The plan says one-to-one support every morning. It says weekly speech and language therapy. It’s all written down, finalised, signed off. And yet, week after week, it’s not happening.
The school says it’s short-staffed. The council says talk to the school. You are caught in the middle, watching your child go without the help an official document promises them.
You’re not imagining it, and you’re not powerless. In England, the law is unusually clear about who is responsible when an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) isn’t delivered, and a budget or a staffing gap isn’t the get-out it’s often presented as.
The local authority (LA), not the school, is legally responsible for delivering the special educational provision in Section F of an EHCP under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. A funding or staffing shortage isn’t a lawful reason to stop delivering it.
This guide is about England, and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) plans made under the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014). Scotland and Wales run different systems with no EHCP or section 42 duty, so the routes below don’t transfer across the border.
Who is legally responsible when your child’s EHCP is not delivered?
The council that maintains the EHCP is responsible, not the school and not the therapist. Section 42(2) of the CFA 2014 says it plainly: “The local authority must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person.” That is the whole duty in one sentence.
The word that matters is “secure.” It doesn’t say the council must “try to” secure the provision, or use its “best endeavours.” Lawyers call this an absolute duty. Either the Section F provision is being delivered, or the council is in breach. There is no middle ground. The one narrow statutory exception, under section 42(5), applies only where you or the young person have made your own suitable alternative arrangements, such as privately funding a placement. It doesn’t rescue a council that is simply not delivering what the plan says.
It’s also a non-delegable duty. The council can’t hand it to the school and walk away. If the school stops delivering the one-to-one support, the council is still on the hook, and it’s the council you hold to account.
Health provision is different. If the plan names health care in Section G, that is the duty of the responsible commissioning body, usually the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). Section 42(3) puts it like this: “If the plan specifies health care provision, the responsible commissioning body must arrange the specified health care provision.”
One quirk of the law works in your favour. Under section 21(5) of the CFA 2014, health or social care that “educates or trains” a child is treated as special educational provision. So therapy that helps your child learn, such as speech and language therapy on most plans, belongs in Section F and is the council’s section 42(2) duty, not a health waiting list.
What does section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 actually require?
Section 42 turns the wording of the plan into a binding legal duty, split across two public bodies. The table shows who owns what, and why that decides where you go to enforce it.
| Section F: special educational provision | Section G: health provision | |
|---|---|---|
| Who is responsible | Local authority | NHS, through the Integrated Care Board |
| The legal duty | Must secure it, section 42(2) | Must arrange it, section 42(3) |
| How you enforce it | Ombudsman or judicial review | NHS complaints or judicial review |
| If there is a waiting list | The council must find another way | NHS waiting times may apply |
Most disputes are about Section F, because that is where the one-to-one support, the specialist teaching and the educational therapy sit. The strength of the duty depends on the strength of the wording. The statutory guidance, the SEND Code of Practice, says Section F provision “must be detailed and specific and should normally be quantified” so everyone can tell whether it has been delivered.
That specificity is your lever. “Weekly 30-minute one-to-one speech and language therapy from a qualified therapist” can be measured and shown to be missing. “Access to support as needed” can’t. If your Section F is vague, the first job is often to get it tightened at the next review.
The courts have backed the absolute reading of section 42 firmly. In R (L) v Hampshire County Council [2024], the High Court confirmed the duty is absolute rather than a “best endeavours” one: a council doesn’t discharge it just by funding the placement, a staffing shortage doesn’t relieve it, and the court ordered the council to secure every piece of the child’s Section F provision within five weeks.
Is a funding or staffing shortage ever a lawful reason to stop?
No. This is the single most important thing to take from this guide, because it’s the excuse you will hear most often and it’s wrong in law. An absolute duty doesn’t bend to a budget.
You will be told the school can’t recruit a teaching assistant, that the therapy service is overstretched, or that the high-needs block has run dry. All of that may be true. None of it changes the council’s section 42(2) duty by a single comma.
If one route to delivering the provision is blocked, the council has to find another: commissioning an independent therapist, funding agency staff, or paying for provision elsewhere. “We cannot deliver it the usual way” is the start of the council’s problem, not the end of your child’s entitlement.
Be careful about quietly accepting a reduced timetable or a “temporary” pause in support while the council sorts out staffing. A reduction that is really about the council’s resources, not your child’s needs, can be unlawful. If you are being asked to accept less, read our guide to when a reduced timetable is unlawful before you agree to anything.
