Annual Review Process - Can the LA cherry pick professional reports?
A quick bit of background. We have fought tooth and nail to have a SALT provision added to our son’s EHCP. This took well over a year and a full Tribunal process to achieve (We had to find and pay for the SALT provision through the whole tribunal). Even when ordered by the court, the LA has taken months to put anything in place. We have just undergone another Annual Review, and as part of that we submitted a new SALT report that increases the provision to 1:1 weekly 45 min SALT intervention at the school. The draft has just been issued, and they have ignored the updated provision, so we realise they are going to force us to go down another 18 months of Tribunal process to avoid having to pay for any more provision.
However, the LA have taken the updated part B from the new professional report and put that in the draft plan. They have then omitted section F from that same report, as that would be the bit that costs them money.
Would this be illegal, or at least a wrong use of the policy/code of practice? Could we use this to submit another complaint that we can raise to level 2, so we can then raise an ombudsman case or a undertake a judicial review?
My thinking is that it would contravene Paragraph 9.69 of the SEN and Disability Code of Practice specifically “Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in Section B” and court ruling on ‘R v The Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377 CA’.
My source (https://www.ipsea.org.uk/r-v-the-secretary-o…)
By adding the new SALT comments on need into Section B, but then omitting the new provision in Section F, as specified by the professional report, they cannot claim that the provision is specified for each and every need in Section B.
I am no expert, so I realise that this might be clutching at straws. I have ten days left to comment on the draft (which was also late), but going back to the Tribunal again fills me with dread. I hope there is some way I may be able to force them to update the provision, but I realise that might be unlikely.
I thank you for any help you are able to give.
Edit - Spelling
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 21 Aug 2026
-
Yes
|
Simple
TS,
These are general suggestions only, not legal advice.
Yes, potentially. A local authority can disagree with part of a professional report, so “cherry picking” is not automatically unlawful. However, if it has accepted the report’s evidence of need into Section B, it must ensure that Section F contains provision for that need and should explain any departure from the professional advice. If it has adopted the Section B changes but simply omitted the corresponding Section F recommendation without proper explanation, that is capable of being challenged.
The Section F guidance following paragraph 9.69 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (January 2015) states:
“Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in section B.”
The 2026 Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN Law, p. 23, question 07.05, makes the same point.
Against that background, you could ask the local authority:
What provision in Section F does the local authority say meets that need, given that the same SALT report appears to have informed the amendments to Section B, while its corresponding recommendations for Section F have not been adopted? Why has the recommendation for 45 minutes of direct 1:1 therapy each week been rejected?
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (January 2015), Chapter 9, p. 166, Section F guidance following paragraph 9.69, also states:
“There should be clarity as to how advice and information gathered has informed the provision specified. Where the local authority has departed from that advice, they should say so and give reasons for it.”
There is an important qualification. The local authority is not automatically bound to accept the SALT’s recommended 45 minutes. It may conclude that different provision is sufficient, but any departure from the professional advice should be properly reasoned and explained. The Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN Law, p. 23, question 07.05, also notes that Section B can contain narrative description as well as identified SEN. The point is therefore strongest if the new wording genuinely identifies an additional or changed need.
You may wish to consider raising this in your comments on the draft and asking the local authority to identify the corresponding provision in Section F and explain in writing why the SALT recommendation has not been adopted.
If the final EHCP still omits the increased SALT provision, the substantive dispute about what Section F should contain may ultimately need to be taken to the SEND Tribunal.
The previous delay in providing SALT that had already been ordered and specified is a separate issue from the present disagreement about the amount of future provision. The Noddy No-nonsense Guide to SEN Law, p. 41, question 08.22, states that the statutory duty to secure Section F provision has “no ‘reasonable endeavours’ escape clause”.
You could consider pursuing that failure separately through the local authority’s complaints procedure. If it is not resolved there, you could then consider referring it to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 11.89 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (January 2015) confirms that the Ombudsman can investigate complaints which have not been resolved through the local authority’s complaints procedure, including maladministration such as delay or failure to take action.
So, I do not think you are clutching at straws. The stronger way of putting the point is not simply that the local authority has “cherry picked” the report, but that it appears to have accepted material from the SALT report for Section B while declining to adopt the corresponding Section F recommendation. That is something it should be asked to explain.
I trust this is of some assistance, and I look forward to reading any other contributions.
Sean Kennedy
21 Aug 2026
|
Comment