Can we appeal on the basis EP requirements not being included in section F? Can we also appeal on area of primary need?
Hello, I have a full time EHCP for my son who has ASD. He is currently out of school since Feb 26 following break down of mainstream placement and autistic burnout/trauma from unmet needs.
Can we appeal recent EHCP review on the basis of EP report recommendations not being included in section F?
The EP report has specified the following:
The way forward with the highest chance of success is likely to be the following: An appropriate adult is identified to make contact with J's family, initially spending time in the house with parent/carer. o This adult very gradually becomes acquainted with J in a friendly way, with no demands or expectations placed upon him. o The adult is eventually able to play some games with J and/or talk to him about areas of specific interest to him. o The adult and J research areas of interest and then create some record of this. o The adult meets with J in an agreed neutral place to carry on the contact. o J visits an appropriate setting (without school in its title) with the adult. o J attends the setting with the adult. o Other pupils are introduced very gradually. Academic demands are introduced in a way which ensures easy success. o Academic demands are gradually increased, with enhanced support whenever needed.
This is not in section F of the reviewed EHCP. The LA do not think the requirement for slow transition back into education needs to be cited in section F this for the reason:
While the detailed transition process outlined in the report has not been specified within Section F of the EHCP, the Local Authority would expect any educational setting working with J to take account of the professional recommendations within the report when planning and implementing his transition arrangements. Section F of the EHCP specifies the long-term special educational provision required to meet J's identified needs rather than setting out a detailed step-by-step implementation plan.
We asked for SEMH as the primary area of need but LA have rejected this and have stated his primary need is ASD. Can we appeal this? I am presuming it doesn't really make that much difference but we would also like a SEMH school in section I but for some reason they have put his mainstream school where he is still on roll (where we were informed they could not meet need but agreed to keep him on roll and pay for tuition until such time a placement becomes available).
To summarise,
Can we appeal on section F? (not including EPs recommendation for a slow re-integration back into setting), and what case law is out there regarding section F/EP recommendations?
Can we appeal on area of primary need? (ASD/vs SEMH?) - Does it matter so much when the young person has trauma based needs? Surely you can be SEMH and autistic? Its just if yo are autistic I understand you are more likely to face trauma. Does it help to appeal this though if we would like a SEMH placement?
Can we appeal placement? (LA stated mainstream but we understand mainstream cant meet need, parents would like SEMH?)
Many thanks
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 01 Sep 2026
-
Yes
|
Simple
Dear Ms Walmsley,
These are only general observations based on the information you have provided and should not be treated as legal advice on your individual case.
Following an annual review of an EHCP, the local authority must make a decision about the plan and you will have a right of appeal arising from that process, whether the EHCP is amended or the local authority decides not to amend it. Perhaps the more important question, however, is which issues may be worth considering as part of any appeal. The points you have raised concerning Sections B, F and I all appear potentially significant.
On Section F, the issue is not simply that the EP made a recommendation which the local authority has omitted. The key question is whether the staged re-engagement programme is special educational provision which J requires because of his SEN.
Section F must specify the special educational provision required by the child or young person. It should be sufficiently clear and specific that there is no real doubt about what is to be provided. It should also normally identify matters such as the nature, frequency and level of support. Some flexibility may be appropriate, but flexibility should not be used as a reason for leaving necessary provision unspecified. L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 129 and Worcestershire CC v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC) are particularly relevant authorities (see the excellent Noddy Guide).
Against that background, the local authority's response that a future setting will simply be expected to “take account” of the EP report is open to question. The local authority should identify and specify the provision required to meet J's needs. It should not leave that to be worked out at some later date by an unidentified setting or through arrangements which have yet to be determined. Section F should make clear what J is actually entitled to receive.
That does not mean that Section F can never allow professional flexibility. Where provision needs to vary, the plan should still make sufficiently clear what provision is required. This may include a minimum or core entitlement, where the evidence supports one, together with a clear indication of when provision should be increased. Professional judgment can therefore operate within a sufficiently specific and enforceable framework rather than replacing it altogether.
If J requires a gradual, low-demand re-engagement programme involving a trusted adult, relationship-building, the gradual introduction of educational activity and a carefully staged transition into a setting, there is a reasonable argument that the essential elements of that programme should appear in Section F rather than being left only in the EP report.
It may also be worth seeking clarification from the EP. The phrase “the way forward with the highest chance of success is likely to be” is not quite the same as saying that J requires that provision. It would be helpful if the EP could confirm which elements are necessary to meet J's SEN, who should provide them, the minimum frequency and duration where appropriate, and what should trigger an increase in provision or progression to the next stage.
On ASD versus SEMH as the primary need, I would place less emphasis on the label itself. A child or young person is not limited to one category of SEN. References to a “primary” or “secondary” need do not alter the local authority's duty to specify all of the child or young person's identified SEN in Section B and to make provision for each of those needs in Section F.
The more important question is therefore whether Section B accurately describes J's current needs, including his trauma-related presentation, anxiety, emotional regulation difficulties, difficulties tolerating demands and his ability to access education. If those needs are omitted or understated, that may provide a more substantive basis for challenging Section B than the “primary need” label alone.
The fact that J is autistic does not prevent him from also having significant SEMH needs. It may therefore be more useful to focus on ensuring that all of those needs are properly described than on whether ASD or SEMH is recorded as his “primary” need.
On Section I, placement can also be appealed. The correct sequence is:
identify the needs in Section B → identify the provision required in Section F → decide what placement can deliver that provision.
It is not correct to decide on a placement first and then shape the provision around it.
If, as you describe, J has been unable to attend his current mainstream school since February 2026 and the school itself has indicated that it cannot meet his needs, that would appear relevant to whether the placement has effectively broken down and whether the school should remain named.
If you are considering specialist SEMH provision, the stronger approach may be to focus on J's actual needs and the provision required to meet them, rather than on the diagnostic label alone. Put simply:
J has these identified needs → those needs require this provision → mainstream cannot appropriately deliver that provision → the proposed specialist placement can.
The statutory tests governing any particular school you ask to be named would also need to be considered. Broadly, where the requested school falls within the statutory scheme, the local authority must name it unless one of the statutory exceptions applies, principally that the placement is unsuitable for J's age, ability, aptitude or SEN, or that his attendance would be incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources.
The position is slightly different where the issue is mainstream education as a type of placement. If a parent wants mainstream, the local authority must generally secure mainstream provision unless J's attendance would be incompatible with the efficient education of others and there are no reasonable steps which could be taken to remove that incompatibility. At that stage, neither suitability for J nor efficient use of resources operates as a free-standing exception to the presumption in favour of mainstream.
It is also worth bearing in mind that an “SEMH school” is not, in itself, a statutory type of school. In broad terms, a school will be mainstream or special for these purposes. Some special schools specialise in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEMH-related needs, and some mainstream schools have specialist provision or resource bases for particular types of SEN. The important question is therefore not simply whether a school is described as an “SEMH school”, but whether its type, expertise and provision are appropriate to meet J's identified needs.
That is likely to be a stronger analysis than arguing that J should attend an SEMH school simply because SEMH should be recorded as his “primary need”.
In summary, the issues concerning Sections B, F and I all appear to merit careful consideration. The Section F point in particular appears properly arguable, provided the EP evidence can establish that the staged re-engagement programme is something J actually requires, rather than simply one possible approach.
I trust this is of some assistance, and I look forward to reading any other contributions.
Sean Kennedy
01 Sep 2026
|
2 Comments