Check your draft EHC plan's wording
Draft plans arrive full of wording that sounds fine and commits the council to nothing. Paste Section F below and this checker flags every phrase courts have called unenforceable, shows the legal basis, and gives you the words to ask for instead. It runs on your device: nothing you paste leaves it.
Copy it straight from the draft plan. Bullets and paragraphs are fine.
The full check shows every flag, with the exact wording to ask for. It comes as part of Case Manager: deadline tracking, reminders and letters, £29 a month for up to four children.
See every flag, £29 a monthAlready have Case Manager? Sign in and check again.
What to ask for, ready to copy
Paste these into your draft plan response. The response letter template shows where they fit.
Wording that fails, and what to ask for instead
These are real patterns the checker flags, with the legal basis for each. If any of them appear in your draft plan's Section F, the support they describe is at risk of never arriving, because nobody can prove what was promised.
| Draft says | Why it fails | Ask for instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Access to speech and language therapy" | "Access to" promises that support exists somewhere, not that your child gets it | The type, hours, frequency and provider: "a 30 minute session twice a week, delivered by a TA trained by a speech and language therapist" |
| "Opportunities for social skills development" | A tribunal has called "opportunities" wording vague, meaningless and unenforceable | A named activity with a set frequency and length, and who runs it |
| "Support as required" or "where appropriate" | Leaves it to someone else's judgement whether your child gets help at all | A fixed amount, or a clear trigger: "when X happens, staff will do Y" |
| "Up to 10 hours of support" | "Up to 10" includes zero. Courts require wording that leaves no room for doubt | A minimum: "10 hours a week", not a ceiling |
| "Support from a learning support assistant" | No hours, no frequency, no level of expertise: rejected by the courts as too vague | How many hours, how often, and what training or qualification the person has |
What the checker looks for
The checker applies 18 phrase rules and structural checks drawn from case law and the SEND Code of Practice. In plain terms, it looks for four kinds of problem: vague phrases like the ones in the table above; provision with no amount, frequency, or named level of expertise, which the Code says should normally be quantified; wording that hands the decision to the school, which the courts have ruled the council cannot do; and, if you paste Section B too, needs that have no matching provision in Section F at all. Every flag shows its legal citation, so you can quote it in your response.
Why wording decides everything
Section F is the only part of an EHC plan the council has an absolute duty to deliver, whatever it costs. But that duty only bites on wording specific enough to enforce. The courts' test, from L v Clarke [1998]: the plan must be so specific and clear as to leave no room for doubt about what has been decided. A tribunal has called "opportunities" wording vague, meaningless and unenforceable, and rejected "support from a learning support assistant" with no hours or qualifications attached.
This checker applies 18 phrase rules and structural checks drawn from that case law and the SEND Code of Practice. Start with the deadline guide if your plan is late, and check your deadlines while you are here.
Is my text stored?
No. The check runs in your browser. Nothing you paste is sent to us.
Is this legal advice?
No: legal information, England only. For advice on your case, IPSEA and your local SENDIASS give free help.