Case law. Legal requirements. Tactical challenge strategies.

Understanding Reports & EHCP Sections: Complete Legal Guide

The definitive resource for understanding professional reports and EHCP sections. Includes Children and Families Act requirements, case law on Section F specificity, jargon decoding, institutional tactics, and how to challenge weak assessments with legal authority.

Quick entry points:
Understanding EHCP sections? Jump to EHCP Guide →
Section F too vague? Jump to Section F Law →
Ed Psych report weak? Jump to Ed Psych →
Spot vague language? Jump to Red Flags →
Need to challenge report? Jump to Challenge Guide →

⚠️ Legal information only — NOT professional advice | Last updated: January 2026
This provides legal information based on Children and Families Act 2014, SEND Code of Practice 2015, case law, and professional standards. It is NOT medical, educational, or legal advice. For concerns about assessments, seek second opinions from qualified professionals or consult education law solicitors.

Understanding EHCP Sections: Legal Requirements

EHCPs have 12 sections (A-K, plus appendices). Sections B, F, and I are legally enforceable - LAs and schools MUST provide what's specified. Understanding the legal framework for each section is critical for advocacy.

Legislative Framework:
• Children and Families Act 2014, Part 3 (sections 19-83)
• Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (as amended)
• SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (2015) - Statutory guidance
• Section 42 CFA 2014: LA must secure special educational provision specified in EHC plan

🎯 What "statutory guidance" means:
SEND Code of Practice is statutory guidance under s77 CFA 2014. This means:
• LAs and schools MUST have regard to it
• Courts interpret EHCPs against Code requirements
• Departures from Code must be justified with reasons
• Failure to follow Code can be challenged in tribunal/judicial review
• Code paragraphs are cited in tribunal decisions (use paragraph numbers in challenges)

Section-by-Section Legal Requirements

Section A: Your views (parent and child)

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.21: "The views, interests and aspirations of the child and their parents."

What you actually said in consultation. Must be your words, not LA's interpretation.

🚩 Red flags - challenge these:
• Your views "sanitized" - concerns minimized or reworded to sound less serious
• Selective quoting that misrepresents your position
• LA's interpretation of what you "meant" rather than what you said
• Your specific concerns about school failures omitted
• Child's views not included despite child being old enough to express them

🎯 How to fix:
Provide your own written statement, state: "Please include verbatim under Section A. Your interpretation in [current draft] does not accurately reflect our views." List specific inaccuracies.

Section B: Special educational needs

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.62: "Should be specific, detailed and clear about the difficulties the child or young person has."

THIS IS CRITICAL. Everything in Section F flows from Section B. Vague Section B = vague Section F = unenforceable plan.

🚩 VAGUE LANGUAGE - These are NOT acceptable:

❌ Vague (legally inadequate):
• "Child struggles with reading"
• "Has difficulty with social interactions"
• "Can become anxious in class"
• "Finds concentration challenging"
• "May need additional support"

✅ Legally sufficient (specific, quantified, baseline data):

✅ Specific examples meeting Code requirements:

Reading:
"Child's reading age is 6 years 3 months (WIAT-III assessment, October 2025), 4 years behind chronological age. Word reading standard score 72 (3rd percentile, significantly below average). Reading comprehension standard score 68 (2nd percentile). Decoding skills affected by phonological processing deficit (CTOPP-2 Elision scaled score 4, 2nd percentile). Unable to access age-appropriate curriculum texts independently."

Social communication:
"Child makes zero spontaneous peer interactions in unstructured time (observation across 3 sessions, 20 mins each, November 2025). Does not respond to social bids from peers in 8/10 attempts observed. Unable to maintain reciprocal conversation beyond single exchange. Plays alone 95% of observed unstructured time. Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Communication subscale: standard score 65 (1st percentile). ADOS-2 Module 3: Communication total 8, Social Interaction total 10 (autism spectrum classification)."

Anxiety/regulation:
"Child experiences observable panic attacks 3-4 times per week in classroom (school incident logs Sept-Dec 2025, average 3.2/week). Episodes characterized by hyperventilation, crying, flight response, duration 15-45 minutes. Triggers identified: unexpected schedule changes (8 incidents), group work activities (6 incidents), loud environmental noise (5 incidents). Beck Youth Anxiety Inventory score 28 (clinically elevated, 95th percentile). Unable to remain in classroom following trigger without 1:1 support."

