EHCP Application and Information Tool

The Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) system in the UK represents a significant legislative reform, aiming to provide integrated and holistic support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) up to the age of 25. Introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014 and underpinned by the SEND Code of Practice 2015, the EHCP replaces previous fragmented support mechanisms with a single, legally binding document encompassing educational, health, and social care needs. This framework was designed to be person-centred, emphasising the wishes and feelings of the child or young person and their family in decision-making.  

Despite these progressive intentions, the EHCP application process is frequently described as a formidable challenge for families. Parents often report it as “intimidating and overwhelmingly difficult,” necessitating a “persistent fight” to secure assessments and appropriate provision. This experience highlights a significant gap between the legislative ideals and the practical realities faced by families. The statutory 20-week timeline for completing an EHCP, for instance, is often not adhered to, leading to considerable delays that negatively impact children’s educational progress and family well-being. Local authorities (LAs) frequently refuse initial assessment requests or the subsequent issuance of an EHCP, often by misapplying the legal test or relying on internal policies rather than the child’s demonstrated needs. This often compels families into a complex appeals process at the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST), where parents have a remarkably high success rate, winning approximately 98% of appeals.  

The EHCP Application Tool

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email]

[Date]

[Local Authority SEND Team Address]

Subject: Request for an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for [Child's Full Name], Date of Birth: [Child's DOB]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally request an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment for my child, [Child's Full Name], born on [Child's DOB]. [He/She/They] currently attends [Child's School/Setting Name].

I believe that [Child's Name] has, or may have, special educational needs, and that it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for [him/her/them] in accordance with an EHC Plan.

Despite the support currently provided by [Child's School/Setting Name] through SEN Support, [Child's Name] is not making the expected progress and continues to experience significant difficulties in [mention specific areas, e.g., communication, learning, social interaction, emotional regulation].

I have attached supporting documentation, including:
- [List any attached documents, e.g., school reports, medical reports, parental statement of concerns, communication logs].

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this request and inform me of your decision regarding the EHC Needs Assessment within the statutory 6-week timeframe.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
                        

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email]

[Date]

[Local Authority SEND Team Address]

Subject: Appeal against Refusal to Conduct an EHC Needs Assessment for [Child's Full Name], Date of Birth: [Child's DOB]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your letter dated [Date of LA Refusal Letter], informing me of your decision not to conduct an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment for my child, [Child's Full Name].

I respectfully disagree with your decision. Under Section 36(8) of the Children and Families Act 2014, a local authority must conduct an EHC needs assessment if the child "has or may have special educational needs" and "may need special educational provision to be made for him or her in accordance with an EHC plan."

My child's needs are [reiterate key needs and difficulties, e.g., "complex and pervasive, impacting their ability to access the curriculum and participate in school life"]. The evidence I provided in my initial request, including [mention key pieces of evidence, e.g., "school reports showing lack of progress despite SEN Support, and medical reports detailing their diagnosis of [condition]"], clearly indicates that [Child's Name] "may have" special educational needs and "may need" an EHC Plan.

Your assertion that [Child's Name]'s needs can be met within the mainstream school's Local Offer does not negate the legal test for assessment. The purpose of an EHC needs assessment is to thoroughly investigate whether an EHC Plan is necessary, not to pre-determine that existing school support is sufficient.

I request that you reconsider your decision in light of the correct legal test. I also wish to formally register my intent to consider mediation and, if necessary, appeal this decision to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Please provide me with information on how to proceed with mediation.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
                        

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email]

[Date]

[Local Authority SEND Team Address]
[EHC Coordinator Name, if known]

Subject: Representations on Draft Education, Health and Care Plan for [Child's Full Name], Date of Birth: [Child's DOB]

Dear [EHC Coordinator Name or Sir/Madam],

Thank you for sending the Draft Education, Health and Care Plan for my child, [Child's Full Name], dated [Date of Draft EHCP]. I have reviewed the draft plan and wish to make the following representations and requested amendments.

I understand that I have 15 days to respond to this draft. I would also like to request a meeting to discuss these proposed changes in detail.

