Speech and Language Therapy and OT in EHCP Section F: What Must Be Specified

Speech and Language Therapy (SALT or SaLT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) are among the most commonly needed — and most commonly watered down — forms of provision in EHCPs across England. Local authorities and schools frequently use vague, unenforceable language when describing therapeutic provision, because vague wording shifts their legal liability and gives them discretion to reduce or eliminate the support in practice.

Understanding what legally enforceable SALT and OT provision looks like — and what does not — is one of the most practically useful skills a parent can have when reviewing a draft or final EHCP.

Why These Therapies End Up in Section F

Speech and language therapy and occupational therapy can appear in both Section F (educational provision) and Section G (health provision) of an EHCP. The distinction matters because Section F provision carries an absolute legal duty under Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 — the LA must secure it. Section G provision is commissioned by the Integrated Care Board and enforced through different mechanisms.

Many local authorities attempt to place SALT and OT in Section G to reduce their own financial and legal exposure. The problem with this is that if therapy is required to enable the child to access their education — which it typically is, for children whose communication or physical/sensory needs affect how they participate in school — it should be in Section F. The SEND Code of Practice (paragraph 9.73) is explicit that any provision that is "educational" in nature must appear in Section F, regardless of who delivers it.

IPSEA's long-standing guidance — backed by significant case law — is that SALT and OT required to meet a child's special educational needs belong in Section F, and the LA has an absolute duty to secure them. Attempts to move them exclusively to Section G to limit LA liability should be challenged.

The Specificity Standard

The starting point is Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014, which creates an absolute duty on the LA to secure what is specified in Section F. The SEND Code of Practice (paragraph 9.69) requires provision to be "detailed and specific and should normally be quantified, for example, in terms of the type, hours and frequency of support and level of expertise."

The Upper Tribunal case L v Clarke and Somerset CC established that provision must be "so specific and clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided and what is needed." B-M and B-M v Oxfordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 35 (AAC) reaffirmed that this standard applies even in specialist settings where some flexibility might seem reasonable.

Applied to SALT and OT, this means that every provision item must answer four questions:

1. What is the provision? (direct therapy, consultancy, a joint programme, a classroom-based programme?)
2. Who delivers it? (an HCPC-registered therapist by qualification, not "a professional" or "relevant staff")
3. How much and how often? (frequency and duration of sessions, number of weeks per term or year)
4. In what form? (1:1 direct, small group, indirect advisory with school staff, or a combination — each specified separately)

What Lawful SALT Provision Looks Like

Compare these two versions:

Unlawful/vague: "[Child] will have access to speech and language therapy support as required. The school will liaise with the NHS SaLT team to ensure his communication needs are met."

Specific and lawful: "[Child] will receive direct 1:1 speech and language therapy of 45 minutes duration, delivered weekly during term time by an HCPC-registered Speech and Language Therapist. In addition, the SaLT will provide an individualised programme for school staff, with a fortnightly advisory visit of 30 minutes to review implementation and update the programme. Progress towards communication outcomes will be reviewed termly by the SaLT in liaison with the SENCO."

The difference is not stylistic. The vague version creates no obligation: "access to support" as required places all discretion with the school; "liaise with the NHS SaLT team" commits nobody to anything measurable. The specific version creates enforceable obligations — a named type of professional, a defined frequency, a defined duration, a defined advisory component, and a review mechanism.

Common areas where SALT provision is specified in EHCPs include:

• Direct therapy for speech sound difficulties (pronunciation, phonological processing)
• Direct therapy for language processing and comprehension
• Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) training and support
• Social communication programmes (delivered by a SaLT or a SaLT-trained TA, with the TA version specified clearly as a distinct component)
• Dysphagia (swallowing) support for children with physical needs

Each of these requires its own specific wording, not a single generic statement about "access to SALT."

What Lawful OT Provision Looks Like

Occupational therapy provision in EHCPs covers a wide range, from fine motor skill development to sensory processing support to adaptive equipment. Again, the specificity standard applies to every element.

Unlawful/vague: "[Child] will receive occupational therapy support to address her sensory needs. OT advice will be made available to school staff."

Specific and lawful: "[Child] will receive a sensory assessment and written sensory profile completed by an HCPC-registered Occupational Therapist within 6 weeks of placement or the start of the academic year. Following the assessment, she will receive direct OT intervention of 45 minutes delivered fortnightly by an HCPC-registered OT, focused on sensory regulation strategies and their application to the classroom environment. The OT will provide a written programme for school staff with a half-termly advisory visit of 45 minutes to review implementation and update the programme as needed."

Common areas of OT provision in EHCPs include:

• Sensory processing and sensory integration support
• Fine motor skills development (handwriting, scissor skills, self-care tasks)
• Proprioception and vestibular processing
• Adaptive equipment recommendations and training (seating, pencil grips, specialist keyboards)
• Environmental modifications (classroom layout, furniture, lighting)

OT provision is particularly commonly diluted by LAs who specify "OT advisory support" without specifying direct therapy. If the child's needs require direct intervention — as they often do — advisory support alone is insufficient and should be challenged.

The School Nurse or TA as a Substitute

A particularly common sleight of hand is the specification of therapy "delivered by a suitably trained member of school staff" or "implemented under the direction of the therapist" as a substitute for direct professional therapy. This is not always wrong — joint programmes where a SaLT or OT designs a programme for a TA to implement, under regular therapist supervision, can be appropriate and effective for some children and some aspects of their needs.

The problem arises when:

• Direct therapy has been recommended by the child's clinician but is replaced entirely by TA-delivered programming
• The supervisory arrangement is not specified (how often does the therapist review? Is there a written programme with clear protocols?)
• The TA is described as "familiar adult" or "school staff" without any training or qualification requirement

If an independent therapist has recommended direct therapy, that recommendation should be reflected in the EHCP. If the LA is proposing TA implementation as a full substitute, this needs to be challenged with the original professional recommendation.

How to Challenge Vague Therapy Provision

If the EHCP contains vague SALT or OT provision, the most effective challenge is built on professional evidence. Commission an independent SaLT or OT assessment and report that:

• Identifies the child's current needs
• Specifies what type of provision is required (direct therapy, frequency, duration, provider qualification)
• Explicitly uses the language of Section F specification

This report becomes your evidence at either the Annual Review or, if necessary, the SEND Tribunal. When the independent expert's recommendation is clear, specific, and quantified — and the LA's proposed wording is not — the Tribunal has a strong basis for ordering the more specific provision.

The England SEND Tribunal Playbook includes a Section F specificity audit worksheet with detailed examples for therapy provision, covering both SALT and OT — so you can compare your child's EHCP against the legal standard line by line.

If Therapy Is Specified but Not Delivered

Once provision is specified in Section F, the LA has an absolute duty to secure it. If the school says the NHS SaLT service cannot provide the sessions (due to waiting lists or staff shortages), that is not an acceptable reason for non-delivery — it is an enforcement problem.

The LA must secure the provision, which may mean commissioning a private provider if the NHS cannot deliver. If the LA is failing to do this, the enforcement routes are: formal complaint to the LA, complaint to the LGSCO, and — for provision that is being missed over an extended period — judicial review proceedings via a solicitor's pre-action protocol letter.

Document every missed session. The record of missed provision becomes the evidence base for both the complaint and any compensation claim.

See more United Kingdom guides →