🎯 Required elements for Section B:
1. Specific difficulty (what exactly child cannot do)
2. Quantified baseline (test scores, frequencies, standard scores, percentiles)
3. Date of assessment (when data gathered)
4. Assessment tool (which test/observation method)
5. Impact on education (how this prevents learning)
6. Severity indicators (comparison to typical development)

Section C: Health needs

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.63: "Any health needs that are related to their SEN."

Health needs that affect education. General health issues (asthma, diabetes) only go here if they impact learning or require school support.

Examples:
• ADHD medication effects requiring monitoring
• Epilepsy requiring seizure protocol and observation
• Mental health conditions requiring therapeutic support
• Physical disabilities requiring adaptive equipment
• Chronic pain conditions affecting attendance/participation

Section D: Social care needs

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.64: "Social care needs arising from or related to the child's SEN."

Often left blank, but should include social care provision like short breaks, family support, equipment assessments.

Section E: Outcomes

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.66: "Outcomes are not a description of the service to be provided but are specific, measurable and achievable and lead towards long-term aspirations."

What child should achieve by end of phase/key stage. Must be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.

❌ Vague outcomes:
• "Child will improve reading skills"
• "Child will develop social relationships"
• "Child will manage anxiety better"

✅ SMART outcomes:
• "Child will achieve reading age of 8.5 years by July 2027 (measured using WIAT-III), enabling access to Year 4 curriculum texts with minimal support"
• "Child will initiate peer interaction at least twice per break time by July 2026 (observed and recorded by staff)"
• "Child will remain in classroom for full lessons without panic attacks by December 2026 (school incident logs)"

Section F: Special educational provision

MOST CRITICAL SECTION - See detailed analysis below

Jump to full Section F legal requirements →

Section G: Health provision

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.75: "Healthcare provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN."

Healthcare provision must be specific and quantified like Section F.

Note: Therapies that educate/train (SALT, OT for educational skills) should be in Section F, not here.

Section H: Social care provision

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.78: Provision must be specified and include detail of who, what, when, how often.

Social care provision related to SEN. Must be specific and quantified.

Section I: Placement

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.79: "Type and name of school or other institution." Cannot leave blank in final plan (draft must be blank).

Most commonly appealed section. Parents have right to request specific school.

🎯 LA must name your preference unless:
1. School genuinely cannot meet needs specified in Section B/F
2. Would be incompatible with efficient education of others
3. Would be incompatible with efficient use of resources

LA must prove one of these - burden of proof is on them. "Cost" alone is not sufficient - must show "unreasonable public expenditure."

Section J: Personal budget

Legal requirement: SEND Code para 9.95: Details of personal budget if requested, including arrangements and amount.

Optional. Allows families to manage some/all funding directly. Not extra money - different way of delivering provision.

Section K: Advice and information

Legal requirement: Regulation 13: Must include advice from professionals consulted during assessment.

Appendices containing all professional reports. These inform Sections B, C, D, F, G, H. Check recommendations from Section K are reflected in provision sections.

Section F: Legal Requirements for Special Educational Provision

Section F is the most legally significant part of the EHCP because it's directly enforceable under Section 42 Children and Families Act 2014. LA MUST secure the provision specified here. Understanding case law on specificity is critical.

Primary Legal Authority:
• Section 42(2) Children and Families Act 2014: "The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person."
• SEND Code para 9.69: "Provision must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is obtained through a personal budget."
• SEND Code para 9.66: "Special educational provision in section F must be so specific as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided."

Key Case Law on Specificity

L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129 (High Court):
"Provision in Section F must be so specific and clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided."

This is THE foundational case. Every tribunal and court references it. LAs and schools cannot claim they didn't know they need specificity.