My comments and requested amendments are as follows:

Section A: Views, Interests and Aspirations
[Your comments on Section A, e.g., "Please ensure [Child's Name]'s aspirations for [e.g., independent living, specific career] are clearly articulated."]

Section B: Special Educational Needs
[Your comments on Section B, e.g., "The draft does not fully capture [Child's Name]'s needs in [specific area, e.g., sensory processing]. Based on [e.g., Dr. Smith's report, my observations], I request the following addition: [Specific, detailed description of unmet need]."]

Section F: Special Educational Provision
[Your comments on Section F, e.g., "The provision for Speech and Language Therapy in Section F is vague. It states 'regular therapy'. I request this be amended to '1:1 Speech and Language Therapy for 60 minutes, twice weekly, delivered by a qualified Speech and Language Therapist, focusing on [specific goals, e.g., expressive language, social communication skills].' This is necessary to meet the needs identified in Section B and is supported by [e.g., SLT report dated XX/XX/XXXX]."]
[Add similar comments for other provisions you believe are vague or insufficient, ensuring they are specific, quantified, and link back to needs in Section B.]

Section I: Placement
[Your comments on Section I, e.g., "I wish to request that [Preferred School Name] be named in Section I of the final EHCP. I believe this school is best placed to meet [Child's Name]'s needs as outlined in Sections B and F due to its [mention specific features, e.g., specialist provision, small class sizes, therapeutic approach]. I understand you will consult with this setting."]

Section G/H (Health/Social Care Provision):
[If applicable, comment on health/social care provision, especially if it educates or trains, and should be in Section F. E.g., "The Occupational Therapy provision in Section G, which focuses on fine motor skills for writing, should be moved to Section F as it educates and trains [Child's Name]. I request it be specified as '1:1 Occupational Therapy for 30 minutes, weekly, delivered by a qualified Occupational Therapist, focusing on [specific goals related to education].'"]

Please find attached any additional evidence or reports that support these requested amendments.

I look forward to discussing these points with you at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
                        

Legislative Landscape: Children and Families Act 2014 & SEND Code of Practice 2015

The Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) marked a pivotal moment in UK child welfare legislation, representing the most substantial reform in three decades. Its provisions, particularly those concerning special educational needs and disability (SEND), were enacted in September 2014. The overarching purpose of the Act was to enhance outcomes for young people with SEND, with a particular emphasis on fostering independence and preparing them for adult life, including employment. A cornerstone of this reform was the mandate for education, health, and social care agencies to collaborate more closely. This includes integrated practices for identifying and assessing needs, as well as joint planning and commissioning of services for children and young people with SEND and their families.  

A central tenet of the CFA 2014 was the replacement of the former statutory assessment process and previous statutory plans, such as Statements of Special Educational Needs and Learning Difficulty Assessments (LDAs), with a single, combined Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This significant change extended the age of eligibility for statutory support from 16 to 25 years for those who remain in education or training.  

The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice: 0-25 years, updated in January 2015, serves as the guiding document for the CFA 2014, reflecting its changes and underlying principles. A core principle enshrined in the Code is the adoption of a child-centred approach, ensuring that the young person and their family are at the heart of all discussions and decisions regarding support and care. This means parents should have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their child, and young people aged 16 and over should be consulted directly.  

Another key introduction was the ‘Local Offer,’ a statutory requirement for every local authority. This is a comprehensive online directory that brings together information about all education, health, and social care services available for children and young people with SEND aged 0-25 in their local area. It also provides crucial information on how SEND needs are identified, funded, and assessed. Critically, the Local Offer is intended to be a dynamic resource, with local authorities and health agencies having a duty to use feedback from families to inform commissioning and service developments, publishing details of how this input has influenced change at least annually.  

Further changes included the abolition of ‘School Action’ and ‘School Action Plus,’ which were replaced by ‘SEN Support,’ a framework that now extends to colleges and sixth forms. The new scheme also encompasses academies and independent schools, which are legally obliged to admit pupils named in an EHCP. The Act also introduced the concept of personal budgets for SEN education provision, granting families the right to request direct payments, thereby offering greater control over how specific funding to meet their child’s needs is spent. The statutory timescale for completing the assessment process and issuing a final EHCP was also set at 20 weeks, a reduction from the previous 24 weeks for a statement.  

