Back to Blog
EHCP Appeals SEND Tribunal Inadequate Provision UK Guide EHCP Red Flags

When to Appeal: 5 Red Flags in Your EHCP Offer

9 min read
Tediverse Team
When to Appeal: 5 Red Flags in Your EHCP Offer

The envelope arrives. Inside is your child’s draft Education, Health and Care Plan—the document you’ve fought for, waited months for, pinned so many hopes on. You open it with a mixture of relief and trepidation. Finally, your child will get the support they need. Right?

But as you read through Section F (Special Educational Provision), your heart sinks. The provision is vague: “access to support,” “small group work as needed,” “regular check-ins with SENCO.” The specialist school you visited isn’t named—instead, it’s the mainstream school that’s already failed your child. Recommended therapies from professional reports have disappeared. This doesn’t look like the comprehensive, specific plan you were expecting.

Here’s the truth many parents learn the hard way: not all EHCPs are created equal. Some are comprehensive, specific, and genuinely ensure appropriate provision. Others are vague, inadequate placeholders designed to minimize costs rather than meet needs. The difference? Whether you recognize the red flags and are prepared to challenge them.

This guide will help you identify the five most serious red flags in EHCP offers—the warning signs that should make you seriously consider appealing to the SEND tribunal.

Before We Begin: Understanding Your Appeal Rights

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, you have the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) if you disagree with:

  • The description of your child’s SEN (Section B)
  • The special educational provision specified (Section F)
  • The school named in the EHCP (Section I)
  • If no school is named

You have a legal right to this appeal. The local authority cannot stop you. And here’s something important: the majority of parents who appeal win, either fully or partially. Tribunals exist because LAs frequently issue inadequate plans.

Red Flag #1: Vague, Unquantified Provision

This is the most common and arguably most serious problem with EHCPs. Section F should specify provision that is:

  • Specific: Exactly what will be provided
  • Quantified: How much, how often, for how long
  • By whom: What level of expertise required
  • Detailed: Enough detail that anyone could understand what should happen

What Vague Provision Looks Like:

Red Flag Examples:

  • “Access to support as needed”
  • “Small group work when appropriate”
  • “Regular check-ins with SENCO”
  • “Additional adult support in the classroom”
  • “Differentiated curriculum”
  • “Visual timetables and prompts”
  • “Sensory breaks available”

Why this is a problem: These statements are meaningless. What does “as needed” mean? Who decides? How much “additional support”? What training does the adult have? Without specificity, provision is unenforceable.

What Good, Specific Provision Looks Like:

Good Examples:

  • “20 hours per week of 1:1 support from a teaching assistant trained in autism and communication strategies”
  • “30 minutes per week of individual speech and language therapy delivered by a qualified SALT”
  • “Daily sensory circuit at the start of each day, lasting 15 minutes, facilitated by staff trained in sensory integration”
  • “Pre-teaching of key vocabulary and concepts for 15 minutes before each English and Maths lesson”
  • “Weekly social skills group (1 hour) in groups of no more than 4 children, led by trained practitioner”

Why this works: These provisions are specific, quantified, and enforceable. You could check whether they’re happening. If they’re not, it’s clear breach.

What to do: If your Section F is full of vague statements, this is grounds for appeal. During your consultation period (15 days), write to the LA specifying exactly what you want changed and why vague provision is inadequate.

Red Flag #2: Provision That Doesn’t Match Assessed Needs

Section B of the EHCP describes your child’s needs. Section F should provide for those needs. Sounds logical, right? Yet many EHCPs have glaring mismatches between identified needs and specified provision.

Common Mismatches to Watch For:

  • Section B says: “Severe speech and language difficulties requiring specialist therapy”
    Section F says: “Access to SALT consultation to school staff termly”

  • Section B says: “Significant sensory processing difficulties causing dysregulation”
    Section F says: Nothing about sensory support or OT

  • Section B says: “Cannot access learning in groups larger than 4 due to anxiety”
    Section F says: Provision implies mainstream class of 30

  • Professional reports recommend: Specialist autism provision
    Section F provides: Mainstream with “autism-trained TA”

Why this matters: If the LA’s own assessment identifies needs, they must provide for them. Mismatches suggest the LA is trying to minimize provision despite evidence of need.

What to do: Create a table. Column 1: Need identified in Section B. Column 2: Corresponding provision in Section F. If there are gaps or mismatches, highlight them in your consultation response and state that provision is inadequate to meet identified needs.

Red Flag #3: Wrong School Named (or No School Named)

Section I must name a specific school. This is one of the most commonly appealed aspects of EHCPs, and for good reason—school placement can make or break your child’s educational experience.

Red Flags in School Naming:

  • No school named at all: Section I is blank or says “to be determined”
  • Wrong type of setting: Mainstream named when child needs specialist provision
  • School that has already failed: Naming the current school despite evidence it can’t meet needs
  • School refuses placement: Named school says they can’t meet child’s needs
  • Cheaper alternative: LA names their preferred school, not the one you requested and visited

Your Right to Express a Preference:

You have the legal right to request a particular school. The LA must name your preferred school unless:

  1. It’s unsuitable for your child’s age, ability, aptitude, or SEN
  2. Placement would be incompatible with efficient education for other children
  3. It would be an inefficient use of resources

The burden of proof is on the LA to show one of these applies. Simply saying specialist provision is more expensive is not enough—they must prove it’s inefficient use of resources AND that mainstream can actually meet needs.

