How we help Get support SEN and disability law SEN and disability case law Case summaries Responsibility to ensure provision in EHC plan is made BA, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire County Council  EWHC 1348 (Admin): Where an EHC plan is issued following a SEND Tribunal order in line with SEND Reg 44(2)(e), the LA is obliged to implement the special educational provision set out in the plan from the date it is issued. The LA has five weeks from the date of the order until the plan must be issued, and this time should not just be used to draft and/or amend the plan but must also be used to prepare for the implementation of the provision. Any delay in implementing the provision will amount to a breach of the LA’s duty under section 42 Children and Families Act 2014. R v Oxfordshire County Council ex parte Pittick  ELR 153: If a school is not able to fund the special educational provision in the Statement or EHC plan from its own resources, the obligation to arrange and secure the provision remains with the LA. A dispute about funding between a school and an LA should never be the reason why a child or young person does not receive the special educational provision in their Statement or EHC plan. N v North Tyneside Council  EWCA Civ 135: Where a Statement or an EHC plan identifies special educational provision, the LA has an absolute obligation to ensure that it is provided. It is not open to the LA unilaterally to change the Statement as and when they thought that was appropriate. R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M  ELR 62: The LA is responsible for ensuring the educational provision in a Statement (now an EHC plan) is made, even where the provision in question is actually provided by another body (here, the health service). If the health service fails to make the provision the LA must step in.