More Haringey SEND Transport department lies ... ... ...?
Haringey Council claim they are updating their home-school transport policy to ensure our stakeholders are as informed as possible. So, why haven't they written to every SEND transport user then about the consultation on the new policies?
Why are Haringey consulting?
They say: Haringey Council is proposing to up-date and revise its home-school transport policy. We are introducing a more detailed account of how decisions are made in the interests of transparency and to ensure our stakeholders are as informed as possible. This will also ensure that there is less confusion and misinformation in the community.
If the intention is to "
to ensure our stakeholders are as informed as possible" - why haven't they written to every SEND transport user?!!
Why haven't they asked all SEND transport users then?
"The majority of children and young people who require transport assistance to school will continue to benefit from the existing provision from Transport for London." ?????? (
What does this mean?, this is Haringey's policy - or are they writing policies for other people now?)
Each and every user will have to make a new application and therefore, under the new policy , when
- the child/ young person has changed address.
- the child / young person has changed the school they attend.
- the child is moving from nursery school to primary school.
- the child is moving from primary school to secondary school.
- the young person is 16+ and moving to a new school or college or remaining at the same school. (i.e. the dreaded annual application form still exists post - 16)
5. Not being wholly transparent For example - there is a new policy on Direct Payments - and there is now the following calculation (how is 'journey cost defined?)
Formula for PTB value: (Journey time x PA cost per hour + journey cost) x journeys per day x number of days attending school per week x number of weeks per academic year = PTB value
Limited questions in the survey
Haringey seem to have forgotten the decision made against them by the Supreme Court over what they asked in their consultations: As Steve Broach says:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Moseley [versus Haringey] provides the definitive word on the
content of the duty to consult. The Supreme Court has taken a much more robust
approach than the Court of Appeal or High Court in recent cases and has imposed
rigorous requirements on public authorities in terms of the information which they may now be obliged to provide to consultees.
See: https://files.monckton.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/R-Moseley-v-LB-Haringey.pdf
Supreme Court case details: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0116.html
“After receiving an application, an assessment will be made as to whether the child/young person is eligible to receive travel assistance from LBH, as per the ‘Eligibility Criteria’ section… Once a child/young person is deemed to be eligible, LBH will determine the type of travel assistance that we will provide.”
“To reduce disruption to the service and inform effective planning, LBH are implementing cut off dates for applications. The beginning of the academic year is the most critical time with regards to school travel and we aim to promote continuity in the service we provide the children. Late applications present several issues for the service in several ways, which is why a cut-off date is necessary.”
“ To understand children and young people’s behaviours on transport and to ensure these are managed safely and effectively so that children and young people are safe at all times”






