Email #43

Dear Ms New-caseworker

Thank you for your letter dated 18 April 06 to advise that the SEN team will be liaising further with P School and the County Hall Schools Admissions team over my request for a placement at P for my son.

I am confused.

Exactly fifteen days prior to the date on your letter, following our emails (below) you telephoned me to clarify that agreement to consider a special school was not agreement to approve one.

During that conversation I advised you that one of my resons for thinking I needed to go to tribunal was that the National Autistic Society had informed me that a school 'being full' was not an acceptable reason for denying placement. Rather they said that, according to the code of practice (8.85), going over the nominal admissions number might be incompatible with the efficient use of resources / education of the class, particularly due to availability of physical space for equipment, and that this would have to be investigated by the County.

At that point, in spite of the many email references to a place not being allocated because Peacehaven was 'full', you advised me that the County would indeed be making such investigations. There was no mention whatsoever that this may affect your response to my repeated request for the final statement to be issued prior to the beginning of this current term, ie prior to todays date.

Please could you advise me:

1. Why I have been sent a letter confirming what was already said by telephone so long ago
2. Why it has taken fifteen days to establish actions that I was led to believe were already in motion
3. Why the letter speaks of negotiations with Peacehaven in the future tense - ie why the County 'will be' doing these things and has not already started
4. Most importantly: Why this has delayed the issue of the final statement if, as you said in your email of April 03, NEGOTIATIONS CAN CONTINUE BEYOND THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE STATEMENT.

Sincerely

Cheryl Baggage