EHCP Compliance Tracker

EHCP Timeliness (% within 20 weeks)

Tribunal Appeals

Total Active EHC Plans

Council Failure Rate at Tribunal (%)

Assessment Refusal Rate (%)

Children Educated Elsewhere

What This Means

Fewer than half of Education, Health and Care Plans are being completed within the legal 20-week timeframe. The system is not just struggling — it is actively failing. Councils are losing 99% of tribunal cases they contest, yet continue to refuse, delay and obstruct families at enormous public cost.

The 55% rise in tribunal appeals in a single year reflects desperation, not vexatiousness. Families are forced into quasi-legal battles simply to access support their children are entitled to by law.

Scale of Failure

25 councils completed less than 20% of EHCPs on time in 2024
74 councils (nearly half) fell below 50% timeliness
Devon recorded 3.2%, the worst in England
National refusal rate stands at 25.2% — one in four families turned away
Over 6,230 EHCPs took longer than a year to complete
Approximately 50,000 children are being educated outside mainstream settings or not at all

The SEND White Paper and Beyond

The Government’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan acknowledged systemic failure but proposed reforms that many families and experts view as insufficient. Accountability remains patchy. Ofsted’s Area SEND inspections have now identified 14 councils with widespread failings — yet there are no meaningful consequences for the worst performers.

This tracker exists because transparency is the first step towards accountability. Every data point here is sourced from official Government publications.

Colour map by:

>60% on time 30–60% <30% No data

Councils must complete EHCPs within 20 weeks. This map shows the percentage completed on time. Red means severe delays affecting children.

Council	Region	Timeliness 2024	Refusal Rate	Requests 2024	Trend	Tribunals	Ofsted	Rating

Section 36: The Right to Request an Assessment

Under Section 36 of the Children and Families Act 2014, a parent, young person, or someone acting on their behalf may request that a local authority carry out an EHC needs assessment. The local authority must determine whether such an assessment is necessary.

The threshold is low: the council must assess if the child may have SEN and it may be necessary to make special educational provision through an EHC plan. This is not a “balance of probabilities” test — it is a possibility test.

A local authority must not apply a blanket policy of requiring a certain level of evidence, a diagnosis, or a specific period of SEN Support before agreeing to assess. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. — SEND Code of Practice, para 9.14

Section 37(2): The Specificity Requirement

Section 37 requires that EHC plans specify the special educational provision required. The SEND Code of Practice (9.69) states provision must be detailed, specific and quantified.

Unlawful Vague Phrases

The following words and phrases, commonly found in EHCPs, have been held to be insufficiently specific:

regularfrequentongoingas required as neededas appropriateaccess toopportunities for may includewhen necessaryshouldcould where possiblefrom time to timesomereasonable a range offlexibletargetedbespoke

B-M v Oxfordshire [2022]

The Upper Tribunal held that provision must be specified with enough detail that a parent could enforce it, and that a “reasonably informed” person reading the plan would understand exactly what must be delivered, by whom, how often, and to what standard. Provision described as “access to” or “opportunities for” is not enforceable and therefore unlawful.

Good vs Bad Section F Examples

Unlawful (too vague)

“X will have access to speech and language therapy as appropriate.”

“A range of targeted interventions to support X’s communication needs.”

“Regular small group sessions to develop social skills.”

Lawful (specific and quantified)

“X will receive 2 x 45-minute individual speech and language therapy sessions per week, delivered by or under the supervision of a qualified Speech and Language Therapist (HCPC registered), focusing on expressive language development using the Derbyshire Language Scheme.”

“X will receive 3 x 30-minute small group sessions (maximum 4 children) per week, led by a trained teaching assistant, using the Social Thinking curriculum by Michelle Garcia Winner, to develop social communication skills including turn-taking, perspective-taking and emotional regulation.”

Section 42: The Duty to Deliver

Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 imposes an absolute duty on the local authority to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHC plan. This is not discretionary, not resource-dependent, and not subject to availability.

If provision specified in Section F of an EHCP is not being delivered, the local authority is in breach of its statutory duty. There is no defence of lack of resources. — R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997]

Known Unlawful Barrier Practices

The following practices are used by some councils but have no basis in law:

Requiring a diagnosis: There is no requirement for a medical diagnosis before requesting an EHCP assessment. SEN is an educational concept, not a medical one.
Graduated approach as a precondition: While schools should implement SEN Support, a council cannot require a specific number of “assess-plan-do-review” cycles before accepting a request.
SEN register or K-code requirement: There is no legal requirement for a child to be on a school’s SEN register before an assessment can be requested.
Attainment thresholds: Requiring a child to be below a certain percentile or attainment level is unlawful. SEN is not defined by attainment alone.
Panel decisions: Some councils use “moderation panels” or “resource allocation panels” to gatekeep assessments. These have no legal standing when used to refuse statutory assessments.
Time requirements: Requiring a child to have been at SEN Support for a minimum number of terms before considering assessment is not supported by law.
School-based decision making: Telling parents that the school decides whether to request an assessment. Parents have an independent right to request under s.36.
“No funding available”: The duty under s.42(2) to secure provision in an EHC plan is absolute. Lack of resources is not a lawful defence (R v East Sussex CC ex parte Tandy [1998]).
“We don’t place out of area”: Blanket refusal to consider out-of-area placements is unlawful. Under s.39, the council must consider a parent’s requested school and can only refuse on narrow statutory grounds.
Budget caps on school provision: Once provision is in Section F, the council must fund and deliver it, regardless of the school’s own budget. The school’s funding level does not limit the child’s entitlement.
“Mainstream only” as blanket policy: While there is a mainstream presumption (s.33), it does not override the duty to meet need. If mainstream cannot deliver the plan, specialist provision must be considered.

Section F Wording Checker

Paste the text from Section F (Special Educational Provision) of your child’s EHCP below. This tool will highlight vague or potentially unlawful phrases, and check for missing specifics such as hours, frequency and qualifications.

Is Your Council Gatekeeping?

Select what your council has told you, or paste their letter below. Every option listed here is unlawful when used as a blanket policy to refuse or delay an EHC needs assessment.

My council is saying:

Or paste the full text from a council refusal letter or communication:

EHCP Compliance Tracker: England

Timeliness

Refusal rates

Tribunals

The cost