SCN0364

 

Written evidence from Parental Submission 97

 

 

Written evidence submitted by [names], parents of a SEN child living in [local authority].

 

Summary of main points:

 

•     Inadequate EHCP Transition meeting

•     Unlawful conduct by the LA Assessment Officer

•     Incorrect procedures followed

•     Lack of transparency and engagement from the LA

•     Lack of correct provision for our SEN child

•     No provision for Occupational Therapy to help with Sensory Difficulties.

•     Inadequate support and provision from the Speech and Language Service.

•     Blatant dismissal of Code of Practice

•     Clinical commissioning groups lack of understanding and action.

•     Lack of funding

•     LAs malicious conduct leading up to Tribunal

•     Tribunal results

•     Conduct post Tribunal

•     Ongoing issues

 

Introduction:

 

We have an 8 year old son who has an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis which presents him with multiple and severe difficulties in communication, social interaction and cognitive ability.  He also has a diagnosis of Sensory Processing Dysfunction which impacts hugely on the quality of his daily life.

 

We are participating in this SEND inquiry as we have direct experience of the reforms that were introduced as part of the Children and Families Act 2014 and in our experience the reforms have not been implemented in [local authority] and a lot of effort and work needs to be done to ensure that  ‘social injustice in education’ does not occur and the challenges and needs of SEN children are addressed.

 

Our experience:

 

  1. On April 26th 2017 we attended a EHCP Transition meeting at [name] Special School in [local authority], which our son attends.  There was a catalogue of failures and improper conduct by the LA Assessment Officer (details in Appendix 1).  We were unhappy with the conduct of the Assessment Officer who had complete disregard to anything we said or presented at the meeting and refused to take into consideration any evidence we submitted.

 

  1. We requested another meeting with the SENAT team to discuss our sons provision in his EHC Plan.  They refused to meet with us.
  2. We requested an up to date Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment for our son to inform the EHC Plan as he has ongoing OT needs and had not been reviewed for several years.  Also we requested an up to date Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment as there had been several new disruptive and disturbing behavioural changes.  Both these requests were dismissed.

 

  1. We met with [local authority] SENDIAS (independent support) to obtain advice about how we should proceed.

 

  1. [Local authority] Sendias arranged a meeting with [name], Special Educational Needs Assessment Team leader on 24th May.  We presented her with the catalogue of mistakes that were made at the EHCP Transition meeting (see Appendix 1) and expressed our frustration and disappointment at the lack of appropriate provision for our son.

 

  1. We confirmed what we said in the above meeting with [name] formally in writing on 30th May 2017 (see Appendix 2) and respectfully requested a written response within 7 working days.  This complaint was lodged with [local authority] complaint procedures but was NEVER responded to.

 

  1. The LA refused to engage with us and kept refusing to meet with us to discuss appropriate provision for our son.  We met with Clinical Commissioners [name] (Health Commissioner) and [name] (Service Director) on 12th June 2017 to put our concerns and request for appropriate provision for our son, in particular Speech Therapy provision and Occupational Therapy provision for sensory processing dysfunction.  There were no outcomes from this meeting and we were once again told that the funding for provision was not available to SEN children in special schools.

 

  1. We tried on numerous occasions to engage with the LA but to no avail and our son’s EHC Plan was finalised on 20th June 2017 without any further input from us and without an up to date Occupational Therapy and Educational Psychologist assessment having taken place.

 

  1. As a result of a total lack of understanding and engagement from [local authority] and failings to deal with our legitimate requests and subsequent complaints, we had no other option but to take our son’s case to the First Tier Tribunal to try to obtain the appropriate provision we knew he needed.

 

  1.   The decision to go to Tribunal was not taken lightly and resulted in great emotional stress, time consumption and financial cost for our family to endure as we are both full time carers.  We subsequently attended our son’s Tribunal hearing on 12th December 2017.

 

  1.   At the Tribunal, the LA continued to display vexatious and antagonistic behaviour towards us and refused to accept our Speech Therapy and Occupational Therapy independent reports.  They disagreed with ALL of the requested provision and refused to agree to any of it.

 

  1.   The judge at the Tribunal on 12th December 2017 recognised the LA’s unsatisfactory content in Sections B and F (the legally enforceable sections) of the EHCP and awarded our son ALL the requested provision for Speech and language therapy and Occupational Therapy for his sensory needs.  He was very critical of the LA’s conduct.

 

  1.   The LA did not confirm that they would provide the provision in the ‘Working Document’ of the Tribunal until 29th January 2018.

 

  1. Provision for Speech Therapy and Occupational Therapy did not commence in our son’s school till  April 2018, nearly four months after the Tribunal decision.

 

  1. The LA acted unreasonably before, during and after the Tribunal and their behaviour and conduct has been unlawful and against everything that the 2014 Children’s and Families act recommends.

 

  1.   The LA showed no regard to the views, wishes and feelings of us as the parents of a disabled child with special educational needs.  We were unable to participate in decisions relating to our sons EHC Plan and were not supported by the LA in pursuit of the appropriate provision for our son in order for him to achieve the best possible educational outcome.

 

  1.   In our own personal experience and also through discussions with other parents of disabled children with special educational needs, [local authority] are not only failing to provide opportunities to achieve the best possible educational opportunities but also fundamentally failing to provide the minimum provision and support to SEN children to promote their well being and improve their quality of living.  In fact we were told by [name], Special Educational Needs Assessment Team leader, that Clinical Commissioning groups in [local authority] do not think it is worth spending money on SEN children.

 

  1.   [Local authority] provide NO provision for children with Sensory Processing Disorders, even though parents have been complaining and making requests for help for many years.  Clinical Commissioning groups are doing nothing to provide and secure the provision these children need and the only way to obtain provision is to take your case to Tribunal like us.

 

  1.   There is a culture of ‘collusion’ in [local authority] between the LA, Sendias service (independent support) and the [local authority] Parent Carer Forum.  Parents are not allowed to attend meetings held by the [local authority] Parent Carer Forum or to represent the Forum if they are in any ‘conflict’ with the LA.  The LA makes decisions, through the forum, as to which parents they want at meetings.  Parents who voice opinions and make requests are not invited as the LA only want ‘yes’ parents to attend and avoid any questioning of their conduct.

 

  1. An understanding has been taken and we were told directly by [name] (service director) that just because the Tribunal Judge had ruled in our sons favour, that this by no means constitutes failings of the LA.

 

 

Recommendations for Action by the Government:

 

  1. LA’s held accountable for unlawful conduct and not adhering to the SEN Code of Conduct.

 

  1. Simpler for parents to get funding for Tribunal cases, as bringing a case to Tribunal is at considerable cost, and is not accessible cost-free contrary to the essence of a Tribunal.

 

  1. For parents to be able to claim back expenses if they win their Tribunal case, despite the extremely high threshold bar for unlawful conduct by the LA.

 

  1. LA’s should not be able to use tax payers finances to hire top barristers to fight Tribunal cases.

 

  1. Local Government Ombudsman investigate improper conduct by the Local Authority, despite the complexity of the case.

 

  1. Funding for Local Authorities to provide provision such as Sensory Integration Therapy to help children with Sensory Processing Disorders.

 

  1. Clinical Commissioning groups held accountable for lack of provision.

 

  1. Clear and defined boundaries of the parent supporting groups so that they are completely independent of any LA influences and not deemed to be in collusion with the LA.

 

June 2018