Despite the ambitious and positive intent of these legislative reforms, a significant disparity often exists between the legal framework’s aspirations and its practical implementation. The CFA 2014 and SEND Code of Practice were hailed as a transformative shift in SEND support , aiming for a child-centred, integrated approach across education, health, and social care, and extending the age of eligibility for support. However, real-world experiences consistently reveal parental dissatisfaction and the necessity to “persistently fight” to obtain assessments and provision. This suggests a substantial gap where the aspirational legal provisions are not consistently or adequately applied by local authorities and educational settings, often due to resource limitations. This situation underscores the importance of an interactive tool that not only elucidates the legal framework but also prepares users for potential resistance, equipping them with strategies to assert their rights by leveraging the very legislation designed to support them. The tool should highlight the “person-centred” ideal as a benchmark against which families can measure the performance of local authorities.  

A contributing factor to this gap is the pervasive issue of funding. While the SEND Code of Practice seeks to improve outcomes and foster integrated services , qualitative research indicates that a “lack of funding is one of the primary reasons why professionals cannot integrate the SEND Code of Practice into their teaching” and adequately meet identified needs. This directly affects the availability of crucial resources, such as sensory rooms, within educational settings.

Defining the EHCP and Eligibility Criteria

An EHCP serves as a singular, legally binding document that consolidates comprehensive information about a child or young person’s special educational needs, health needs, and social care needs. This integrated approach is a fundamental principle of the Children and Families Act 2014, designed to ensure holistic support for individuals with SEND. The assessment process for an EHCP is designed to gather detailed information that describes the child’s needs, articulates desired outcomes, proposes specific support mechanisms, and identifies the responsible providers for that support. A critical legal aspect is that any health or social care provision which “educates or trains a child or young person must be treated as special educational provision” within the EHCP. This legal nuance is vital for ensuring that all necessary support, regardless of its primary classification, is included and legally enforceable within the educational framework of the plan.  

An EHCP is specifically intended for children and young people, up to the age of 25, who present with complex needs and difficulties that necessitate a level of support beyond what can be provided through ‘SEN Support’ within mainstream educational settings. Legally, a local authority is mandated to conduct an assessment if a request is made, and the child “has or may have special educational needs” and “may benefit from an EHCP”. Following an assessment, the legal test for issuing an EHCP is whether “it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”.  

Common categories of complex needs that often lead to an EHCP include:

• Communicating and interacting difficulties: such as speech, language, and communication challenges that impede understanding and effective communication with others.
• Cognition and learning difficulties: for instance, learning at a significantly slower pace than peers of the same age.
• Social, emotional, and mental health difficulties: including challenges in managing relationships with others.
• Sensory and/or physical needs: such as visual or hearing impairments, or physical needs requiring ongoing additional support and equipment.  

Statistical data from 2024 reveals the prevalence of certain primary needs within EHCPs:

• For children aged 5, the most common primary needs identified are Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN), accounting for 46.3% of EHCPs, followed by Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) at 33.5%.  
• By age 15, the most common primary needs shift slightly to Autistic Spectrum Disorder (30.5%) and Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) difficulties at 29.5%.  
• Across all new plans issued in 2024, the most frequent primary needs were SLCN (27.7%), ASD (27.5%), and SEMH (26.3%).  

A critical point of contention often arises because the legal threshold for initiating an EHCP assessment is deliberately broad, using the phrases “may have SEN” and “may need special educational provision”. However, anecdotal evidence consistently indicates that local authorities frequently refuse initial assessment requests. These refusals often assert that a child’s needs can be adequately met by the “mainstream school local offer” or existing SEN support within the school. This practice suggests that local authorities are, in effect, applying a higher, unstated internal threshold for assessment, effectively shifting the burden of proof onto parents. Instead of assessing based on potential need, LAs often demand that parents demonstrate necessity for assessment, which contradicts the precise legal wording. This often leads to delays in accessing crucial support for children.

The statistical prevalence of certain primary needs, such as Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN), Autism, and Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) difficulties, indicates areas where local authority provision is likely under significant strain. This concentration of needs suggests that these are the domains where the system experiences the highest demand and potentially the greatest pressure on resources. When a system is heavily burdened, it can lead to more stringent interpretations of eligibility criteria or prolonged delays in providing necessary support.