There is one honest caveat. The line between “the council is breaching an absolute duty” and “the plan does not say what you thought it said” is exactly why Section F wording matters so much. Councils defend non-delivery by pointing at vague wording. The tighter your Section F, the less room there is for that argument.
Section F or Section G: does it change who must deliver?
Yes, the section a provision sits in decides who must deliver it and where you go to enforce it. Get this wrong and you can spend months chasing the wrong body.
The same activity can fall on either side depending on its purpose, which is where parents and carers often get stuck. Take occupational therapy. If it helps your child access learning, sit at a desk, hold a pencil, manage the school day, it educates or trains them, so section 21(5) pulls it into Section F and onto the council. If it’s purely medical rehabilitation unrelated to education, it can sit in Section G with the NHS.
The practical takeaway is simple. If a provision genuinely helps your child learn, argue for it in Section F, because the section 42(2) duty is the strongest one you have and a waiting list isn’t a defence to it. The speech therapy enforcement guide walks through this Section F versus Section G fight for the most commonly disputed provision of all.
This is also where you keep the line clear between this problem and a different one. If your child has no EHCP and the school is simply not putting ordinary special educational needs (SEN) support in place, that is a different battle with a different owner. See what the school should provide at SEN support. This guide is about a finalised plan that isn’t being honoured, where the liable body is the council.
How do you prove the provision is not being delivered?
You prove it with a paper trail that lines up the plan against reality, item by item. The council will say “support is in place,” so your job is to show, with dates and numbers, that it’s not.
Start a contemporaneous record the moment you suspect a gap. Note every missed session, the date, which part of Section F it was, and any reason given. A diary written at the time carries far more weight than a recollection months later. Then pull together the rest of the evidence pack before you make any formal move:
- The Section F list - every item of provision, with its frequency, duration and who should deliver it
- A delivery log - what was actually delivered against what the plan specifies, with dates
- Annual review reports - any that already flag provision as missing or only partly met
- Correspondence - your emails and letters to the school special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) and the council, and their replies
- Professional reports - from the therapists, educational psychologist or other practitioners named in the plan
- Your parent diary - the dated, contemporaneous notes of specific missed sessions
- Timetables and provision maps - showing whether specialist sessions were ever scheduled or staffed
The strongest evidence is specific and counted. “My child is not getting enough therapy” is easy to brush off. “Section F specifies two 45-minute sessions a week; between January and March my child received three of the sixteen owed, a delivery rate of 19 per cent” is very hard to argue with. The SENCO and the council both understand numbers far better than they understand frustration.
Gather written input from school staff and the named professionals at least a couple of weeks before any annual review meeting, so it can go into the review paperwork rather than being lost in the room.
What are the steps to enforce the plan, in order?
Work through the steps in order, escalating only when the level below has failed, because every formal route later expects you to have tried the simpler ones first. Skipping a step usually means being sent back to take it.
- Raise it with the school SENCOSet out in writing which Section F provisions are missing and ask for an explanation and a plan to put them right.
- Write formally to the council SEN teamCite section 42(2), state the duty is absolute and non-delegable, list each missing item with dates, and ask what the council will do and by when.
- Use the annual review to record itMake sure the review minutes formally record the non-delivery, so there is an official document, not just your word.
- Make a formal complaint to the councilGo through the council’s own complaints procedure. This is a prerequisite for the Ombudsman and shows a court you tried internal routes.
- Choose your enforcement routeIf the provision is still not secured, decide between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and judicial review.
The first letter does a lot of work, so make it precise. Quote the exact Section F wording, name section 42(2), and say plainly that a staffing or funding shortage isn’t a lawful reason to stop. A council that sees you know the duty often acts faster than one that thinks you don’t. Keep your tone factual and your asks concrete: you’re not asking the council to care, you are asking it to comply with a duty Parliament gave it.
Give reasonable but firm deadlines. Fourteen days for a substantive reply is standard. If it passes with no concrete plan to deliver the provision, you have both the evidence and the standing to escalate.
One route is deliberately not on this ladder. The First-tier Tribunal (SEND) hears appeals about council decisions, such as a refusal to assess or the content of a plan, as set out on the tribunal’s own page. It doesn’t enforce a plan that is already in place but not being delivered. For non-delivery, the routes are the Ombudsman or judicial review.
Ombudsman or judicial review: which route fixes a breach?