What to do: If the wrong school is named, appeal. Tribunal has the power to name a different school, and they frequently do. Gather evidence about why the named school cannot meet needs and why your preferred school can.

Red Flag #4: Professional Recommendations Ignored

You’ve paid for private assessments. The educational psychologist’s report says your child needs X. The speech therapist’s report says they need Y. The occupational therapist’s report says they need Z. You submit all these reports with your EHCP request.

Then the draft EHCP arrives and… none of those recommendations are in Section F.

Warning Signs:

  • EP report recommends 15 hours TA support; EHCP says “access to support as needed”
  • SALT report recommends weekly individual therapy; EHCP says “termly consultation”
  • OT report recommends daily sensory diet; EHCP doesn’t mention sensory support
  • Reports from multiple professionals; EHCP cherry-picks only the least demanding recommendations
  • Professional reports not mentioned at all in the EHCP

Important legal point: The LA must consider all evidence, including private reports. They don’t have to agree with everything, but they must explain why they’re not following professional recommendations. If they simply ignore reports without justification, that’s a problem.

What to do: In your consultation response, create a table showing:

  • Professional who made recommendation
  • Their qualification and expertise
  • Specific recommendation made
  • Where (or if) this appears in the EHCP
  • What you want added or amended

Ask the LA to explain in writing why they’ve rejected expert recommendations. If their reasoning is weak or non-existent, you have strong grounds for appeal.

Red Flag #5: Quantified Provision That’s Clearly Insufficient

Sometimes provision is quantified but obviously inadequate. The LA has ticked the “specific” box while providing woefully insufficient support.

Examples of Insufficient Provision:

  • One hour per week TA support for a child who cannot access any learning independently
  • Termly SALT consultation for a child with severe speech and language disorder requiring intensive therapy
  • Monthly check-in with SENCO for a child with complex needs requiring daily monitoring
  • Two hours OT per term for a child with severe sensory and motor difficulties
  • Part-time provision (mornings only) with no justification for why full-time attendance isn’t appropriate

This is the LA’s attempt to meet the letter of the law (quantified provision) while minimizing costs. But provision must be adequate, not just quantified.

What to do: Use professional reports and evidence to demonstrate why the quantified provision is insufficient. Compare to recommended levels. Provide evidence of what happens when support isn’t available (data on behavior, lack of progress, exclusions, etc.).

What to Do If You Spot Red Flags

If your draft EHCP contains one or more of these red flags, here’s your action plan:

Step 1: Don’t Panic, But Don’t Accept

Many parents feel they should be grateful for “any” EHCP. Wrong. An inadequate EHCP is worse than no EHCP—it becomes the ceiling of provision, not the floor. You have the right to a plan that actually meets your child’s needs.

Step 2: Respond During Consultation Period

You have 15 days to comment on the draft EHCP. Use this time to:

  • Write a detailed response highlighting every inadequacy
  • Be specific about what you want changed and why
  • Reference professional reports and evidence
  • Request specific, quantified provision
  • Send by email with read receipt or recorded delivery

Step 3: Decide Whether to Appeal

If the final EHCP still contains significant red flags, you have two months to appeal to SEND tribunal. Consider appealing if:

  • Provision is vague and unenforceable
  • There’s a serious mismatch between needs and provision
  • Wrong school is named
  • Professional recommendations are ignored without justification
  • Quantified provision is clearly insufficient

Step 4: Consider Mediation (Optional for Most Cases)

Mediation is optional for most EHCP appeals (not for refusal to assess). Some find it helpful for negotiating improvements without tribunal. Others find it’s just a delay tactic. You decide what’s right for your situation.

The Reality: Most Parents Who Appeal Win

Here’s an encouraging fact: according to tribunal statistics, the majority of parents who appeal either win their case or reach a favorable settlement before tribunal. LAs frequently issue inadequate plans hoping parents won’t challenge them. When parents do challenge, LAs often concede.

Appealing isn’t easy—it’s stressful, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. But if your child’s EHCP contains serious red flags, it may be the only way to secure the provision they actually need.

Final Thoughts: Your Child Deserves an Adequate Plan

An EHCP is a legal document. It’s supposed to ensure your child receives appropriate provision to meet their special educational needs. It should be specific, quantified, and actually match those needs.

If your draft EHCP contains the red flags we’ve discussed, don’t accept it and hope for the best. Challenge it. The consultation period exists for this reason. The tribunal system exists for this reason.

You are not being difficult. You are not being unreasonable. You are advocating for your child’s legal entitlement to appropriate education. And the evidence shows that when parents stand firm and challenge inadequate plans, they frequently succeed.

Trust your instincts. If something in the EHCP doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. Get advice (IPSEA, SOS SEN, local parent groups), gather your evidence, and don’t be afraid to appeal if necessary.