The EHCP Application Journey: A Detailed Process Guide

Requesting an EHC Needs Assessment

The initiation of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment can come from various sources, including parents/carers, young people aged 16-25 themselves, schools, nurseries, post-16 settings, or other professionals involved in the child’s care. Ideally, the child’s school plays a supportive role in this process, often through the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo). The SENCo typically collaborates with parents and other professionals, sometimes in a “multi-agency meeting,” to facilitate the request. It is important to note that teachers bear responsibility for the progress and development of all pupils in their class, including those with special educational needs, and schools are legally required to have a designated SENCo to coordinate SEN provision.  

Crucially, parents retain the right to apply directly to their local authority for an EHC needs assessment, even if the school does not endorse or support their request. For this initial application, a report from an educational psychologist is explicitly not a prerequisite. When parents choose to apply directly, they should submit a parental request form (if provided by the local authority) along with any pertinent supporting documents. This documentation should include detailed information about the nature and extent of the child’s special educational needs, evidence of the school’s efforts to meet these needs, and the progress (or lack thereof) made as a result of any additional support provided. Furthermore, evidence of the child’s physical, emotional, social development, and health needs, particularly as they relate to their education, should be included.  

Key evidence to gather for a direct parental application includes:

• Records from SEN review meetings and any other agreements made regarding the child’s support.
• Relevant aspects of the child’s developmental history that help explain their difficulties at school.
• Any documentation demonstrating that the child is not making expected progress despite receiving SEN support. This can encompass referrals to doctors, occupational therapists, or speech and language therapists; letters or reports from health professionals (including those privately commissioned); notes from meetings with teachers detailing the child’s lack of progress towards SEN outcomes; and the child’s school record, including school reports and SEN support records.  
• It is always advisable to keep original documents and send copies to the local authority.  

The expectation that schools exhaust their internal ‘SEN Support’ resources before an EHCP assessment request is accepted often functions as a gatekeeping mechanism, potentially delaying or preventing necessary statutory intervention. Local authorities frequently expect schools to demonstrate a significant level of support, sometimes quantified as up to £6,000 worth of provision, before they will consider an EHCP assessment. While the law permits parents to apply directly without school support or an educational psychologist’s report , local authorities commonly refuse initial requests by asserting that the child’s needs can be met within the mainstream school’s “Local Offer“. This creates a de facto requirement for schools to demonstrate that their resources are insufficient, which can prolong the formal EHCP process and exacerbate a child’s difficulties. Anecdotal accounts highlight how this can lead to children missing significant periods of schooling while awaiting statutory intervention. An interactive tool can guide parents on how to meticulously document the school’s existing SEN support and, crucially, the child’s lack of progress  

despite this support. This documentation can then be used to explicitly argue that the child’s needs exceed what the school can reasonably provide, thereby meeting the legal threshold of “may need special educational provision” for an EHCP assessment. The tool should also offer template letters for requesting comprehensive school records and provision maps, empowering parents with the necessary documentation to counter common refusal arguments.  

Table 1: Essential Documentation for an EHCP Needs Assessment Request

Local Authority Assessment and Decision-Making

The entire EHC needs assessment process, from the initial request to the issuance of a final EHCP, is legally mandated to be completed within a maximum of 20 weeks. This overarching timeline is broken down into several key statutory stages:  

