Final EHCP issued with nothing named in I nor 'type' of placement nor provision set out in F ( EOTAS ). Appeal hearing 5/11/25 ( in 2 days time! )
Am I right in saying the LA have acted unlawfully by issuing a final without a placement/type/eotas? This is the very simple reason I have lodged the appeal which has taken 11 months - during which time my now 19 year old young person is highly unlikely to engage in anything whatsoever and are NEET.
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 15 Dec 2025
-
Yes
|
Complex
In short yes you are correct to say the local authority has acted unlawfully.
Under section 37 of the Children and Families Act 2014 a local authority must specify in an Education Health and Care Plan
- the child or young person’s special educational needs
- the outcomes sought
- the special educational provision required to meet those needs
The detail of that duty is set out in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice.
Section F must specify provision
Regulation 12 and Schedule 2 of the 2014 Regulations require section F of an Education Health and Care Plan to specify the special educational provision.
Case law has repeatedly confirmed that this means provision must be- detailed
- specific
- quantified where appropriate
A section F that does not set out what is to be delivered or merely implies Education Otherwise Than At School without describing it is unlawful.
Where Education Otherwise Than At School is relied upon this does not reduce the duty.
On the contrary the local authority must be particularly clear about- what education is to be delivered
- how often
- by whom
- for how many hours
- and how it meets the needs in section B
Section I must name a placement or type of placement
Section I must name
- the school or college
or - the type of school or other institution
If education is to be delivered otherwise than in a school this must be made clear.
Leaving section I blank or saying “not applicable” or similar is not permitted unless the law is being complied with in another clear way which is rare.The Tribunal has repeatedly found that issuing a final plan without a lawful section I is a procedural and substantive breach.
Education Otherwise Than At School
Education Otherwise Than At School is lawful only where
- it is clear this is what is being arranged
- it is suitable
- it is efficient
- and it meets the young person’s special educational needs
It must be evident from reading sections F and I together that Education Otherwise Than At School is the placement being secured.
An implied or assumed Education Otherwise Than At School package with no detail is unlawful.
Delay and impact on a 19 year old
The fact that the appeal has taken 11 months does not remove the unlawfulness.
Nor does the fact that the young person is now 19 or currently not engaging.The Tribunal retains jurisdiction where the appeal was lodged in time.
The correct question is whether appropriate special educational provision should have been specified and secured.The local authority cannot rely on disengagement or NEET status where its own unlawful plan and delay have contributed to the situation.
Tribunal powers
The First-tier Tribunal has the power to
- amend section F to properly specify provision
- amend section I to name a type of placement including Education Otherwise Than At School
- order the local authority to secure that provision
15 Dec 2025
|
Comment