They shout: “SEND! Look at the crisis. Look at the parents. Look at the kids. Look at the schools. Look at tribunal…”
And we say: No sir. We’re still looking squarely at you.
Much is made of SEND tribunals. But our work suggests they are one of the few places families (eventually) find genuine protection. And whilst they are undoubtedly intimidating legal processes, Judges and Panels reportedly recognise that most parents arrive without lawyers, while Local Authorities turn up with Tribunal Officers (typically trained solicitors)… and sometimes even barristers.
Hearings are closed for good reason in our view: the detail is reportedly deeply personal, and many children cannot consent. Forcing them open would risk adding to trauma.
But transparency doesn’t have to come at their expense. Tribunal transcripts already exist but at a cost. In our view, they should be available by default, redacted of all personal and identifying information. And published.
This week, an ITV special news feature shone a light on the experiences of families going through the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunals System (SENDIST). It is a superb piece of investigative journalism by ITV, and it matters.
But in our view, the next questions are even bigger…
Our work in this space suggests that the real scandal lies not in the tribunal itself, but in the *cause* of the exponential rise in appeals that are pushing SENDIST to its knees, and in the conduct that has flourished behind firmly closed doors.
What this feature didn’t expose…
A rapidly increasing number of councils are now racking up barring orders for conduct issues- ignoring directions, failing to respond, even defying court orders. Misconduct in tribunal proceedings is reportedly spreading like a rampant virus 
through Local Government. Yet none of this is public. Why?
In our view, there is simply no defensible scenario where a Local Authority repeatedly barred from legal proceedings should be allowed to carry on with apparent impunity and without scrutiny.
This critical conduct-related data- attendance at mediation, compliance with case management hearings, last-minute concessions, failure to respond to directions, and even failure to comply with court orders- should be published. Immediately.
And then the real discussions can begin.
Of course, systemic attrition is actually the real story here: councils unlawfully push cases into tribunal not to test the law, but to wear families down. An increasingly undeniable reality that the response from the Local Government Association (LGA) in this report astonishingly seems not only to concede… but to actually defend.
And in the meantime, the legal system groans under the strain, at eye-watering cost. It’s a national scandal of epic proportions, and one still largely concealed from view.
Which is why tribunals are only part of the picture.
Our view? The problem isn’t in the courtroom- it’s the behaviours and the prevailing culture that are forcing broken families unlawfully into tribunal in the first place.
“It’s not unreasonable for councils to try to live within their means.”
— Cllr Vernon-Jackson, speaking on behalf of the Local Government Association (LGA).
Well… that’s a rather troubling interpretation when we are discussing *Statutory* responsibilities, Cllr…
And let’s not forget: living “…within their means” has still allowed for rapidly expanding leadership infrastructures across Children’s Services. For example, our deep-dive in Surrey earlier this year showed the Children’s Services Senior Leadership team (top two tiers of senior management) had more than quadrupled in size since 2022, adding over £2.5m per year to the wage bill… while simultaneously denying the need for recruitment of more Case Officers 
.
Living “…within their means” has also meant Local Authorities deploying millions in legal fees, hiring barristers to defend cases that were indefensible from the outset. Recent ITV analysis showed Kent County Council spent over £2 million in just three years on tribunal legal fees. And in Surrey, our analysis shows over £500,000 reported expenditure in external legal fees in the last six months alone.
And. Let’s face it. Even with all that tricky “…living within their means“, they probably still just about managed to pay everyone’s expenses last month, right? 
…A pattern of apparently reasonable and justifiable expenditure we are certain will be replicated elsewhere as we expand our analysis.
So it seems that living “…within their means” has meant councils are “ok” to systematically force families into tribunal, not to test the law, but to grind them down through a process of attrition- at enormous cost to vulnerable children.
All a bit uncomfortable apparently, but you gotta do what you gotta do, right?
Frankly it’s the equivalent of saying:
“We know it’s a statutory duty, but we can’t possibly afford lifejackets for all of these passengers. So we’ve decided to pick, I’m afraid. But in the meantime, not to worry- we’ve popped aside enough cash for a new group of managers to help us deliver this unfortunate rationing… and kept aside enough reserves to gild the architrave in the first-class dining room.”
“…Councils are in the business of having to do rationing.” Cllr. Vernon-Jackson on behalf of the LGA.
Yes. That’s “rationing” of statutory duty itself it would seem. And apparently, that’s now acceptable public policy.
Consequently- as you can see, our concern remains firmly with what is happening in Local Government. The answers to the SEND crisis are now increasingly clear: well evidenced, clearly documented, and supported by rich research and expert input. Just last week, the Education Select Committee report comprehensively set out another set of recommendations of what *really* needs to be done to make a difference for children with SEND. And it is also clear that work is required to provide the level of *investment* (and note our specific choice of words here) required.
But what is far less clear… and far more uncomfortable… is what to do about the issues in Local Government that this crisis has fallen victim to. How we seem to have somehow handed huge power, with almost entirely absent accountability, to a structure that has enabled a culture where inflicting prolonged harm on vulnerable children is shrugged off as – unfortunate, but routine – and legal process is flaunted and dismissed as burdensome interference.
And this has somehow been allowed. Almost indulged, you could say.
So yes. This is undoubtedly a system under strain.
But it is also a culture in Local Government which has grown in the murk – where “strain” is used to justify legally indefensible decision-making, excuse away unethical behaviour, and strip bare the very principles of public service it exists to uphold.
They shout: “SEND! Look at the crisis. Look at the ‘articulate, demanding’ parents. Look at the ‘naughty’ kids. Look at the schools. Look at tribunal…”
We say: No sir. We’re still looking squarely at you.
So. When families are still being told their child’s lifejacket is in the “no” pile – despite a clear and binding legal requirement to provide one – we have to wonder: at what point did it become acceptable for this law, any law in fact, to be ignored at the discretion of Local Government… and seemingly without consequence?
And if we have, in fact, slid into a society where it is acceptable for Local Government to deny, delay and disregard clear legal duties for children with special educational needs and disabilities, then we must also ask: who’s next? Children in care? Disabled adults? Or anyone else whose rights prove too costly, too complex, or simply too inconvenient to honour?
Measure what matters. 
Leave a comment