1. Processing Your Request (Weeks 1-6): Upon receiving an EHC needs assessment request, the local authority allocates an EHC officer who typically makes an initial contact, known as a “family’s first call,” to discuss the process. Within six weeks of the request date, the local authority’s SEND service must issue a letter advising of their decision: either to proceed with an assessment or to refuse it. If the assessment is refused, the letter must clearly explain the reasons, and parents are informed of their right to appeal this decision.  
2. Advice Gathering Process (Weeks 6-12): If the local authority agrees to conduct an EHC needs assessment, they proceed to gather comprehensive information and advice. This includes input from the child or young person (their views, wishes, and feelings), their parents or carers, and key personnel from their current educational environment, such as the class teacher, SENCo, or headteacher. Crucially, advice is also sought from an educational psychologist (EP) and any other professionals involved with the child or young person deemed appropriate, as well as any person the child’s parent or young person reasonably requests. Social care professionals are also consulted. All these professionals are given a statutory period of six weeks to complete and submit their advice.  
3. Decision to Issue an EHCP or Not (Weeks 12-16): The local authority is legally required to decide whether an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is to be issued by week 16. If the decision is not to issue an EHCP, the local authority must offer a meeting to discuss alternative support available and inform the parents or young person of their right to appeal. If an EHCP is to be issued, the local authority typically offers a meeting to co-produce the draft plan with the family and relevant professionals. A draft plan is then sent to the parents or young person and the professionals who contributed to the assessment. At this stage, parents or the young person can name their preferred education setting, and the local authority will initiate consultation with this and other potentially suitable settings. Parents or the young person have 15 days to respond to the draft plan with comments or requested changes.  
4. Issuing Final EHCP (Weeks 16-20): The local authority must issue the final EHCP by week 20. A copy of the final plan is sent to the parents or young person, all involved professionals, and the named education setting. The accompanying letter must also detail the right to appeal if the family is dissatisfied with the contents of the final EHCP, along with information about mediation.  

The role of an Educational Psychologist (EP) in this process is highly significant. EP advice is not only a statutory requirement but is considered “pivotal” for comprehensive assessment, informed advice, and effective evaluation across the complex landscape of special educational needs and disabilities. Educational psychologists bring extensive experience and knowledge, using evidence-based theories to define and clarify SEND needs. Their assessments are comprehensive, often involving observations of the child in various contexts, such as the classroom and during social times, to gather a holistic understanding of their needs. EPs provide valuable advice and support not only to the child or young person but also to parents, teachers, school senior leadership, and other SEND professionals. Their recommendations can significantly enhance the skills and understanding of all adults involved, leading to more effective strategies and facilitating early identification of needs. While an EP report is not necessary for the initial parental request for an assessment, the local authority will arrange for an EP to be involved if an assessment is agreed upon. Parents also have the option to commission a private EP assessment if they prefer.

Challenges

A recurring challenge is that the statutory 20-week timeline for completing the EHCP process is frequently missed by local authorities. While the legal framework clearly mandates this maximum duration , real-life accounts reveal severe delays, with one parent reporting a five-year battle to secure an EHCP for her autistic daughter, who consequently missed almost a year of school at a crucial educational stage. Such prolonged delays can lead to children “aging out” of the system or suffering significant educational and emotional detriment, undermining the very purpose of the EHCP. An interactive tool can significantly help by prominently featuring the statutory timeline at each stage, allowing users to track their application’s progress against these legal deadlines. Furthermore, it should provide clear guidance on the actions to take, such as making formal complaints or contacting SENDIASS, if the local authority exceeds these deadlines, thereby empowering parents to hold authorities accountable. The tool should also manage expectations by acknowledging the reality of potential delays while steadfastly emphasizing families’ legal rights.  

Another point of tension arises from the disparity between the critical importance of Educational Psychologist (EP) advice for a robust EHCP and the lack of a requirement for such a report at the initial application stage. EP advice is described as “pivotal” and a “statutory requirement” for a comprehensive EHCP. Yet, parents are explicitly informed that they “do not need a report from an educational psychologist” to initiate an assessment request. This creates a situation where initial parental requests, while legally valid, might be perceived as lacking sufficient depth of professional evidence by local authorities. This can lead to initial refusals, as local authorities might implicitly expect more evidence than is legally required for the  

request stage, even though an EP will be involved later in the assessment stage. This dynamic can contribute to unnecessary appeals, where EP evidence then becomes critical. An interactive tool should advise parents that while an EP report is not legally mandated for the initial request, including any available professional reports (e.g., from health or private assessments) can significantly strengthen their case, particularly if they anticipate resistance from the local authority. The tool could guide parents on how to articulate the potential need for an EP assessment within their initial request, even if they do not have a pre-existing report from an EP.

