that the LA had to produce costs not only for the provision/support/therapy that they FELT my son needed, but for ALL the recommendations incase the Panel found in my favour that he did indeed need that level of therapies etc.

 

However the LA did not submit detailed costings at all. They pretty much said that everything cost them nothing. And because of that I compiled costings myself, with two quotes for each therapist and I submitted that as late evidence and used Brown Vs Coventry as the case that states costings have to be apportioned to both sides ie. if SALT costs £16,000 that has to be applied to the LA placement as well as offset against the placement I want.

 

The LA did not come up with any other option than what is not currently working.

They agreed to all the provision. And having agreed to that, they have to factor in the cost of providing that level of provision. The NHS OT already confirmed that they only provide 20 hours per child of "assessment and advice". They do not do any work at all with any child. Yet our provision was asking for around 2 hours OT a week.

 

His current SENCO agreed that since having sessions at his old school he had deteriorated further, was sat in a storage room on his own with a teacher and was not able to remain in the building for more than an hour and was not able to socialise with any of the children school had previously said were his "friends".

 

I just have to sit tight now and wait. The Panel did not ask our side any difficult questions. Their main one was whether the cost of the independent school included everything, which the Deputy Head of that school confirmed it did. They did ask her about their reintegration programme, and she gave a detailed account of how they would achieve it. The current SENCO just said that they would try to gradually increase the length of time he could tolerate school, which the panel clarified was just over 2 hours a week after 9 months out of school!

 

I don't want to count my eggs, but the expert witnesses said that from their previous experiences of tribunals, this had to go our way - but obviously nothing is guaranteed until you get the final decision. I really don't know what we will do if we don't get it. It seems madness to continue trying to get him back to his old school, especially since he has deteriorated academically, socially and mentally - and then have to start all over again in a mainstream secondary school. The Panel did not even ask questions about secondary school transfer and even the NHS SALT pointed out to the panel that my son was in year 6 and that he would have to go through all the upheavel of moving to secondary school. So i'm just keeping everything crossed.

[Athena]

Sally well done to you! It sounds like it went very well!

The 2 week wait after is just agonising, worse than that Tribunal itself in my experience.

I have everything crossed for you!

[dekra]

A lot of what you said sounds very complicated and must have been difficult to put together. I really hope you have a successful outcome for your son.

[Sally44]

Yes it was difficult. I'm not a solicitor.

But I tried to get as much evidence as I could into the Bundle about the level of service provision within my LA. For example I wrote to the Head of most departments asking them for staff numbers, qualifications etc. I was surprised to find that the specialist teaching department has no-one with an additional qualification for autism or dyslexia - yet they are supposed to be the specialist service. And then they confirmed that they don't even go into schools classed as "enhanced resource", which my sons' is. So eventhough the Statement said they would be involved, they were not. They also confirmed that they had not been approached by the LA for any advice when his Statement was re-assessed.

The GP also wrote to the OT service asking them about provision for children with sensory integration disorder. They confirmed they do not provide any therapy at all.

I also think that this time the timing was perfect. It was at a time when the LA were making alot of people redundant, or they were taking early retirement, which many people were not happy about. This involved two Heads of Department and the Director of Commissioning, who were all much more open in their correspondence with me because they were leaving.

The tribunal itself was not as I had expected it to be. We did not go over every paragraph under dispute individually [and the LA disputed most of them], because the Panel saw the expert witnesses first, and once the LA side had agreed to everything our witnesses had said, they could not then argue over the paragraphs that were in part 2 or 3. The final wording of the Statement is going to be put together by the Panel themselves.

 

It was very hard work - as anyone knows who has been to tribunal. But I could not afford a solicitor, and so I just had to put together the Bundle and learn it inside out. You have to consider what the usual arguments are at a Tribunal ie. the LA arguing the child has made progress. And then submit the evidence the proves that is not the case.

 

I'm glad it's over. I keep falling asleep every time I sit down - must be exhaustion. I don't know HOW people do this kind of thing for a living!

