EHC plans need to be specific and clear

EC v North East Lincolnshire LA (HS) [2015] UKUT 0648 (AAC) [2016] ELR 109: The SEND Tribunal should not ‘rubber stamp’ a vague Statement or EHC plan.

LL and MM v Telford and Wrekin Council (SEN): [2026] UKUT 129 (AAC): This case was about whether reference could be made to a hub (which was a part of a special school but based within a mainstream school) in both Section F and Section I of an education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Upper Tribunal decided that:

1. Parties can agree to include the name of a hub in Section I (using closed brackets after the name of the school/other institution) - and where this agreement happens, the SEND Tribunal  can order the agreed wording into Section I. It can do this under  Regulation 43 of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (The SEND Regulations 2014).
2. Even if the parties don’t agree, the SEND Tribunal can still (under SEND Regulation 43) order the name of a hub to be included in this way as something called a “consequential amendment”. It may decide to do this if the EHC plan would be deficient without doing so.
3. The name of a hub (and possibly even providers of other sorts of special educational provision) can be included in Section F, where that is needed to make sure the provision reasonably required is specific enough.
4. The SEND Tribunal can also order it in for this reason.

London Borough of Hillingdon v AP and SP [2024] UKUT 388 (AAC): The SEND Tribunal can use its specialist expertise to decide the wording for an EHC plan so it’s clear to professionals delivering the provision what is required to make it workable.

London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC): This confirmed that where detail can reasonably be provided in an EHC plan, it should be. Even where there is need for flexibility (to meet the child or young person’s needs) in an EHC plan, the duty remains on LAs to specify.

Mr & Mrs D v Cheshire East Council [2025] UKUT 187 (AAC): This confirmed that although the SEND Tribunal is allowed to use its expertise when making decisions, EHC plan wording must still be sufficiently specific so as to leave no room for doubt. It also confirms the SEND Tribunal must give adequate reasons for its decisions.

R v The Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377 CA: Statements (now EHC plans) must not be vaguely worded. Additionally, the LA must include special educational provision (in what is now Section F) for each and every special educational need identified in Section B.

Worcestershire County Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC): This confirmed that the appropriate and necessary level of specificity and detail in an EHC plan will depend on all the individual facts in a case.