Side-by-side weak vs strong wording, the KCC patterns to watch for, and how Kent parents have rewritten Section F successfully at Working Document stage.
✅ Quick Answer
Section F of a Kent EHCP must be specified and quantified: it must say what is provided, how much, how often, by whom, and for how long. Vague wording like "access to", "opportunities for", "regular" or "as appropriate" is unenforceable. The IPSEA test is whether a fresh person could read Section F and deliver it without asking for clarification. The Working Document phase of an appeal is where weak Section F gets rewritten to specified and quantified.
Section F is the only legally enforceable section of an EHCP. Section B describes your child's needs. Section F is what the local authority must do about them. If Section F is vague, your child gets vague support. If Section F is precise, the school and KCC have a legal duty to deliver it.
This is also where most Kent EHCP appeals are won and lost. The Working Document phase, after the council issues a draft EHCP and before the tribunal hearing, is when parents have the formal right to propose alternative Section F wording. Around 80-85% of appeals settle at this stage. The settlement terms are usually the parent's Section F wording, accepted by the council. This guide is the practical companion to that phase.
An EHCP has 11 sections. Two carry legal force:
Sections B (needs), G (health provision) and H (social care provision) are descriptive rather than directly enforceable in the same way. Health provision in Section G is enforceable through the NHS rather than the LA. Social care in Section H is enforceable only if it constitutes "social care provision under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970" (Section H1).
Practical consequence: if a need described in Section B does not have matching provision in Section F, the LA has no legal duty to do anything about it. Every need in Section B must have a corresponding entry in Section F or it is invisible to the law.
The leading case is L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998]. The test: provision in Section F must be defined with sufficient precision that it can be enforced. The Code of Practice (2015) at paragraph 9.69 requires provision to be "detailed and specific" and "normally quantified" in terms of "type, hours, and frequency".
The IPSEA practical test is: could a fresh person reading Section F deliver it without asking what was meant? If the answer is no, it fails the test.
Specified and quantified means saying:
Patterns parents repeatedly see in Kent draft EHCPs at the Section F stage. None of these are enforceable in their bare form.
| Weak phrase (unenforceable) | Why it fails |
|---|---|
| "Access to a teaching assistant as required" | No hours, no frequency, no qualification specified. "As required" is decided by the school, not the EHCP. |
| "Opportunities for sensory breaks" | Not quantified. "Opportunities" creates no duty to actually provide them. |
| "Regular SALT input" | "Regular" is undefined. Could mean once a year. Could mean monthly drop-in. Unenforceable. |
| "Support from the SENCO as appropriate" | "As appropriate" delegates the decision back to the LA/school, defeating the EHCP's purpose. |
| "Differentiated curriculum" | Every school is supposed to differentiate; this is the universal offer, not provision additional to it. |
| "Small group work where possible" | "Where possible" is a get-out clause. Group size, frequency, duration unspecified. |
| "Visual supports to aid learning" | No detail of which supports, who creates them, where they live, who refreshes them. |
| "To be supported by school staff" | Generic. No skill specification, no time allocation, no supervision arrangement. |
Weak draft (KCC pattern):
"Access to a teaching assistant as required."
Strong rewrite (parent Working Document submission):
"[Child] requires 1:1 adult support from a TA experienced in working with autistic children, for 25 hours per week during term time. The TA will (a) support transitions between activities and lessons, (b) deliver the visual schedule and now-and-next board, (c) implement the sensory regulation programme as advised by the OT (see provision 3.4 below), and (d) act as a key point of consistency through the school day. The TA will receive 1 hour of supervision and planning time per week from the SENCO. The named TA will be consistent across the academic year wherever practicable; if the named TA is absent, a designated cover TA familiar to [Child] will be used."
What changed: hours quantified (25), days specified (term time), qualification specified (TA experienced in autism), the four functions named, supervision built in, continuity addressed.
Weak draft:
"Opportunities for sensory breaks during the school day."
Strong rewrite:
"3 timetabled sensory regulation breaks per school day of 10-15 minutes each, scheduled at mid-morning, post-lunch, and mid-afternoon, in a designated low-stimulus space (the school's quiet room or equivalent agreed with the OT). Breaks include access to proprioceptive input equipment (weighted lap pad, resistance band, wobble cushion) as specified in the OT sensory profile dated [date]. Additional breaks at [Child]'s request to be facilitated without need for explanation. The sensory diet is reviewed and updated termly by the OT."
What changed: number quantified (3), duration quantified (10-15 min), times specified (mid-morning / post-lunch / mid-afternoon), location specified, equipment named, additional access permitted, OT review schedule built in.
Weak draft:
"Regular SALT input as required."