 

But it is worth doing. I felt there had been a huge misjustice for my son, who after years of struggling could not even manage to attend school anymore. And the school/LA knew about all his needs, but they simply would not meet them. And in our case, it started going wrong from the very beginning because my son has never been mainstream material - and the LA knew that and withheld their own professional's opinon from the parents and the first tribunal. If that evidence had been submitted then, things might have been alot better for him during his primary years. BUT he also is not MLD, and therefore the LA have never had a placement suitable for both his needs and cognitive ability. He is one of the unfortunate few children who do not fit into any of the types of placements typically offered by LA's.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Sally44

[Kathryn]

You've done brilliantly Sally and I know from everything you've posted over a long period of time that this has been a HUGE project for you. You should not have had to do it - it's no doubt taken up time which should be spent just enjoying being with your son. And how many parents have the ability to put together a case as you have done?

 

By the way I think your pm inbox is full as I tried to send you a pm just now and failed.

 

K x

[Sally44]

Its not a fair system is it.

 

I can imagine that many parents would struggle to even know where to begin.

 

Although each case may not need to have a solicitor, you definately need advice from someone, or an organisation, that can help you put your case together. I think there are really set arguments that you have to prove such as "no progress" or "loss of skills" etc.

 

The LA and their witnesses are used to going to tribunal. They lied at Tribunal - no surprises there! They said that my son had not refused school, but that I had withdrawn him from school! So I asked why they had not managed to reintegrate him after 9 months, and referred to the documentation from ClinPsych and CAHMS which stated I was being over forceful in making him go to school which was detrimental to his mental health. And I commented that that was the only thing making him go into school and that I had been reduced to using that level of force because no-one was listening to me and my son. I likened it to the Psychological experiment where one person is giving electrical shocks to another person under instructions from a professional. I said that every time I raised my concerns, the answer I got was "no concerns", which left me with no other option other than to continue forcing him into school regardless of how distressful or painful it was for him. And that that left my son with no option other than to increase his avoidance and self harm behaviours.

 

The EP said his lack of progress was typical for children with an ASD and was to be expected [i didn't comment on the number of ASD children with qualifications or those who can read and write etc - i'm hoping the EP's comment registers with the Panel because that was part of my initial complaint. That my son was not making progress and that this was being treated as being typical, when it isn't. I said children with an ASD do make progress when they are in the right placement and have the right level of provision. And I pointed out that not only had he not made progress, but that he had gone backwards.

 

The LA did not give a balanced picture at all.

 

The EP said he was making progress with returning to school [when on further questioning by the Panel it was obvious he wasn't - even the SENCO admitted that - plus the EP had no idea what the return to school programme involved, eventhough she told the Panel she had been involved in putting it together!. She said he was going swimming - not true. That he was going trampolining - again not true. And I put the Panel right about that. The teacher is not qualified to do those things with him. She has not received any training. I said he is having his sessions in the school store room and is only tolerating it for about an hour twice a week and refuses to go outside and play with the children.

 

I had to clarify that although my son was going for the sessions, that he was not staying for the 1.5 hours and was arriving home before the session was supposed to finish. The LA said I had no evidence of that - and by chance my representative had phoned me and we were talking when my son came home - and she told me to make a note of the time, which I did, and on the day the representative confirmed that she had heard him come home at least 30 mins early. When the Panel asked the LA if my son had managed to stay until the end of any of the sessions, the LA said they had not asked that question! Which the Panel said was a basic question to ask.

 

The LA also argued that his anxiety was not just related to school, but included all social interaction and all environments. And so they argued that NO placement would solve his difficulties or meet his needs. So I had to point out that "social communication" "emotional literacy" and "sensory processing" are all recognised as being educational needs, that related directly to his schooling, and although he was not only anxious during school, the majority of his day is spent there and that afterwards he is in no fit state to do anything else.

 

I also pointed out that all those needs were identified in his first Statement and was provision that was not provided. I pointed out that an emotional literacy programme and an aim to improve his sensory integration are included in his second Statement, but have not been met. And not only were they not met, but I told the Panel that the Bundle demonstrates that school had no concerns at all and did not refer him to any outside professionals. I said I believed that if his needs had been met, that he would not be in the situation he was in now, with a further diagnosis of an anxiety disorder.