Drafting, Review, and Finalisation of the EHCP

Once a local authority determines that an EHCP is necessary following an EHC needs assessment, they are responsible for preparing a draft plan and sending it to the parents or young person for their review. This is a critical juncture in the process, as parents are afforded a minimum of 15 days to provide their comments and feedback, often referred to as “representations,” on the draft document. During this period, parents also have the right to request a meeting with the local authority to discuss the draft plan in detail. This consultation phase is paramount for families to ensure that the plan accurately reflects their child’s identified needs and outlines the precise support required to meet those needs. Furthermore, parents have the legal right to name their preferred education setting within the draft EHCP, after which the local authority will consult with the named setting and potentially other suitable educational establishments.  

Understanding the structured content of an EHCP is essential for effective review. An EHCP is divided into distinct sections, typically labelled A through K :  

• Section A: Captures the views, interests, and aspirations of the child or young person.  
• Section B: Details the child’s special educational needs.  
• Section C: Outlines the child’s health care needs.  
• Section D: Specifies the child’s social care needs.  
• Section E: States the outcomes sought for the child or young person.  
• Section F: Describes the special educational provision required to meet the needs identified in Section B.  
• Section G: Details the health care provision.  
• Section H: Specifies the social care provision.  
• Section I: Names the education setting to be attended, or specifies the type of setting.  
• Section J: Provides details of the special educational needs and outcomes to be met by a direct payment for special educational provision, if applicable.  
• Section K: Contains all the information gathered during the EHC needs assessment.  

It is of utmost importance that the provision detailed in Section F is “properly specified” and not vague. This clarity ensures that the support is legally enforceable. Furthermore, any health or social care provision that serves to educate or train the child must be included within Section F, reinforcing the integrated nature of the EHCP and ensuring comprehensive support.  

The 15-day review period for the draft EHCP represents a critical but frequently overwhelming juncture for parents. Within this short timeframe, families are expected to review a complex legal document that will fundamentally shape their child’s support for years to come. Testimonials from parents highlight the immense value of expert assistance at this stage, particularly in identifying “gaps” in the plan and “simplifying complex matters”. Without such expertise, parents may inadvertently agree to a plan that is vague or insufficient, which then becomes legally binding but difficult to enforce, as “vague” provision in Section F is a common issue that often necessitates further challenges. To address this, an interactive tool should offer a dedicated “Draft EHCP Review” module. This module could provide a detailed, interactive checklist for reviewing each section (A-K), specifically highlighting common pitfalls such as vague wording in Section F or omitted needs in Section B. It should also offer practical guidance on how to propose amendments using “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) principles, and provide template language for requesting specific, quantified provision to ensure enforceability.  

The interrelationship between Sections B (special educational needs), F (special educational provision), and I (placement) is paramount for a legally robust EHCP. The ability to appeal these sections collectively underscores their intrinsic connection. If a child’s special educational need is either missing or inadequately described in Section B, it directly compromises the adequacy and appropriateness of the provision outlined in Section F. Similarly, the suitability of the named educational placement in Section I is directly dependent on the accurately identified needs and the specified provision. This establishes a clear causal chain: incomplete or vague needs lead to inadequate provision, which in turn can result in an inappropriate placement. 

Navigating Challenges and Appeals within the EHCP System

Common Reasons for Refusal of an EHCP and the Right to Appeal

It is a frequent occurrence for local authorities (LAs) to conduct an EHC Needs Assessment and subsequently refuse to issue an EHCP. A significant majority of these refusals stem from the LA either failing to apply the correct legal test, as outlined in Section 37(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014, or from conducting an insufficient assessment in the first place.  

Common reasons cited by LAs for refusing initial assessment requests include the assertion that the child’s needs are “well known and have been recognised” and can be adequately met “within the mainstream school local offer,” referring to the support provided through SEN Support. This often implies an expectation that the school should be providing a certain level of support, sometimes quantified as up to £6,000, before an EHCP assessment will be accepted. Anecdotal evidence highlights the prevalence of these initial refusals, with approximately 66.6% of parents reporting that their first request for an EHCP assessment was denied.  

