Who is responsible for the quality of commissioned provision in England (whether or not it is meeting need)?
If a AP is named and it is just meeting identified need, but the quality is poor, who would be responsible for ensuring the quality improves?
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 1 Other
- 11 Jun 2025
-
Yes
|
Simple
Super Simple summary to help a parent explain the law to a child
If your school or someone else is given money or a job to help you learn or give you support, the people in charge of your school (the local council) still have to make sure it is working well. Even if they ask someone else to do it, they are still the ones who have to check it’s helping you the way it should.Summary in simple English
When a local authority gives a job to another organisation—for example a school, a therapy service, or a private company—they are still responsible for making sure that the help being given is actually working and meeting the child’s special needs. It does not matter who is doing the job or how the support is provided. The local authority must make sure the support is the right kind, at the right time, and of good enough quality to meet what is written in the child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan.Draft technical answer
Where a local authority has commissioned services or provision to meet the special educational needs of a child or young person, including provision specified in an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan under section F of the Children and Families Act 2014, the legal responsibility for ensuring that such provision is delivered and is of sufficient quality rests with the local authority itself. This remains the case even where provision is delivered by third parties, such as academies, independent or non-maintained special schools, therapy providers, or health bodies under delegated arrangements.
This duty derives from the statutory obligations placed on local authorities under Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014. In particular:
Section 42(2) imposes a non-delegable duty on local authorities to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHC plan. The language used—“must secure”—is a mandatory obligation.
Section 42(3) clarifies that if a child’s EHC plan specifies health care provision, the commissioning body (such as a Clinical Commissioning Group or Integrated Care Board (ICB)) must arrange that provision.
Section 26 imposes a broader duty to keep education, health and care provision under review and to promote integration where this would promote well-being and improve the quality of provision.
Regulation 4 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 reinforces the duty to ensure effective commissioning arrangements.
This means that even where a service is outsourced, or the provision is delegated to an institution or body not directly controlled by the local authority, the legal accountability for the delivery and adequacy of that provision cannot be shifted.
Furthermore, the Courts and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) have consistently held that failure to ensure commissioned provision is delivered constitutes a breach of the local authority’s legal duties. The case law confirms that failure to secure Section F provision is not excused by commissioning failures or difficulties with providers.
Answers from the No-nonsense Guides
The Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN law
Q30 > Who is responsible for making sure all the provision in section F of the plan is delivered?
The local authority. It is not the school or the parent’s job to make sure that section F is being followed – it is the legal duty of the local authority (section 42(2) Children and Families Act 2014). If the NHS or school is failing to provide the support, the LA must step in to make it happen. If they do not, a judicial review application may be needed to enforce the duty.The Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN law
Q32 > If a child is in a school and the LA are funding the place, is the school or the LA responsible for ensuring support in section F is delivered?
The LA. It is a non-delegable duty – they can pay someone else to do it, but they still have to make sure it happens. See section 42(2) Children and Families Act 2014.The Disability Law in Education No-nonsense Guide
Q41 > If a local authority or school contracts out provision, are they still responsible for making sure it is accessible and appropriate?
Yes. The local authority or school must ensure that the provision it commissions meets the accessibility requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and any relevant special educational needs obligations.Answers from the Support SEND Ask Experts
Who is responsible for making sure the support in an EHCP happens?
The local authority must ensure that the special educational provision in an EHCP is provided. Even if it is being delivered by someone else (like the school, or a therapy provider), the legal duty remains with the local authority. Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 makes this very clear. If the support is not happening, the family can complain to the local authority, escalate the complaint through the local government ombudsman, or consider judicial review.Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Codes and Case Law
Children and Families Act 2014, section 42
Children and Families Act 2014, section 26
Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, Regulation 4
R (N) v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135
(though pre-dating the Children and Families Act 2014, confirms the principle that duties to secure provision are non-delegable)Relevant case law confirming that non-provision of EHC plan content is a breach, even if due to commissioning failures – summarised in: UKUT Summary Analysis and Commentary Bundles
Practical hints and tips
Parents should put their concerns in writing to the local authority immediately if provision in section F of the EHC plan is not being delivered, even if the service is commissioned.
Families can request written evidence from the provider confirming what has or has not been delivered.
If no satisfactory response is received, the family can escalate via the local authority complaints procedure, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and judicial review if necessary.
It may help to refer to the LGSCO decisions where commissioning failures have led to findings of maladministration.
- 06 May 2025
-
Other
|
Other
Other ...:
There is a lot to this question, and I hope this assists.
What is Alternative Provision?
Alternative provision refers to education arranged for children who cannot attend a mainstream or special school. This might be due to permanent exclusion, health problems, or other reasons. In some cases, it is named in an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCp) when a local authority decides that this type of setting best meets a child’s special educational needs.
Alternative provision can include pupil referral units (PRUs) or other approved education providers. These settings must provide education that is appropriate for the child’s age, ability, and any additional needs.
It is important to note that “education otherwise than at school” (EOTAS), arranged under s 61, the Children and Families Act 2014, is separate from alternative provision and has different rules and responsibilities.
Who is Responsible for the Quality of Provision?
Two key parties are responsible when an EHCP names a specific alternative provision:
1. The Local Authority (LA)
The local authority must:
- Arrange (or secure) and fund the special educational provision set out in the EHCP (as required by s. 42 the Children and Families Act 2014).
- Ensure that the provision is ‘suitable’ for the child’s needs — this includes the quality of education.
- Monitor progress, and check that the provision is delivering what is required by the EHCp.
- Review the EHCp at least once a year to assess whether the child’s needs are still being met appropriately.
- Act if concerns arise about the setting’s suitability, including its quality.
In short, the LA cannot simply name a setting and walk away — it has a duty to ensure the provision is working well and making a difference to the child.
2. The Alternative Provision Provider
The provider itself — such as the PRU or academy — is responsible for:
- Delivering the support specified in the EHCp and using its best endeavours to meet the child’s needs (under section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014).
- Providing quality teaching and learning,
- Ensuring staff are properly trained and the curriculum is suitable.
- Monitoring the child’s progress, adapting support if needed, and maintaining effective communication with the local authority.
The provider’s leadership team and governing body (or trust, in the case of academies) are accountable for standards, outcomes, and improvement.
What Happens if the Quality is Poor?
If the provision is delivering what is written in the EHCp — but doing so to a poor standard — responsibility is shared:
- The alternative provision provider must take steps to improve teaching, support, and overall quality. This might involve staff development, curriculum changes, or investment in better facilities.
- The local authority remains responsible for ensuring that the placement is appropriate. If the LA becomes aware that the education is poor in quality — even if the needs in the EHCp are technically being met — it must act. This could involve:
- Working with the provider to improve quality.
- Requesting updates or evidence of progress.
- Reassessing whether the provision is still suitable for the child.
- Amending the EHCP or naming a different provider.
The SEND Code of Practice states that education arranged through alternative provision must be kept under review and should be equivalent in quality to mainstream schooling. It also stresses the importance of high standards and progress for pupils with special educational needs.
In Summary
- The local authority is responsible for arranging and funding the provision, monitoring its suitability, and taking action if the placement no longer meets the child’s needs — including where quality is an issue.
- The alternative provision must provide quality education and support and ensure the EHCp is followed in full.
- Both parties are responsible for improving poor-quality provision: the provider must raise standards, and the local authority must ensure the child’s needs continue to be met in a suitable and effective way.
Sean Kennedy
|
Comment