 

The LA definately tried to turn everything round, and get off the hook for every aspect. And so I had to counter argue everything they said.

 

BUT I was also assured by my side that the Panel DO read through the whole bundle a number of times. And that they can read between the lines. So i'm really banking on that.

 

My advice for any parent would be to try to get as much factual evidence as you can into the Bundle and also do a contents list of the Bundle and annotate your case and cross reference it all. Because on the day the LA side really do say what they like and you need to be able to refer to letters/file notes in the Bundle that prove your point.

 

For example the SENCO said that his writing had improved, and she had included a copy of his best piece of writing with her report. But I pointed out that, yes he had made progress with his letter formulation, BUT that the example of writing she had provided had been written outside of the classroom, because the SALT file notes recorded that piece of writing with a marginal note which said "got very distressed inside the classroom because he could not concentrate - took himself out into the corridor to do this." And the SALT had sent a note to the teacher "Do you think it is relevent that xxxx did his best piece of writing outside of the classroom?" And I said "of course it is relevent, my son is telling and showing people what he needs to be able to do his work, but no-one is listening. And I told the SENCO it was grossly untrue to try to pass off that piece of writing as something he completed in class."

 

The LA said that they would meet his SpLD needs, until I reminded the Panel that the school and the LA do not have any specialist teacher with an additional qualification to teach and assess [has to be level 7 according to the Rose Review]. Then the Panel asked for clarification from the LA, and they then admitted they would have to buy it in. So you do have to prove your case on each point, not just on the need, but also on whether the LA have those resources or would have to buy it in.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Sally44

[bb1976]

Well the big day finally happened.

 

We got the overall impression that it went well for our side. But you never know until the final decision.

 

We didn't really go through parts 2 and 3 in the way everyone usually does it. The Panel wanted the witnesses to give evidence ie. both EPs, then both SALTs etc. And the Panel asked questions and allowed me to come back with comments to things the LA side said.

 

The LA did not come up with anything additional. It was agreed that the Autism Unit is both full and not suitable for my son. So all the LA could suggest was more of the same, putting in the level of provision at his former school - which he is unable to tolerate for more than 2 hours a week child led activities, and where he refuses to go into the playground.

 

We had late evidence of an Anxiety Disorder to submit, which proved he has deteriorated even further and has mental health issues that only the independent school could meet as CAHMS/CP work with the school team.

 

The LA did throw a number of accusations eg. that our son had not 'refused school', but that I had 'withdrawn him'. I was allowed to respond to that and detail the papers which demonstrated that I had actually been ensuring he had attended school to the point that both I and CAHMS were uncomfortable with the level of force I was having to use, and that once that 'force' was withdrawn he did not attend - and indeed would have been out of school months/years earlier if it had not been for my determination to get him in.

 

At the end the Panel allowed each professional to raise any major issue that they felt they wanted the Panel to hear. And they allowed me to give a closing Statement [which I put together to respond to each LA witnesses on details I felt were inaccurate or not a true reflection of what had happened or what had been done.

 

I feel that I said practically everything I wanted to say, and that everything else is in the Bundle.

 

The level of provision for SALT/OT/Dyslexia Teaching that our expert witnesses had recommended was agreed and none of the LA side challenged that. So the Panel have to decide if that provision/therapy could be provided within his former school. Which we argued it could not because (a) he won't attend, and ( it is not cohesive or flexible enough, © any funding is year on year and not standard and (d) he moves to secondary next year.

 

It also went to costs with the LA trying to provide figures of 'no cost' to the LA. I had obtained the costs of what his placement funding actually is from LA documents and the SENCO had confirmed that figure to me in an email, which the LA tried to refute, but couldn't because it was from their own documents. And we used the Judgement whereby the cost of provision has to be applied to both sides [LA placement and Independent Placement], and if that is adhered to, the independent placement is better value than the LA buying in the provision.

