Live self-help tool

Check your draft EHC plan

A draft plan gives you a short, legally protected window to get the wording right before it is finalised. These are 17 questions to ask about your own draft — for each one, the red-flag wording to search for and the law the question stands on, quoted verbatim and cited. Work through them with the plan in front of you.

This checklist is generated directly from the statutory rule table of our plan-audit engine, so it always matches exactly what the engine checks. Every quoted anchor is machine-verified verbatim against our banked copy of the source — how we source and verify claims. Your comment window is short: work out your exact dates.

1. Check 1 of 17 · Section F · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Does Section F say HOW MUCH support (hours), HOW OFTEN, and WHO delivers it — for every single therapy and provision?

   Your answer for check 1

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • "access to ... support/therapy/input"
   • "regular ... support/input/sessions"
   • "a high level of support"
   • "1:1 support" with no hours attached (a ratio is not an amount)
   • "opportunities to/for ..."

   The law this check stands on:

   “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”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69

   “If the EHC plan is not specific about exactly what is needed, it will be harder to enforce.”

   IPSEA, Enforcing your EHC plan: Section F (commentary, not legislation)

2. Check 2 of 17 · Section B/F · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Does EVERY need listed in Section B have matching support in Section F?

   Your answer for check 2

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • a need in Section B (e.g. sensory, toileting, language) with nothing anywhere in Section F that addresses it

   The law this check stands on:

   “Provision must be specified for each and every need”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69

3. Check 3 of 17 · Section F · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Is any support written as money, funding bands, or 'the school will decide' — instead of actual, concrete support?

   Your answer for check 3

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • "within the school's existing resources"
   • "delegated budget" / "notional SEN budget" / "top-up funding"
   • "Band ..." / "Element 1/2/3"
   • "as determined/decided/arranged by the school/setting"

   The law this check stands on:

   “Simply referring to a financial banding or an amount of money to describe what special educational provision will be made in Part 3 of a Statement (now Section F of an EHC plan) is not specific enough to satisfy the law’s requirement.”

   IPSEA case-law summary (JD v South Tyneside line) (commentary, not legislation)

   “a high degree of specificity was nevertheless required”

   L v Clarke and Somerset CC [1998] ELR 129 (IPSEA summary) (commentary, not legislation)

4. Check 4 of 17 · Section E · legally weak — challengeable

   Are the outcomes in Section E specific, measurable and time-bound — and about YOUR CHILD, not about a service?

   Your answer for check 4

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • vague outcomes like "will access learning"
   • no date, year group or key stage by which anything is achieved
   • "reviewed annually" as the only timescale
   • outcomes that describe a service being provided instead of a change for the child

   The law this check stands on:

   “it should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound (SMART)”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.66

   “Outcomes are not a description of the service being provided”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.66

5. Check 5 of 17 · Section F/G · legally weak — challengeable

   Are therapies that teach or train your child (speech and language therapy, OT with an educational purpose) in Section F — not parked in Section G?

   Your answer for check 5

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • SALT / OT / physiotherapy appearing ONLY in Section G (health) when it helps your child learn — in G it is not enforceable the way Section F is

   The law this check stands on:

   “Health care provision or social care provision which educates or trains a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision (instead of health care provision or social care provision).”

   Children and Families Act 2014, s.21(5)

6. Check 6 of 17 · Section I · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Does Section I actually NAME a school (or type of school) — and if your requested school was refused, was it for one of the two lawful reasons?

   Your answer for check 6

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • Section I blank, "to be confirmed", or "consultation ongoing"
   • a refusal based on cost alone, "the school is full", or policy rather than the two statutory grounds

   The law this check stands on:

   “The local authority must secure that the EHC plan names the school or other institution specified in the request, unless subsection (4) applies.”

   Children and Families Act 2014, s.39(3)-(4)

7. Check 7 of 17 · Section meta · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Has the plan been reviewed within the last 12 months?

   Your answer for check 7

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • a 'date of last review' more than a year ago
   • no review date anywhere on the plan's face

   The law this check stands on:

   “must review an EHC plan that it maintains—”

   Children and Families Act 2014, s.44(1) (annual review duty)

   “period of 12 months starting with the date on which the plan was first made, and”

   Children and Families Act 2014, s.44 (the 12-month clock)

8. Check 8 of 17 · Section F · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

   Is any support defined only by a decision someone will make LATER, instead of being pinned down in the plan now?

   Your answer for check 8

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • "as advised/recommended/determined by ..."
   • "following (an) assessment/review"
   • "subject to assessment/review/referral"

   The law this check stands on:

   “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”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69

9. Check 9 of 17 · Section B/E · legally weak — challengeable

   Does every need in Section B have an outcome in Section E working towards it?