B-M and B-M v Oxfordshire CC (SEN) [2018] UKUT 228 (AAC):
Upper Tribunal re-emphasized high level of specificity required even in special schools. Judge Rowley held:
• "Need for some flexibility cannot be used as reason for lack of specificity where detail could reasonably be provided"
• Use of word "opportunities" is particularly vague - suggests provision might or might not happen
• For LSAs/TAs supporting child, must specify:

Hours per week
Ratio (1:1, 1:2, small group)
Qualifications required
Experience that LSA must have
Training to be provided to LSA

JD v South Tyneside [2016] UKUT 9 (AAC):
Upper Tribunal confirmed L v Clarke requirement and stated provision must be specified and quantified. Vague provisions like "access to" are inadequate.

What "Specified and Quantified" Means in Practice

🚩 VAGUE LANGUAGE - LEGALLY INADEQUATE (Challenge immediately):

These phrases make provision unenforceable because they're unclear about what MUST happen:

❌ "Access to..."
Why inadequate: Everyone has "access" - doesn't mean child will receive it. Not an enforceable requirement.

❌ "Opportunities for..."
Why inadequate: Suggests provision might be offered but not guaranteed. Who decides when to offer? B-M case specifically rejected this.

❌ "As appropriate..."
Why inadequate: Who decides what's appropriate? When? Leaves decision to school/provider without criteria.

❌ "Where necessary..."
Why inadequate: When is it necessary? Who determines necessity? No enforceable standard.

❌ "Regular..."
Why inadequate: How often is "regular"? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Not quantified.

❌ "Additional support"
Why inadequate: What type? How much? By whom? Completely unspecific.

❌ "Small group"
Why inadequate: How many children? 3? 8? 15? Not quantified.

❌ "Specialist teaching"
Why inadequate: What specialism? How often? What qualifications?

✅ LEGALLY SUFFICIENT PROVISION - Examples Meeting Case Law Standards:

Example 1: TA Support (following B-M requirements)

❌ VAGUE: "Child will have access to TA support"

✅ SPECIFIC: "Child will receive 1:1 support from a Teaching Assistant for 20 hours per week (4 hours daily across 5 days). The TA must have:

Minimum Level 3 TA qualification
Training in autism support strategies (minimum 2-day course)
Experience supporting children with social communication difficulties (minimum 1 year)
Training in use of visual supports and social stories
Regular supervision from SENCO (fortnightly, minimum 30 minutes)

The 1:1 support will be provided during:

All English lessons (5 hours/week)
All Maths lessons (5 hours/week)
All unstructured times (breaks, lunch, transitions) (5 hours/week)
All Science and Humanities lessons (5 hours/week)

The TA will implement strategies from the child's sensory profile and communication passport."

Example 2: Speech and Language Therapy

❌ VAGUE: "Child will receive speech therapy as appropriate"

✅ SPECIFIC: "Child will receive speech and language therapy from a qualified Speech and Language Therapist (HCPC registered, specialist in social communication/autism):

Direct 1:1 therapy: 1 hour per week (termly, minimum 11 sessions per term)
Small group social communication sessions: 45 minutes per week in group of maximum 3 children with similar needs
Indirect consultation with school staff: 1 hour per half-term to advise on implementation of strategies
Annual review of communication needs with standardized reassessment
Parent training session: 1 per term (minimum 1 hour)
Written termly reports to school on progress and updated strategies

Therapy to focus on: narrative skills, conversation skills, inference, understanding non-literal language, using AAC system [if applicable]."

Example 3: Sensory/OT Support

❌ VAGUE: "Child may need occupational therapy input"

✅ SPECIFIC: "Child will receive occupational therapy support from HCPC registered Occupational Therapist with pediatric specialism:

Direct 1:1 OT sessions: 1 hour per fortnight focused on fine motor skills, handwriting, sensory regulation
Sensory circuit program: 20 minutes daily, 5 days/week, implemented by trained TA, supervised by OT monthly
Annual reassessment of sensory profile and motor skills
Provision of recommended sensory equipment as specified in OT reports (weighted blanket, wobble cushion, ear defenders, fidget tools)
OT consultation with school staff: termly (minimum 1 hour) to review and update sensory diet and environmental modifications
Written termly reports with updated sensory strategies

School environment to include:

Designated quiet sensory space available throughout day
Adjustable furniture to accommodate proprioceptive needs
Movement breaks every 30 minutes during seated work

