SEND brief · 9 November 2026
EHCP Section F must be delivered — SEND briefing, 9 November 2026
A new Ombudsman report gives families a clear example of why councils must secure the specific support written into an EHCP. The DfE has also explained its support-first approach to attendance. Neither announcement creates a new legal right.
Ombudsman: Makaton support written into Section F was not delivered
Status: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman public-interest report announced 5 November 2026, concerning a decision dated 15 October 2026. It applies existing law and provides persuasive casework learning; it is not a new law or binding court judgment.
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint about City of York Council after an autistic, non-speaking child went for more than a year without the appropriately Makaton-trained classroom staff expressly required by his EHC plan. The plan required the relevant staff working with him to have specified Makaton training. Staff sometimes used alternative communication methods, but that did not deliver the provision actually written in his plan.
The council was responsible for arranging the special educational provision under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. That responsibility is not passed to the school by delegation. The Ombudsman also criticised delay and poor communication in handling the family's complaint.
The council accepted recommendations to apologise, pay £1,575 for the lost opportunity and related injustice, review how it checks provision when plans begin or change, and address delays in staff training. The payment related to the facts of this individual case and is not a standard compensation tariff.
Ask the local authority, as well as the school or provider, to confirm exactly who delivers each item, their relevant training or qualifications, the frequency, start date and how provision is recorded. A broad assertion that support is “equivalent” does not answer whether the specified provision was delivered.
Practical evidence to collect
- Copy the exact relevant Section F wording into a simple provision checklist, with the frequency, duration, training or staffing requirement beside it.
- Request appropriate records: provision logs, staff rotas, training evidence, therapy notes, attendance records and annual-review actions. Avoid unnecessary personal data about other pupils or staff.
- Keep a dated record of missed or reduced support and its effect on the child: communication, participation, distress, lost learning, attendance, regulation or independence.
- Send the council a concise comparison of required provision versus provision actually delivered. Ask who will put it right, from what date, and how delivery will be monitored.
- Request urgent restoration where provision is missing, a recovery plan and consideration of an appropriate remedy for past injustice. Keep complaint acknowledgements and chasing correspondence.
Which route applies?
Provision written in Section F is not happening
Raise the failure with the council and use its complaints process; the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman may be an option after the appropriate local process. Ongoing urgent breaches may justify specialist public-law advice.
You disagree with what Section F says
A disagreement about the contents of an EHCP is usually a SEND Tribunal appeal issue, subject to the relevant decision and deadline. For school-level support outside an EHCP, school complaints, SEN Support and Equality Act routes may also matter.
Original sources: Read the full Ombudsman decision (case 25 005 046) ↗ · Read the Ombudsman's 5 November announcement ↗.
DfE explains a support-first approach to school attendance
Status: parent-facing DfE Education Hub explanation, published 3 November 2026. It is not new statutory guidance or a new defence to enforcement. The existing statutory attendance guidance remains the operative source.
The DfE's explanation encourages schools to start by understanding why a child is struggling to attend, listening to the child and parents, agreeing personalised help and considering reasonable adjustments. SEND, medical and mental-health barriers may require input from the SENCO, health services or local authority, with review of what is actually working.
For SEND-related school distress, persistent absence or reintegration, families can ask for:
- a written explanation of the barriers identified and the child's views in an accessible format;
- reasonable adjustments, SEN provision and an individual support or reintegration plan;
- named staff responsibilities, realistic steps and clear review dates;
- consideration of health, mental-health or council referrals when relevant; and
- evidence that attendance action tackles the underlying barriers, not simply the percentage absent.
Support-first does not prohibit lawful attendance enforcement where appropriate, and it does not remove parental attendance responsibilities. Equally, attendance action does not displace an existing EHCP provision duty, disability-related reasonable adjustments or the local authority's section 19 duty where the statutory conditions for arranging suitable education are met.
DfE Education Hub: 3 November article, “What is a support-first approach to school attendance?” ↗ · DfE statutory attendance guidance ↗.
See our School Access guide, Reduced Timetables guidance and school access tracker.
Medway SEND Reform Plan — Cabinet watch, 17 November
Status: forthcoming Cabinet decision, not yet determined as at 9 November. Medway Council's decision record says the DfE has already approved its Local Area SEND Reform Plan, but Cabinet is scheduled to consider the item on Tuesday 17 November 2026.
Supporting papers should be published in advance under council access-to-information arrangements. Parents can examine proposed funding, delivery dates, local access arrangements, health commitments and how inclusion or reduced-assessment targets will operate without becoming additional barriers to lawful individual requests.
Approval of the strategic plan is not proof that current services are meeting needs. It does not change EHC needs-assessment tests, section 42 duties, complaints or Tribunal rights. Medway Council: decision record and Cabinet timetable ↗.
Kent's improvement-plan consultation has closed
Status: administrative update. The separate Kent draft Local Area SEND Strategic Improvement Plan consultation closed on 2 November 2026. The draft remains useful context while families await the final plan and publication of the response. Do not use the closed consultation as a substitute for acting on a child's current missed education or EHCP provision.
Kent County Council: draft strategic improvement plan ↗ · Read the earlier 19 October consultation briefing (historical deadlines) →.
What has changed legally?
No new SEND statute, operative Tribunal procedure or individual EHCP entitlement is introduced by these items. The Ombudsman report illustrates existing duties; the Education Hub piece explains existing attendance practice; Medway's Cabinet item concerns a strategic plan. Families should continue to use the applicable current law, formal decision letters and complaint or appeal deadlines.
Primary sources
LGSCO: City of York Council, decision 25 005 046 ↗ LGSCO: 5 November 2026 public-interest report ↗ DfE Education Hub: November 2026 articles ↗ DfE: Working together to improve school attendance ↗ Medway: Local Area SEND Reform Plan, Cabinet decision record ↗ Kent: draft strategic improvement plan and now-closed consultation ↗ UK Parliament: local SEND reform-plan approval and accountability ↗Checked 9 November 2026 against the primary sources above. The York Ombudsman decision is persuasive evidence of administrative fault, not a binding judgment about every child. These are general advocacy pointers, not individual legal advice. Editorial standards and corrections →