How to check if your child's EHCP is any good

Why EHCP quality matters

An EHCP is only as useful as the provision it contains. A well-written EHCP is a powerful legal document that compels the local authority and the named school to deliver specific support. A poorly written EHCP is little more than a letter of intent — vague enough for the LA to claim compliance while providing next to nothing.

The difference between these two outcomes is almost always in Section F. Section F sets out the special educational provision — the support that must be delivered to meet your child's needs. Under the Children and Families Act 2014, this provision is legally binding once the EHCP is finalised. But only if it is specific enough to enforce.

Local authorities know this. Experienced SEND parents know this. Most new parents do not — and that asymmetry of knowledge is why so many children are stuck with inadequate EHCPs.

The enforceability test

An EHCP provision is enforceable if — and only if — it is specific enough for a parent to know whether it is being delivered. Apply this simple test to every provision in Section F:

• What: does it specify the type of intervention? (e.g. "speech and language therapy", not just "support")
• How much: does it specify the frequency and duration? (e.g. "45 minutes per week", not "regular sessions")
• Who: does it specify who must deliver it? (e.g. "a qualified speech and language therapist", not "a member of staff")
• Where: does it specify where it will be delivered? (e.g. "individually, in a quiet space away from the classroom")

If any of these are missing or vague, the provision is not compliant with the legal standard and you have grounds to challenge it — either by requesting an amendment or by appealing to the SEND Tribunal.

Common EHCP failures — what to look for

These are the most frequent problems found in EHCPs reviewed by SEND advocates and solicitors:

Vague provision language in Section F

The following phrases are red flags. Each represents a provision that is almost certainly unenforceable:

• "Access to support" — no quantity, no type, no frequency
• "Regular speech and language therapy" — "regular" has no legal meaning
• "Support as required" — leaves delivery entirely at the school's discretion
• "Where appropriate" — the school decides whether it is appropriate
• "Opportunities to develop…" — aspirational language, not a commitment to deliver
• "Small group or 1:1 support" — or means neither may be provided
• "Up to X hours" — the LA can meet this with zero hours

If you see any of these, request in writing that the provision be made specific and quantified. Reference the SEND Code of Practice (para 9.69) and the Children and Families Act 2014 (Section 37).

Needs not matched by provision

Every need described in Section B must be met by a corresponding provision in Section F. Do this as a mechanical check: take each need described in Section B and ask whether there is a specific, quantified provision in Section F that directly addresses it.

It is common to find that Section B describes a need for occupational therapy, sensory processing support, or mental health support — and that Section F contains no corresponding provision at all. This is a clear basis for challenge.

Wrong information in wrong sections

EHCPs have 12 sections (A–K). Information in the wrong section can undermine your legal position:

• Diagnoses belong in Section C (health), not Section B. If they are in Section B, they may be used as SEN needs — which could work in your favour or against you depending on the context.
• Educational provision must be in Section F. Provision described only in Section D (health provision) or Section H (social care provision) is not enforceable by the LA in an educational setting.
• Health provision in Section D should be cross-referenced in Section F if it is also educational (e.g. therapy that takes place in school during the school day).

No named school in Section I

Section I must name a specific school or type of setting. "Maintained mainstream school" is not sufficient. If the LA has left this vague, you have the right to request that a specific school be named. If they refuse, you can appeal the placement to the SEND Tribunal.

Parents have the right to express a preference for any maintained school (including special schools). The LA must comply unless the school is unsuitable for the child's age, ability, or SEN, or if placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children.

Outcomes that are not measurable

Section E sets out the outcomes the EHCP is working towards. These should be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Outcomes like "to improve communication skills" are not SMART. "To be able to initiate and sustain a three-turn conversation with a peer in a structured setting by December 2026" is.

Weak outcomes make annual reviews harder — it becomes nearly impossible to demonstrate whether the EHCP is working if no one can agree on what success looks like.

How to challenge a poor EHCP

If you identify problems in the draft EHCP during the 15-day review period, put your objections in writing. Be specific: quote the provision, identify the problem, and state what the provision should say. Reference the SEND Code of Practice and the legal requirement for provision to be specified and quantified.

If the final EHCP still contains inadequate provision, you have two months to appeal to the SEND Tribunal on Sections B, F, and I. Read our tribunal guide →

If the EHCP has already been finalised and time has passed, you can request an early annual review — or make a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if the LA is not delivering what is in the plan.

Pathway's EHCP Quality Checker

Pathway includes an AI-powered EHCP Quality Checker that applies the legal standard to your child's EHCP. Upload the plan and it will:

• Identify vague or unenforceable provision in Section F, flagging the specific phrases that fall below the legal standard
• Cross-reference Section B needs against Section F provision — highlighting any needs that have no corresponding provision
• Check for SMART criteria in Section E outcomes
• Flag provision that should be in Section F but has been placed elsewhere
• Generate suggested replacement language for each identified weakness — wording that meets the specified and quantified standard
• Produce a written response you can send to the LA requesting specific amendments

A single free quality check is available on the free tier. Unlimited checks — including the full amendment response generator — are included in the Application Pack plan from £12.99/month. See pricing →

The checker is built on the Children and Families Act 2014, the SEND Code of Practice (2015), and HMCTS tribunal decision data — not generic AI knowledge. Every flag it raises is grounded in the actual legal standard.