The legal test for whether an EHCP must be issued following a needs assessment is clearly defined in Section 37(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014. It states that an EHCP is necessary “Where, in the light of an EHC needs assessment, it is necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”. This means the local authority’s decision must be based on whether the evidence gathered during the assessment demonstrates that it is “necessary” for the child or young person to have an EHCP to receive their special educational provision.  

The high rate of local authority refusals, particularly when juxtaposed with the overwhelming success rate of appeals to the SEND Tribunal, points to a systemic issue where local authorities may be operating under internal policies or resource constraints that contradict their legal duties. The fact that two-thirds of initial assessment requests are denied , while an astonishing 98% of parental appeals to SENDIST are successful , strongly indicates that local authorities are not consistently applying the correct legal test for assessment or EHCP issuance. Instead, it appears that financial considerations or internal gatekeeping policies are often prioritised, compelling parents into an adversarial appeals process to secure their child’s legal entitlement. This dynamic adds immense stress and contributes to significant delays for families.

Mediation and the SEND Tribunal Process

Before an appeal can be made to the First-Tier (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Tribunal (SENDIST), it is a statutory requirement to at least consider mediation. Parents have the right to request mediation within two months of the date on the local authority’s letter refusing the EHCP assessment or issuance. Mediation is an informal, cost-free process facilitated by an independent mediator, designed to encourage discussion between the parents and the local authority regarding the disputed decision. Upon completion, a mediation certificate is issued, which is a necessary document for lodging an appeal with the Tribunal.  

Parents can appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with specific decisions made by the local authority concerning an EHCP or an EHC needs assessment. The grounds for appeal include:  

• Refusal to conduct an EHC needs assessment.  
• Refusal to issue an EHCP following an assessment.  
• Disagreement with the contents of an EHCP (e.g., the identified needs, the provision, or the named educational setting).  

The appeal must be submitted to the Tribunal no later than two months from the date of the local authority’s decision letter, or within one month of the mediation certificate date, whichever is later. There is no fee to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and the process is designed to be user-friendly, enabling parents to represent themselves without a solicitor. However, it demands a significant investment of time for preparing paperwork, gathering evidence, and presenting the case.

Specific forms are required for different types of appeals: Form SEND 35a for appeals against a refusal to assess, and Form SEND35 for all other appeal types, such as those concerning the contents of an EHCP or a refusal to issue a plan.  

It is crucial for parents to be very clear about the specific aspects of the decision they are appealing and the desired changes. When appealing the contents of an EHCP, it is beneficial to link information from professional reports directly to the specific parts of the plan that require amendment. The child’s views, wishes, and feelings are considered paramount throughout the process and should be at the forefront of any appeal. Once an appeal is registered, all relevant information must be shared transparently between the parents, the local authority, and the SEND Tribunal.  

Table 2: Appealable Sections of an EHCP and Their Significance

Mediation, while legally required to be considered, often functions more as a procedural hurdle than an effective resolution mechanism, consequently directing more cases towards the Tribunal. Parents are legally obligated to “at least consider mediation” and obtain a certificate before lodging an appeal. However, a case study illustrates that at mediation, the local authority “did not agree to change the decision”. While mediation can sometimes facilitate additional input from services during the period leading up to an appeal hearing , its primary role frequently appears to be fulfilling a legal prerequisite for Tribunal access rather than genuinely resolving disputes at an early stage, especially given the high rate of parental success at the Tribunal.

The scope of the SEND Tribunal, particularly its limitation on appealing health and social care sections independently, compels parents to strategically link these needs to educational provisions, which can inadvertently distort the holistic intent of the EHCP. Parents can appeal issues related to health and social care (Sections G and H), but only if they simultaneously appeal at least one of the educational sections (B, F, and/or I). This means that if educational issues are resolved through mediation, but health or social care issues persist, parents cannot pursue the latter at the Tribunal. This structural limitation forces parents to frame all needs, even those primarily health or social care related, through an educational lens during appeals. For instance, they must argue that specific health or social care provisions “educate or train” their child to be included in Section F. This adds a layer of complexity to the appeal strategy and can undermine the integrated, holistic nature of the EHCP.