Example 4: Specialist Teaching (Specific Learning Difficulty)

❌ VAGUE: "Child will receive specialist dyslexia support"

✅ SPECIFIC: "Child will receive specialist dyslexia teaching from a teacher with:

Approved Dyslexia Practitioner Level 5 or 7 qualification (BDA/Patoss)
Minimum 2 years experience teaching children with dyslexia
Training in multisensory structured literacy approaches (Orton-Gillingham, Sounds-Write, or equivalent)

Provision:

1:1 specialist literacy teaching: 5 hours per week (1 hour daily)
Using evidence-based systematic synthetic phonics program
Including multisensory techniques for encoding and decoding
Focused on phonological awareness, decoding, encoding, fluency, comprehension
Progress monitored using standardized assessments (WIAT-III or equivalent) termly
In-class support for 5 hours per week during English/Literacy lessons to generalize strategies
Teacher to provide staff training on dyslexia-friendly teaching strategies annually

Reasonable adjustments:

25% extra time for all written tasks/exams
Access to text-to-speech software (e.g. Read&Write Gold) in all lessons
Colored overlays and fonts as per assessment recommendations

🎯 Section F Checklist - Every provision line must answer:
1. WHAT - Specific intervention/support/therapy
2. WHO - Qualifications, experience, training of person delivering
3. HOW MUCH - Hours per week/day, frequency
4. WHEN - Which lessons/times, how distributed across week
5. HOW - Method/approach to be used
6. WHERE - Setting (1:1, small group, classroom)
7. REVIEW - How progress monitored, frequency of review

If you can't answer all 7 for each provision item, it's too vague. Challenge it.

🚩 Common LA tactics to avoid specificity (counter with case law):
Tactic: "We need flexibility to respond to changing needs"
Counter: "B-M v Oxfordshire [2018] held that need for flexibility cannot be used as reason for lack of specificity where detail could reasonably be provided. Please specify provision quantitatively with review periods to adjust if needed."

Tactic: "Special schools don't need as much detail because they're specialist"
Counter: "B-M v Oxfordshire [2018] explicitly rejected this argument. The Upper Tribunal held that high level of specificity is required even when placement is in special school."

Tactic: "School will decide how much support child needs day-to-day"
Counter: "Section 42(2) CFA 2014 places duty on LA to SECURE specified provision. The LA cannot delegate this duty to school. Provision must be specified in the plan itself per L v Clarke [1998]."

Tactic: "We'll provide 'up to' X hours of support"
Counter: "'Up to' is a maximum, not a guarantee. Section F must specify what child WILL receive, not what they might receive. Please state minimum guaranteed hours."

Educational Psychology Reports: What to Look For

Educational Psychologist (EP) reports are critical for EHCP assessments. They provide cognitive assessments, learning profiles, and recommendations for provision. Understanding what good EP reports contain helps you spot weak ones.

Professional Standards:
• EPs regulated by Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)
• Must follow British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and Conduct
• Have duty to provide objective, evidence-based assessments
• Must use appropriate, validated assessment tools

What Good EP Reports Contain

✅ Quality EP report includes:

Background information: Developmental history, previous assessments, current concerns
Observation data: Child observed in multiple settings (classroom, playground, 1:1)
Standardized assessment results:
- Cognitive assessment (WISC-V, BPVS-3, Ravens, etc.)
- Academic achievement (WIAT-III, WORD, etc.)
- Specific assessments (CELF-5 for language, CTOPP-2 for phonological processing, etc.)
Standard scores AND percentiles (not just descriptive labels)
Comparison of cognitive vs achievement (discrepancy analysis if relevant)
Clear interpretation: What scores mean for child's learning
Specific, quantified recommendations: Types of provision needed with frequencies
Baseline data for measuring progress
Risk factors and protective factors
Date of assessment (should be recent - within 6-12 months)

Red Flags in EP Reports

🚩 Poor quality EP report indicators:

No standardized assessment: "Observation only" - not sufficient for EHCP
Minimal time with child: Good assessment requires 2-3+ hours minimum
Child couldn't engage: "Assessment invalid due to child's presentation" - should recommend reassessment, not just abandon
Vague recommendations: "Would benefit from support" vs specific "Requires 1:1 TA for 20hrs/week"
Minimizing difficulties: "Some challenges but within normal range" despite clear struggles
Resource-driven conclusions: Recommendations suspiciously aligned with what LA has available
No baseline scores: Can't measure progress without quantified starting point
Outdated assessment: Report over 2 years old - may not reflect current needs
Missing key areas: Cognitive assessment without academic achievement (can't identify specific learning difficulties)
Contradicts other professional views without explaining why

Common Jargon Decoded

Cognitive Assessment Terminology:

"WISC-V" - Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th edition. Standard IQ test. Gives Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and index scores:

VCI (Verbal Comprehension Index) - verbal reasoning, vocabulary
VSI (Visual Spatial Index) - visual-spatial reasoning
FRI (Fluid Reasoning Index) - problem-solving, patterns
WMI (Working Memory Index) - holding/manipulating information
PSI (Processing Speed Index) - speed of processing visual info

Standard Scores: Mean 100, SD 15. Scores 85-115 are "average" (16th-84th percentile)
• 130+: Very superior (98th+ percentile)
• 120-129: Superior (91st-97th percentile)
• 110-119: High average (75th-90th percentile)
• 90-109: Average (25th-74th percentile)
• 80-89: Low average (9th-24th percentile)
• 70-79: Borderline (2nd-8th percentile)
• <70: Extremely low (<2nd percentile)

"Significant discrepancy": Usually 15+ point difference between index scores or between cognitive and achievement. Can indicate specific learning difficulty.

"Centile/Percentile": Child's ranking compared to same-age peers. 50th percentile = exactly average. 2nd percentile = only 2% of children score lower.

"Age equivalent": E.g. "reading age 7.5" means child performs at level of average 7 year 5 month old. Compare to chronological age for gap.

"Standard error of measurement (SEM)": Acknowledges test scores have margin of error. True score likely within +/- 1 SEM (usually about 3-5 points).

🎯 How to challenge inadequate EP assessment:

If EP report is poor quality:

Point out specific deficiencies (no standardized tests, insufficient time, incomplete, etc.)
State: "This assessment does not provide sufficient evidence to determine child's needs or appropriate provision"
Request: "Please arrange reassessment by different EP with appropriate time allocated"
If LA refuses: Commission private EP assessment (£500-£1500)
LA MUST consider private EP reports during EHCP assessment (SEND Code para 9.46)
Private reports often carry more weight in tribunal as they're comprehensive and independent

If child couldn't engage with assessment:
"Child's inability to engage suggests assessment conditions were inappropriate for their needs. This demonstrates exactly why they require specialist provision. Please arrange reassessment in appropriate setting with breaks/supports needed, or accept that inability to complete standard assessment itself evidences significant need."

Speech & Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) Reports

Speech and Language Therapy Assessments

Professional Standards:
• SLTs regulated by HCPC
• Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) professional body
• Must use standardized, norm-referenced assessments where possible

✅ Quality SALT report includes:

Case history: Language development, concerns, previous interventions
Standardized assessments: CELF-5, BPVS, TROG-2, etc. with scores
Language sample analysis: Analysis of child's actual language use
Specific deficit areas identified: Receptive/expressive language, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, social communication
Impact on education: How language difficulties affect learning
Baseline scores: Standard scores, percentiles, age equivalents
Specific recommendations: Type of therapy, frequency, duration, who delivers
Therapy goals: Specific, measurable targets

🎯 SALT provision must be in Section F (not Section G) if it educates/trains child

Many LAs try to put SALT in Section G (health provision). This is wrong if therapy is educational. SEND Code para 9.70: "Speech and language therapy should be treated as special educational provision unless it is solely for health and not educational purposes."

If LA puts SALT in Section G, challenge: "Speech and language therapy to address communication difficulties is educational provision under SEND Code para 9.70. It must be specified in Section F as it educates and trains the child in communication skills essential for learning."