Strong rewrite:
"Direct Speech and Language Therapy delivered by an HCPC-registered SLT: 1 individual session of 30 minutes per week during term time (38 sessions per year, totalling 19 hours), targeting expressive language and social communication as set out in the SLT report dated [date]. Plus indirect support: the SLT will provide a written programme for the TA to implement daily for 15 minutes (5 sessions per week × 38 weeks = 1,900 minutes per year). The SLT will train the TA termly (3 × 1-hour training sessions per year). Progress reviewed termly via written report shared with parent and SENCO."
What changed: direct vs indirect input separated, qualification of deliverer specified (HCPC SLT), exact session length and frequency quantified, total annual hours calculated for transparency, training of TA included so the indirect work is delivered competently, monitoring built in.
Weak draft:
"OT advice available as needed."
Strong rewrite:
"Occupational Therapy programme delivered by an HCPC-registered Paediatric OT: an initial sensory profile assessment in the autumn term of each academic year (3-hour assessment), followed by a written sensory diet plan for school staff. The OT will visit school termly (3 visits per year, minimum 90 minutes each) to (a) review the sensory diet with school staff, (b) train staff on any new techniques, and (c) observe [Child] in class. Fine motor skills support: 1 individual OT session of 30 minutes per week during term time (38 sessions per year), targeting handwriting, scissor skills, and self-care goals as set out in the OT report dated [date]. The OT to provide a written annual report contributing to the EHCP Annual Review."
What changed: assessment vs treatment split, frequency and duration quantified at every level, qualifications specified, school engagement built in (training and observation), annual review contribution explicit.
Weak draft:
"Support with emotional regulation when needed."
Strong rewrite:
"Emotional Literacy Support Assistant (ELSA) programme delivered by a trained ELSA: 1 individual session of 45 minutes per week during term time (38 sessions per year), focused on emotional vocabulary, recognising body cues of dysregulation, and using the agreed regulation toolkit. Plus a written 'When I am dysregulated' plan co-produced with [Child] and shared with all teaching staff, listing (a) [Child]'s known triggers, (b) the early warning signs to look for, (c) the agreed de-escalation steps and where they take place, and (d) the recovery routine afterwards. The school's behaviour policy will be applied with reasonable adjustments for [Child]'s identified disability needs, in line with the Equality Act 2010; meltdowns arising from sensory overload or autism-related dysregulation will not be sanctioned."
What changed: intervention named (ELSA), frequency and duration quantified, written plan formalised with four explicit components, behaviour policy reasonable-adjustments duty made explicit (this is the line that prevents fixed-term exclusions for sensory meltdowns).
The Working Document is the formal mechanism for rewriting Section F (and Sections B and I) during a SEND Tribunal appeal. After the council files its response to the appeal, the case management directions usually require both sides to exchange a Working Document showing the EHCP with each side's proposed wording for every disputed section.
How to use it well:
For the full appeal process see our EHCP Appeal Guide for Kent, and the Kent SEND Tribunal success rate guide covering what happens at hearing if no settlement is reached.
The legally enforceable section setting out the special educational provision the local authority must arrange. Under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Provision must say what, how much, how often, by whom, and for how long. The IPSEA test: could a fresh person deliver it without asking for clarification?
"Access to", "opportunities for", "regular", "as required", "as appropriate", "where possible". All unenforceable in bare form. The Working Document phase is the moment to rewrite.
Yes. The Annual Review is the formal yearly opportunity. If KCC refuses to amend, you have the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal under Section 51(2)(c) of the Children and Families Act 2014.
All three can propose wording. The LA drafts. At Working Document stage parents, schools and advocates can submit alternatives. Independent professional reports usually contain recommended wording that can be adopted directly.
No legal minimum. Hours must reflect the evidence in Section B and supporting reports. Common Kent patterns range from 5 hours/week to 1:1 full-time (~32.5 hours/week). Justification matters more than the number.
This becomes a Section I (placement) issue. The LA's Section 42 duty is absolute; they must secure provision somewhere. KCC must fund the school, change the named school, or arrange the provision separately.
Disclaimer: This article was written by a Kent parent with lived experience of the SEND system. It is information only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal references (Children and Families Act 2014, Code of Practice 2015, Equality Act 2010) are accurate as of 9 May 2026. Always check the current legal position at gov.uk and seek free advice from IPSEA or Kent IASK on your specific case.
How to apply, what to ask for, what evidence strengthens your case.
Read guide →Step-by-step process for appealing a Kent local authority SEND decision.
Read guide →Hansard data shows around 99% of cases that reach hearing find for the parent. Most settle earlier.
Read guide →What the 2026 reforms mean for EHCPs, and the consultation deadline.
Read guide →