Annual Reviews and Plan Amendments

Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are dynamic documents designed to evolve with a child’s changing needs. Consequently, they are subject to statutory annual reviews. For children over five years old, an EHCP must be reviewed at least once a year, within 12 months of its finalisation or the last review. For younger children, aged 0-5, reviews must occur every six months. Specific “Key stage transfer” reviews are also conducted when a child is moving between key stages of education, focusing on future school or placement, needs, and necessary support in the new setting.  

The annual review process is structured to ensure comprehensive input. Information must be gathered from all involved parties—including parents, the child or young person, and relevant professionals—and circulated to everyone at least two weeks before the annual review meeting. Parents typically receive at least two weeks’ notice of the meeting date. All professionals providing support outlined in the EHCP are invited, though attendance is not compulsory. Often, the school SENCo chairs the meeting, and in some cases, attendance may be limited to the SENCo, parent/carer, and the child or young person.  

During the meeting, discussions revolve around the child’s progress towards achieving the outcomes outlined in the EHCP, whether the plan continues to meet their needs, the impact of the educational, health, and social care provision, and the establishment of new outcomes for the next 12 months. Within two weeks of the meeting, a written report from the chair (usually the SENCo) must be sent to parents and the local authority’s EHC Coordinator. Subsequently, the local authority reviews the EHCP in detail and must notify parents of their decision—to maintain, amend, or cease the EHCP, within four weeks of the meeting. If amendments are proposed, parents are given 15 days to consider and comment on the draft changes.  

In situations where a child’s needs change significantly or the current provision is no longer effective, an early or interim review of the EHCP can be requested. It is advisable for parents to discuss their concerns with the school or their local SENDIASS service before formally requesting an emergency review.  

Annual reviews, while legally mandated to ensure the ongoing relevance and effectiveness of an EHCP, can become another point of contention if local authorities attempt to reduce provision or cease plans without proper justification. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure the EHCP “stays up-to-date and continues to provide the best support”. However, local authorities do have the power to decide to “cease the plan” , and importantly, this decision can be appealed. While a significant proportion of reviews result in the plan being maintained with no changes (29.8%) or amended (48.4%), and only a small percentage lead to cessation (0.9%, subject to appeal) , there remains a potential for disputes if parents perceive that necessary provision is being reduced or prematurely removed.

Insights and Support Strategies for Families

The Human Experience: Challenges and Emotional Impact

The journey through the EHCP process is often described as an arduous and emotionally taxing experience for families. Research consistently indicates that parents are frequently compelled to “persistently fight to access assessments,” a struggle that profoundly affects the “well-being of the whole family”. The process of obtaining an EHCP is widely characterised as “intimidating and overwhelmingly difficult,” with a particular burden falling on mothers. One poignant account details a five-year battle to secure an EHCP for an autistic daughter, who consequently missed nearly a year of school. This experience led to immense stress for the parent, who described feeling caught in a “constant battle” with health services and the school system. Parents often articulate feeling “emotionally compromised” and overwhelmed by the “minefield” of the process, underscoring a profound need for calm, focused, and empathetic support.  

The systemic delays and complexities inherent in the EHCP process have a direct and detrimental impact on children’s education. The prolonged wait for EHCPs can result in children missing critical periods of schooling, as vividly illustrated by the child who missed a year of education at a crucial developmental stage. There is a perception among some parents that the system is deliberately designed to operate “so slowly, that desperately unwell or disabled children just age out and disappear from the system“. Fundamentally, disagreements and complaints within the system are often initially driven by a deeply held belief that the child’s special educational needs are not being adequately met.  

The EHCP process, despite its foundational legal framework, frequently creates an adversarial rather than a supportive environment, leading to significant parental burnout and potentially causing educational regression for children. The repeated use of terms such as “persistent fight” , “intimidating and overwhelmingly difficult” , and “constant battle” strongly suggests that, in practice, the system is not user-friendly or inherently supportive. This adversarial nature, coupled with severe and often unaddressed delays , indicates a systemic failure to uphold the “child-centred” and “family involvement” principles enshrined in the legislation.

The profound emotional toll on parents, manifested as feeling “emotionally compromised” and experiencing “lost trust” , directly impairs their capacity to advocate effectively for their children. This, in turn, can lead to children’s needs remaining unmet and their educational progress stalling.