Occupational Therapy Assessments

✅ Quality OT report includes:

Sensory profile: Using standardized tools (Sensory Profile 2, etc.)
Motor skills assessment: Fine motor, gross motor, coordination (BOT-2, MABC-2, etc.)
Visual-motor integration: VMI test or equivalent
Handwriting analysis: Speed, legibility, stamina
Activities of daily living: Self-care, independence skills
Environmental observations: How child manages school environment
Specific scores: Standard scores, percentiles for motor/sensory assessments
Sensory diet recommendations: Specific activities, frequencies, equipment needed
Environmental modifications: Specific changes to classroom/school
Equipment recommendations: What equipment, why needed, how used
Direct therapy recommendations: Frequency, duration, focus areas

🚩 Red flags in SALT/OT reports:

No standardized assessment - just "observation"
Child "not available" for assessment (should recommend when child CAN be assessed)
Recommendations are vague: "would benefit from sensory breaks" vs "requires 20-min sensory circuit daily"
Says "needs are being met with current provision" despite lack of progress
Recommendations don't match severity of scores (e.g. very low scores but minimal therapy recommended)
Says "child doesn't need therapy" but has clear deficits in assessment
Suggests "monitoring only" when scores show significant delay
Budget-driven recommendations (only recommending what's cheap/available)

How to Challenge Weak Reports and Draft EHCPs

You have 15 days to respond to draft EHCP. Use this time strategically to challenge vague language, inadequate assessments, and insufficient provision. Here's how to do it effectively.

Timeline for challenging draft EHCP:
• Day 1: Draft EHCP received
• Days 1-5: Analyze draft systematically, gather evidence
• Days 6-10: Draft your response with specific amendments requested
• Days 11-13: Review and refine response, gather supporting evidence
• Day 14: Submit response (don't wait until day 15 - email delivery can fail)
• Within 20 weeks of request: LA must issue final EHCP

Analyze draft systematically

Use IPSEA's EHCP checklist (available at ipsea.org.uk) - systematic section-by-section analysis tool.

Check each section:

Section A: Are your views accurately reflected?
Section B: Is every need specific, quantified, with baseline data?
Section E: Are outcomes SMART?
Section F: Is every provision specific and quantified? Does every need in B have matching provision in F?
Section G/H: Health/social care provision specific?
Section I: Is placement named? If not your preference, why?
Section K: Are professional recommendations from reports reflected in F?

Create amendments table:

Section | Current wording | Why inadequate | Proposed amendment B | "Child struggles with reading" | Not specific, no baseline, not quantified | "Child's reading age is 6y3m (WIAT-III, Oct 2025), 4 years behind chronological age. Word reading SS 72 (3rd %ile). Comprehension SS 68 (2nd %ile). Unable to access age-appropriate texts." F | "Access to TA support" | Vague, not quantified, L v Clarke [1998] requires specificity | "1:1 TA support for 20 hours/week (4hrs daily). TA must have Level 3 qualification and training in literacy intervention. Support during all English/Maths lessons and unstructured times."

Write formal response citing legal requirements

Address to LA SEND team (case officer named in draft).