It depends on what you need. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is free and good at recognition and redress; judicial review is a court process that can compel the council to act but costs money and moves on a tight clock. The table sets the two side by side.
| Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman | Judicial review | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A free, independent complaints investigator | A claim in the High Court |
| What it costs | Free | Court fees apply, and legal aid may be available |
| Time limit | Normally within 12 months of first knowing about the problem | Promptly, and in any event within 3 months |
| What it can deliver | Findings of fault, recommendations and compensation | A binding court order compelling the council to act |
| Catch | Usually won’t investigate a matter with a right of appeal, unless it wasn’t reasonable to expect you to use it | Faster and binding, but formal and time-pressured |
The Ombudsman is the more common first port of call for non-delivery, and it’s free. It investigates maladministration, which includes a failure to secure provision, and it can recommend a financial remedy for the support your child missed. Two conditions matter: you must normally finish the council’s own complaints process first, because as the LGSCO explains, “We cannot look into your complaint before that happens,” and you should normally complain within 12 months of first knowing about the problem, though the Ombudsman can accept a later complaint where it’s reasonable to do so. The Ombudsman also stands back where there is a better route, such as a tribunal or court.
Judicial review is the heavier tool, used to compel an absolute duty like section 42(2). It can result in a court order that the council must obey. The deadline is strict: under Civil Procedure Rule 54.5, a claim must be filed “promptly; and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.” Court fees apply, though legal aid may be available, especially for the early pre-action stage.
Judicial review’s three-month clock is unforgiving and starts when the grounds first arose, not when you give up on the council. If you are even considering this route, get specialist advice early, before the window closes.
Charities report that a large majority of SEND judicial review claims are conceded by the council before any full hearing, which is why a well-drafted pre-action letter often resolves matters without a courtroom.
How does the annual review help you hold the council to the plan?
The annual review is the formal moment where non-delivery gets written into an official record, which is exactly what every later route needs. It turns “I told them and nothing happened” into a documented fact. At the meeting, make sure the minutes record which Section F provisions haven’t been delivered, for how long, and the reason given.
After the meeting, the clock starts on the council. Under regulation 20 of the SEND Regulations 2014, it must tell you within four weeks whether it will keep the plan as it is, amend it, or cease to maintain it. A review that drifts on with no decision is itself something you can complain about.
The review is also your chance to fix weak wording. If Section F is too vague to enforce, ask for it to be made specific and quantified. If the council refuses to amend, that refusal carries a right of appeal to the tribunal, a separate process from the non-delivery enforcement covered here.
Statutory deadlines around plans are real and short, not aspirational. A finalised plan must normally be issued within 20 weeks of the assessment request under regulation 13 of the SEND Regulations 2014, with only limited exceptions, such as a school being closed for several weeks when advice is sought or the family being absent from the area. If a tribunal orders a change, the council has just weeks to issue the amended plan under regulation 44. The same time-bound seriousness applies to the duty to deliver what the plan already says, so if a council tells you delivery timelines are more flexible than paperwork ones, ask them to point to where the law says that, because it doesn’t.
One last cross-check before you escalate. If a tribunal appeal is on the table, for instance if the council refuses to amend Section F, mediation is usually the gateway. You must contact a mediation adviser within two months of the decision notice under regulation 33, except where you are appealing only the school named in Section I, which section 55(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 exempts from the mediation-certificate requirement. Mediation doesn’t apply to enforcing provision that is already in place, but it matters the moment your dispute turns into an appeal about the plan’s content.
Legislation and statutory deadlines in this guide were checked in June 2026 against legislation.gov.uk and gov.uk. We review this post regularly, but always sanity-check a deadline against the primary source before you rely on it.
Getting help
You don’t have to do this alone, and free expert help exists for exactly this situation.
IPSEA (Independent Provider of Special Education Advice) gives free, legally based advice on EHCPs, including section 42 enforcement and how to challenge non-delivery. Its website has model letters and a helpline.
Your local SENDIASS (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Information, Advice and Support Service) offers free, impartial support through reviews and complaints. You can find yours through the Council for Disabled Children.
Citizens Advice can help with the council complaints process and point you towards legal aid for judicial review where you might qualify.
Contact is a national charity for families with disabled children, with a free helpline and guidance on EHCPs and dealing with your local authority.
The free SEND Parents Help assistant can help you turn all of this into action: working out whether your Section F is enforceable, drafting the section 42 letter, and deciding whether the Ombudsman or judicial review fits your situation.