09.045 Can a “unit” within in a school be treated as a separate school in its own right for the purposes of a placement request?
.Watched by 2
My son's nursery have refused to submit an EHCP. Is this allowed?
My son's preschool will not apply for an EHCP because he is 'hitting his milestones'. This does not feel right to me. I have asked them to reconsider based on his diagnosis of ASC but they have declined. Is there anything I can do?
14 Mar 2023Watched by 4
Can I download the Noddy 'No-nonsense' Guide as a pdf?Watched by 7
12.10 Does the LA have to ‘play fair’?Watched by 2
Please explain public task as lawfulness for data processing in context of EHCPs that a ) LAs and b) Schools rely upon? I believe the public task ...
... of the LA is to have processes in place for dealing with EHCPs i.e. NHS commissioning agreements, assessment processes etc. But PUBLIC TASK does not mean that sensitive specific individual data can openly/ without parental or child consent be processed with whom the LA deems appropriate ie. school consultations or third parties.This would need to be agreed. PUBLIC TASK in terms of EHCP/SENDIST means that processes are in place.
LAs quote public task as lawfulness to share and obtain your individual data with third parties without your knowledge in EHCPNA and SENDIST. I don't agree and no one can explain this to me in simple SENDIST/ Education terms. Please can some one explain this as I believe LAs and schools are misquoting to obtain and share data strategically in sendist to blindsight parentsWatched by 2
Hi, are my LA allowed to remove provision from a previous EHCP when they produce a new draft without any assessments having been done? If not, please ...
... can you tell me what the law says about this?Watched by 1
Why does the NODDY GUIDE, not provide case law to reference for data restrictions relied upon by LAs especially during SENDIST? LA named Witnesses ...
LAs allege that their communication with their named witnesses is "legal and litigation privilege"-, SENDIST rules states that all witnesses have a underling duty to SENDIST to assist them and remain impartial. Furthermore, SENDIST rules and SEND Code of Practice states transparency and having all your cards on the table in the interest of settling and or preventing disputes. So, as per ICO these communications meet the ICO Education Test/ Health Test/ Social Care Test. When I complained to ICO they allowed the LA to get away with stating that these “communications were Legal and Litigation Privilege”. Surely this is not correct and how can parents argue and or point out this is not the correct position to access data in a timely manner.
FOIs made to the LA’s School/ Therapists in SENDIST
The named LA school their ought to be “independent witness” , share parental FOIs made to them for the purpose of obtaining data to prepare for cases. This is a data breach and strategic conduct by the LA to restrict data and case preparation because the LA have no remit in "advising " their named school witnesses (who’s role is to remain impartial independent and assist SENDIST). ICO allowed this to be acceptable that the LA provided legal advice to their witness school in proceedings and discounted it to be education test and hence this communication has been withheld.
Hence again as per SENDIST rules all cards on the table, was and is not met again with this conduct and position. This strategic data blocking strategy results in parents having to navigate protracted cases and any advice on the correct position would be welcomed. ICO allows this conduct to be acceptable under “public task and legal advice”.
In this case the Service Level Agreement between the LA maintained School and the LA-clearly stated FOIs are the business of the school and the school had its own DPO third party hence why they went to the LA with my FOIs and state the advice is legal advice is a staged data restriction and concealing practice.
Please can someone advice on what can be quoted to ensure accountability and prevent LA from using their power base to misrepresent the law (relying upon Public Task) as the basis to prepare and or interfere with their witnesses releasing information.
Any pointers would be welcome with the addition of a data case law section in the Noddy Guide to point out the practices adopted are not acceptable by the LA and designed for purposes other than legitimate. LAs are acting unfairly and abusing their positional power base against the parent especially those unrepresented.Answer
Is there a glossary for terms used in the No-nonsense Guides?Watched by 1
Can I find the latest updates to the Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN law?Watched by 2
12.35 Are UT authorities binding on the FTT and UT?Watched by 1