[Your name] [Date] [LA SEND Team / Case Officer] RE: Draft EHCP for [Child Name, DOB, LA Reference] Dear [Name], I am writing in response to the draft EHCP received on [date]. I have concerns about the draft and request the following amendments. SECTION A - VIEWS Current wording: [quote] Issue: This does not accurately reflect my views expressed on [date]. Specifically [what's wrong]. Amendment requested: [Your exact wording to be included] SECTION B - SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS 1. Need regarding reading: Current wording: "Child struggles with reading" Issue: Not specific or quantified as required by SEND Code para 9.62. No baseline data. Amendment requested: "Child's reading age 6y3m (WIAT-III, Oct 2025), 4 years behind chronological age. Word reading SS 72 (3rd %ile, significantly below average). Comprehension SS 68 (2nd %ile)." Supporting evidence: Attached WIAT-III report dated Oct 2025. 2. [Continue for each vague need] SECTION F - SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION 1. Teaching Assistant Support: Current wording: "Child will have access to TA support" Issue: Fails to meet specificity requirement established in L v Clarke [1998] and B-M v Oxfordshire [2018]. Not quantified as required by SEND Code para 9.69. "Access to" is inadequate per JD v South Tyneside [2016]. Amendment requested: "Child will receive 1:1 TA support for 20 hours per week (4 hours daily, 5 days). TA must have: Level 3 qualification, training in autism support strategies, experience with social communication difficulties (minimum 1 year). Support during: all English lessons (5hrs/wk), all Maths (5hrs/wk), all unstructured times (5hrs/wk), Science/Humanities (5hrs/wk)." Supporting evidence: EP report (para X) recommends 1:1 support; SALT report (para Y) emphasizes need for consistent communication support. 2. [Continue for each inadequate provision] SECTION I - PLACEMENT [If you disagree with named school] Current: [School X] named Issue: [School X] cannot meet needs specified in Section B/F because [specific reasons]. Request: [School Y] should be named because [meets needs, has specialism, etc.]. MISSING PROVISION The following recommendations from professional reports in Section K are not reflected in Section F: 1. EP report (page X): Recommends specialist dyslexia teaching 5hrs/week - not in Section F 2. SALT report (page Y): Recommends weekly therapy - vaguely referenced but not quantified in Section F LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NOT MET The draft EHCP does not comply with: • SEND Code para 9.69: Provision must be "detailed and specific and should normally be quantified" • L v Clarke [1998]: Provision must be "so specific as to leave no room for doubt" • B-M v Oxfordshire [2018]: Specificity required even in specialist settings; use of "opportunities" and similar vague language inadequate I request amendments as specified above be made to the EHCP. I am available to discuss these amendments on [dates/times]. Under the SEND Regulations 2014, you must issue final EHCP within 20 weeks of my original request (by [date]). Please confirm receipt of this response and timeline for amendments. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Contact details] Attachments: [List all evidence - reports, assessments, correspondence]

Provide counter-evidence

Back up challenges with:

Your own observations: Dated, specific incidents demonstrating needs
School evidence: Incident logs, work samples, attendance records
Professional reports: Highlight specific paragraphs LA hasn't reflected
Private assessments: If you have them (EP, SALT, OT, SpLD assessments)
Medical evidence: GP letters, CAMHS reports, consultant letters
Second professional opinions: Other professionals' views

For each amendment, cite:

Which professional report supports it (page/para numbers)
Relevant legal requirement (SEND Code para, case law)
Evidence of impact if need not met

Request meeting if needed

You can request meeting to discuss amendments. LA should arrange within reasonable time.

At meeting:

Bring your amendments table
Record the meeting (inform them at start)
Go through each amendment systematically
Ask LA to confirm in writing what they'll amend
If they refuse amendments, ask for written reasons why

Get independent assessments if LA's are inadequate

If LA assessments are poor quality, commission private assessments:

Typical costs (2026):

Educational Psychologist: £500-£1500 (comprehensive assessment + report)
Speech & Language Therapist: £300-£800
Occupational Therapist: £300-£800
Specialist Teacher (SpLD/dyslexia): £400-£900

Why independent assessments are powerful:

SEND Code para 9.46: LA MUST consider private professional advice during assessment
Independent professionals don't have budgetary conflicts of interest
Usually more comprehensive (more time allocated than NHS/LA assessments)
Can directly challenge LA professionals' conclusions
Carry significant weight in tribunal if discrepancies with LA assessment

Submit to LA within 15-day response period if possible. If obtained after final EHCP issued, can be submitted as evidence for tribunal.

Consider mediation and appeal if final EHCP inadequate

If final EHCP still inadequate despite your amendments:

Your options:

Mediation: Required before tribunal (except refusal to assess appeals). Free, independent mediator. Can result in LA agreeing amendments without tribunal. BUT: If LA won't amend in mediation, proceed immediately to tribunal - don't delay
SEND Tribunal appeal: Can appeal content of Sections B, F, I (and Sections G/H if health/social care provision educational). Deadlines:
- Must register appeal within 2 months of final EHCP/amendment decision
- Must have mediation certificate (obtained through mediation or by declining mediation)
Judicial review: If LA breached procedures, acted unlawfully, unreasonably. Short time limit (3 months). Need legal advice.

