EHCP Provision Not Being Met: How to Enforce Section F When the LA Isn't Delivering

Your child has a final EHCP. It specifies provision. The provision is not being delivered. You have chased the school, you have emailed the LA, and nothing has changed.

This situation is not just frustrating — it is unlawful. And there are specific enforcement mechanisms designed precisely for it.

The Legal Duty Is Absolute

Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 imposes what lawyers describe as an absolute, non-delegable legal duty on the local authority. The LA must secure the special educational provision specified in Section F of the EHCP. Not "try to secure," not "use reasonable endeavours" — must secure.

This matters because it means a local authority cannot defend non-delivery by pointing to school staffing shortages, therapist waiting lists, or budget constraints. Those are the LA's operational problems, not legal excuses. If the provision is in Section F and it is not being delivered, the LA is in breach of a statutory duty.

That duty cannot be delegated away. Even if the LA contracts provision to a school or an NHS trust, the legal responsibility for securing delivery remains with the LA. If the school is not delivering and the LA is not ensuring they do, the LA is the responsible party.

Common Reasons Provision Is Not Delivered

Understanding why provision fails helps you choose the right enforcement route.

The school lacks specialist staff. A child is entitled to speech therapy sessions with an HCPC-registered therapist, but the school's SALT contract covers only group therapy. The individual sessions specified in Section F never materialise. This is a Section 42 breach — the LA must fix it.

NHS waiting lists. The LA includes therapy in Section F, intending it to be delivered by the NHS, but the NHS waiting list means it never starts. Under the SEND framework, the LA has a duty to secure provision regardless of NHS delivery capacity. If NHS provision is unavailable, the LA must commission private provision. This is settled law.

Provision is delivered differently than specified. The plan says 1:1 daily support from a trained TA; the child is placed in a group of six. The provision specified is not the provision delivered. This is still a breach, even if some support is happening.

The school has changed and provision has not transferred. Following a school move, the provision in Section F continues to apply but the new school has not received the plan or has not put it in place.

Step 1: Document Everything

Before escalating, build a written record. Note every instance of missed provision with dates. If the child should have had two 45-minute speech therapy sessions per week and has had none for six weeks, that is 12 missed sessions — document each one with the evidence: emails, school communications, or your own contemporaneous notes.

Request written confirmation from the school about what provision is currently in place. Most schools will confirm, in writing, that they are trying but the therapist is unavailable or the TA hours have not been funded. That confirmation is evidence of the breach.

Step 2: Write to the LA Citing Section 42

Send a formal written communication to the LA's SEN team. Do not frame this as a general concern. State it as what it is:

"Section F of [child's name]'s EHCP specifies [provision]. As of [date], this provision has not been delivered since [date]. This constitutes a breach of the local authority's absolute duty under Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014. I require written confirmation by [date — 10 working days] of the specific steps the LA will take to secure delivery of this provision."

Copy the Director of Children's Services and the LA's Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer has legal responsibility for the authority's compliance with its statutory duties.

Set a deadline — ten working days is reasonable for an initial response. State in the letter what you will do if the response is unsatisfactory: formal complaint under the LA's complaints procedure, followed by escalation to the LGSCO or judicial review proceedings.

Step 3: Formal Complaint

If the LA does not respond, or responds but does not commit to delivering provision, submit a formal complaint through the LA's internal complaints procedure. The complaint letter should follow the same structure: specific statutory breach, date-by-date account of the failure, impact on the child, and a clear deadline for resolution.

The LA is required to follow its published complaints procedure, typically a two-stage process with written responses. If it fails to respond within its own timescales, that is additional maladministration.

Step 4: Pre-Action Protocol Letter for Judicial Review

If the formal complaints process does not resolve the issue — or if the situation is urgent (a child completely out of education, critical therapy missing) — a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter is often the most powerful tool available.

A PAP letter is a formal notification of an intent to seek judicial review. It must be sent to the LA at least 14 days before any judicial review claim is issued (3 days for urgent cases). It sets out the facts, the legal basis for the claim, and what the LA must do to avoid proceedings.

In practice, many LAs comply with the PAP letter without proceedings ever being issued. The prospect of a High Court judicial review — and its associated costs and reputational damage — is sufficient to prompt action that months of emails failed to achieve. LAs spent an estimated £153 million to £200 million defending SEND cases in 2024-25; they have strong financial incentives to settle clear-cut enforcement cases before they escalate.

A PAP letter needs to be precisely drafted. It is not a strongly-worded complaint letter — it is a legal document that meets specific procedural requirements. Parents who are not using a solicitor should use IPSEA's guidance on judicial review and, ideally, take legal advice before sending it.

Step 5: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

The LGSCO is appropriate for cases where the immediate provision failure has continued for a significant period and you want both accountability and compensation. The LGSCO upholds 83% to 92% of investigated SEND complaints and can order financial compensation for missed provision and distress.

However, the LGSCO process is slow — a full investigation typically takes 12 months or more. It is not the right tool if your child is currently out of education or if the situation requires urgent resolution. Use judicial review for urgency; use the LGSCO for historical failures.

What About the School's Responsibility?

Schools have a duty under Section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to use their "best endeavours" to ensure that provision is made for pupils with SEN. But they are not subject to the absolute Section 42 duty — that falls on the LA.

If the school is failing to deliver provision because of staffing issues or resource constraints, the correct response is to hold the LA accountable for ensuring delivery, not simply to pursue the school in isolation. The LA commissioned the provision; the LA must ensure it is delivered.

The Toolkit for Enforcement

The England SEND Tribunal Playbook includes a structured enforcement sequence — from the initial Section 42 letter through complaint escalation and the pre-action protocol process — along with template letters citing the correct statutory basis for each stage. If your child's EHCP provision is not being delivered, you do not need to accept it. The law is explicit. The enforcement pathway is clear.

Local authorities rely on parental exhaustion as an attrition strategy. The families who get results are the ones who know the law, document the failures systematically, and escalate deliberately. At Tribunal, LAs lose almost every case — and the same legal framework that governs Tribunal appeals also governs enforcement of existing EHCPs.

See more United Kingdom homeschool guides →