 

We also pointed out that my son is due to transfer to secondary school next year. That there has been no Annual Review for 20 months. That any provision into an LA maintained school is 'year on year' funding, and not standard.

 

We've not slept at all last night, going over and over what everyone said and how the Panel responded to it. The Panel were VERY annoyed at the LA Officer who having agreed the level of SALT provision our son needed as per our independent report, then said they could provide that within a budget of £1250! The Panel commented that that would just about cover the SALTs travelling expenses.

 

My side kept telling me that the Panel will read through the Bundle again, and that I must have confidence that they will not only read what is there, but also what is not there, and what the LA/school did not do.

 

I really felt like my son finally had his day in court with a Panel who were listening. Can't ask for more than that really. I just hope they see the futility of trying to work with his current mainstream school, especially as our Independent EP said he was not mainstream material, and the LA did not argue that point.

 

The SENCO tried to argue that he had made progress, but my independent SALT pointed out that since 2006 the number of words he can read/write has halved. To which the Panel responded to the SENCO "are you still saying that he has made progress?"

 

Anyway, we've got the agonising two week wait. And obviously will post the result.

 

Well done to you for putting a great case forward good luck in getting what you need for your son big hugs to you xx

[Sally44]

Not much longer to wait.

I am going through days when I am optimistic and feel sure it will go our way.

Then other days when I think no-ones really listened so far, and that the Panel will be the same and the status quo will just continue - I know I can't take much more of what we've been through so far.

[Grace]

Not much longer to wait.

I am going through days when I am optimistic and feel sure it will go our way.

Then other days when I think no-ones really listened so far, and that the Panel will be the same and the status quo will just continue - I know I can't take much more of what we've been through so far.

 

You could try ringing SEND, because if it is due for Monday, they should be posting it today - you could see if they would be prepared to send you it by email? At least you will know it is on its way, if nothing else - I rang to check this and they were very sympathetic to why I was ringing. They confirmed it was on its way, but I have a vague recollection that someone managed to get theirs sent by email.

 

Can't wait to hear and can imagine you must be pacing the carpet!

 

Best Wishes

 

Grace/x

[Lynden]

That's been so much work Sally and he's so lucky to have you fighting his corner. It is ridiculous that it has to get that far - we've had a parent through work just gone through tribunal to get her sons placement and she was successful. Fingers crossed that the news is good news.

 

Lynne

[Athena]

They sent mine by email automatically; I don't remember specifically asking for it by email, but then again, I may have done and forgotten due to the stress and strain of it all!

Good luck!

[Sally44]

For those that are wondering, I still haven't heard anything yet!

 

I phoned Sendist on Monday and they did not have the decision yet.

 

I know the Panel have got alot of paperwork to read through [over 3000 pages], and they are being left to word part 2 and 3 because the LA did not argue over the wording and the whole approach to the Tribunal was not typical. So the Panel have to word it all, which I presume they will take from the reports/working documents.

 

This waiting is agony. If I haven't heard by Wednesday next week I will phone Sendist again.

[Lyndalou]

Hope you hear very soon what the outcome is and rooting for you that it's all positive!

 

Lynda x <'>

[Kathryn]

Hope that you hear very soon Sally. It will take longer than normal if there is a lot to sift through, and it's likely to be a lengthy written Decision as there are a lot of issues to be considered.

 

K x

[Sally44]

This waiting is awful.

 

I keep dreaming about the decision. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Had an awful dream the other night where the Panel members had to change after the actual Tribunal, so the new Panel had not heard any of the actual verbal evidence on the day, and then they decided against us because they said they didn't believe our evidence. So I can't escape the stress of waiting even when asleep

 

I will phone on Wednesday if we don't get the decision by then.

 

I know it will take considerably longer than usual because of the wording of the Statement being decided by the Panel - and one of my main reasons for appealing was that the wording was not legally binding last time, so I am expecting them to spend some time on the actual words they use.

 

I just wish I had a definate date by which I would be informed. That would help.

[Athena]

Oh Sally, I saw that you had posted and got all excited thinking that you had received the decision! Stay strong!