🎯 SEND Tribunal statistics:
• ~99% of parents who appeal to tribunal win (full or partial success)
• Most cases settle before final hearing
• LA often agrees amendments once tribunal registered
• You can represent yourself (many parents do successfully)
• IPSEA provides free tribunal support
• Legal costs: Can instruct solicitor/barrister (£5k-15k+) or go solo with IPSEA support

Resources for tribunal:

IPSEA - Free tribunal support, guides, template documents
SEND Tribunal - How to appeal, forms, guidance
Contact - Support through tribunal process
SOS!SEN - Helpline and tribunal support

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I refuse an assessment I don't agree with?

You cannot refuse LA's statutory assessment (they have duty to assess under s36 CFA 2014). However, you CAN challenge quality, refuse consent for specific tests (though this may limit assessment), and provide counter-evidence. You can always commission private assessments alongside LA assessment - LA must consider private reports (SEND Code para 9.46).

Do I need to pay for independent assessments?

Usually yes. NHS and LA assessments are free but often limited (short appointments, long waiting lists, budget pressures affecting recommendations). Private assessments £300-£1500 depending on type. Consider it investment - strong independent reports can make difference between getting appropriate EHCP or not, or winning tribunal vs losing.

Can professionals refuse to amend reports based on my feedback?

Professionals can refuse to change their clinical opinions, but they should consider your feedback and explain decisions. If report contains factual inaccuracies (dates wrong, misquotes you, misrepresents observations), demand corrections. If professional refuses and report is factually wrong, escalate to their professional body (HCPC for EPs/SLTs/OTs, BPS for psychologists) or LA complaints. In EHCP process, your amendments go to LA, not to professional report authors.

What if report says "no SEN" but child is clearly struggling?

Challenge it vigorously. Provide your evidence of struggles (work samples, school reports, observations, incident logs). Get second opinion - private assessment. Report author may be using narrow definition of SEN or recommendations affected by budget. Remember: SEN definition is broad - s20(1) CFA 2014: child has SEN if learning difficulty/disability requiring special educational provision. If child needs provision beyond Quality First Teaching, they have SEN. Appeal if EHCP refused based on weak assessment.

How do I know if assessment was done properly?

Good assessment: Child engaged (even if challenging), tests completed (or incomplete tests explained with plan for reassessment), assessor spent adequate time (EP: 2-3+ hours minimum; SALT/OT: 1-2+ hours), used standardized validated tools, provided clear scores with standard scores AND percentiles, comprehensive report with baseline data.

Poor assessment: Child couldn't engage and no plan for reassessment, rushed (under 1 hour), incomplete, vague conclusions without data ("seems to struggle"), no standardized assessment ("observation only"), minimal recommendations, contradicts all other professionals without explanation.

What's the difference between NHS and LA assessments?

NHS: Clinical diagnosis, treatment, therapy. Focuses on health needs. May have long waiting lists (6-24+ months for autism/ADHD assessment). Reports focus on diagnosis and clinical recommendations.

LA educational assessments: Focus on educational needs and provision required. EP, SALT, OT may work for LA. Often shorter assessments than private. May be influenced by available provision/budgets.

Both: Must be considered during EHCP assessment. NHS diagnosis doesn't automatically mean EHCP - need to show educational impact requiring special provision. But NHS diagnosis + evidence of educational impact is strong evidence for EHCP.

Legal Resources & Professional Standards

Primary Legislation

Statutory Guidance

SEND Code of Practice: 0-25 years (2015)

Key Case Law (searchable on bailii.org)

L v Clarke & Somerset CC [1998] ELR 129
B-M v Oxfordshire CC [2018] UKUT 228 (AAC)
JD v South Tyneside [2016] UKUT 9 (AAC)
R (G) v Westminster CC [2004] EWCA Civ 45

Professional Standards Bodies

Free SEND Support & Legal Advice

Assessment Tools Reference

Cognitive: WISC-V, BPVS-3, Ravens Matrices
Achievement: WIAT-III, WORD, TOWRE-2
Language: CELF-5, TROG-2, BPVS-3
Phonological: CTOPP-2, PhAB-2
Motor: BOT-2, MABC-2, VMI
Sensory: Sensory Profile 2, SPM-2

This guide is maintained by Awareverse

Created by a SEND parent using case law, SEND Code requirements, and tribunal experience

Every legal citation verified against primary sources

Knowledge is power in SEND advocacy - share this with parents who need it