   Your answer for check 9

   YesNoCan't tell

   Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

   • a need in Section B that no Section E outcome mentions or works towards

   The law this check stands on:

   “it should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound (SMART)”

   SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.66 (outcomes framework)

10. Check 10 of 17 · Section D/H · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

    Do the social care sections (H1/H2) match the social care needs the plan itself describes in Section D?

    Your answer for check 10

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • "no outstanding social care needs" (or an empty Section H) while Section D documents continence, personal care, safety, supervision or short-break needs

    The law this check stands on:

    “make arrangements for all or any of the following matters, namely—”

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, s.2

    “duty of that authority to make those arrangements in exercise of their functions under the said section 29.”

    CSDPA 1970, s.2 (the duty, once satisfied of necessity)

11. Check 11 of 17 · Section G · legally weak — challengeable

    Does the health provision in Section G say how much and how often — or is it just 'access to' a service?

    Your answer for check 11

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • "access to advice/monitoring/support" with no frequency or amount
    • "universal" NHS offer wording with nothing quantified

    The law this check stands on:

    “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”

    SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69 (the specificity principle)

12. Check 12 of 17 · Section B/F · legally weak — challengeable

    Are needs and support in their RIGHT sections — what your child cannot yet do in Section B, deliverable support in Section F?

    Your answer for check 12

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • Section B entries that are really provision ("needs 1:1 support" is provision — the need is what the child finds hard)
    • Section F entries that are aspirations or teaching strategies rather than deliverable support

    The law this check stands on:

    “Provision must be specified for each and every need”

    SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69

    “The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person.”

    Children and Families Act 2014, s.42(2) (why placement in F matters)

13. Check 13 of 17 · Section meta · worth a look — drafting care

    Does the plan look carefully drafted for YOUR child — right terminology, and Sections J and K properly completed?

    Your answer for check 13

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • a child under 16 described as a "young person" or given an adult honorific (an unadapted template)
    • Section J blank with no statement that no personal budget was sought
    • Section K listing advice reports that are not actually attached to the plan

    The law this check stands on:

    “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”

    SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69 (drafting standard)

14. Check 14 of 17 · Section B/C/G · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

    Where the plan itself evidences a significant or specialist need, is the matching therapy targeted or specialist — not just the 'universal' level every child gets anyway?

    Your answer for check 14

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • "Universal" next to SALT / OT / physiotherapy where Section B or C describes significant or specialist-level need
    • a previously specified 1:1 therapy programme re-described as "Universal - NHS"

    The law this check stands on:

    “Provision must be specified for each and every need”

    SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 9.69

15. Check 15 of 17 · Section meta · legally weak — challengeable

    Is the plan FINAL — dated and agreed — rather than a draft?

    Your answer for check 15

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • "DRAFT" markings or watermarks
    • "date agreed" / "date finalised" left blank
    • an amended plan issued with no new agreed date

    The law this check stands on:

    “as soon as practicable, and in any event within 20 weeks of the local authority receiving a request for an EHC needs assessment in accordance with section 36(1) of the Act, or of the local authority becoming responsible for the child in accordance with section 24 of the Act.”

    SEND Regulations 2014, reg 13 (the finalisation timescale)

    “The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person.”

    Children and Families Act 2014, s.42 (the duty a draft does not yet carry)

16. Check 16 of 17 · Section meta · serious — the plan's enforceability is at risk

    If your child moves between school phases this year (e.g. Year 6 to secondary, Year 11 to college), does the plan already name the new setting — amended by the statutory deadline?

    Your answer for check 16

    YesNoCan't tell

    Red flags — search your plan for wording like:

    • an imminent phase transfer with no receiving setting named in Section I
    • no amended plan by 15 February (most transfers) or 31 March (secondary to post-16) in the transfer year

    The law this check stands on:

    “31 March in the calendar year of the child or young person's transfer from secondary school to a post-16 institution”

    SEND Regulations 2014, reg 18(1)(a) (secondary -> post-16: by 31 March)

    “15 February in the calendar year of the child's transfer in any other case”

    SEND Regulations 2014, reg 18(1)(b) (other phase transfers: by 15 February)

17. Check 17 of 17 · Section F · good to know

    Do you know that EVERYTHING written in Section F is a legal duty the local authority MUST deliver once the plan is final?

    Your answer for check 17

    YesNoCan't tell

    No red flags to search for — this one is background every parent should have.

    The law this check stands on:

    “The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person.”

    Children and Families Act 2014, s.42(2)