What the working document is
Following an annual review of an EHCP, the local authority must decide whether to maintain, amend, or cease the EHCP. If it proposes to amend, it must notify the parent and provide the proposed amended EHCP — often called a 'working document' or 'proposed amendments'. Parents then have at least 15 days to make representations before the final plan is issued.
This stage is often overlooked — parents receive a document that looks almost identical to the current EHCP and assume it is fine. In reality, subtle changes in Section F wording can significantly affect what the LA is obliged to deliver. Every word matters.
What to check in each section
Section A — Child's views
Ensure your child's views are accurately recorded. If the annual review included a child's voice document, check it matches.
Section B — SEN description
Every need should be described specifically. Check for removed needs, watered-down descriptions, or needs that are now described in more general terms. Each need in Section B should link to provision in Section F.
Section F — Special educational provision
The most critical section. Every provision must be specific, quantified, and attributable. Check for: removed provision; reduced hours/frequency; added caveats ('as appropriate', 'where possible'); changes in who delivers the provision; and any provision moved from Section F to health or social care.
Section I — School or placement
Check whether the named school has changed. If it has, or if a school has been removed without replacement, this is an urgent issue.
Health and social care sections
Check whether any provision has been moved from SEN (Section F) to health (Section G) or social care (Section H). Provision in Section F is legally enforceable; provision in other sections carries different obligations.
How to review and respond to an EHCP working document
- 1
Request the working document promptly
If the annual review has taken place and you have not received a working document or notice of proposed amendments within 4 weeks of the review meeting, contact the LA in writing and ask when it will be provided. The Regulations require the LA to notify parents of proposed amendments without delay.
- 2
Compare the working document to the current EHCP word by word
Sit down with both documents and go through each section side by side. Highlight every difference — every added word, every deleted phrase, every section that has been rewritten. Do not rely on the LA's summary of changes — do the comparison yourself.
- 3
Assess whether each change is acceptable
For each difference, decide: (a) does this accurately reflect my child's needs; (b) does this maintain the provision necessary; (c) is the wording specific enough to be enforceable? Flag any change that reduces specificity, removes provision, or adds unhelpful caveats like 'as required' or 'where appropriate'.
- 4
Check Section F for vague wording
Every provision in Section F should specify what, how often, how long, by whom, and in what setting. If the working document has introduced vague wording, push back. Vague Section F wording weakens the enforceability of the EHCP after it is finalised.
- 5
Draft and submit your representations
Write a structured letter to the LA addressing each point. For each objection, state what you want the wording to say and why. Reference professional reports and meeting notes. Submit before the 15-day deadline and keep a copy.
- 6
Review the final EHCP when issued
When the final EHCP is issued, compare it to your representations and to the working document. If it still does not reflect your child's needs, note the date of the final plan — this is day one of your 2-month Tribunal appeal deadline.
Working document review checklist
- You have both documents open: working document and current EHCP
- You have gone through every section and highlighted every change
- You have assessed whether each change in Section B is accurate and complete
- You have checked Section F for vague wording, removed provision, or reduced specificity
- You have checked Section I for any change to the named school
- You have noted which changes you accept and which you object to
- You have drafted representations addressing each objection with evidence
- You have submitted before the 15-day deadline and kept a copy
Common working document mistakes
- Not comparing the working document to the current EHCP word for word — relying on the LA's summary of changes
- Accepting vague Section F wording that will be impossible to enforce later
- Missing the 15-day representations deadline — respond immediately
- Not objecting to provision moved from Section F to Section G or H — this changes your enforcement rights
- Assuming verbal agreements from the annual review meeting will appear in the working document — always check
Section F wording: vague vs specific — real examples
The difference between enforceable and unenforceable provision usually comes down to the specificity of Section F wording. The following examples show the contrast between language that can be enforced and language that cannot.
Vague: “Speech and language therapy support will be provided as appropriate.”
Specific: “30 minutes of individual speech and language therapy per week delivered by a qualified speech and language therapist, focused on functional communication goals set out in [Therapist]'s report dated [date].”
The vague version gives the LA total discretion over what, how much, and by whom. The specific version is measurable and assignable.
Vague: “Occupational therapy advice to be sought as required.”
Specific: “2 x 30-minute OT sessions per term delivered by a qualified occupational therapist, plus written termly update to parents.”
Advice 'as required' could mean one letter per year. Specific OT sessions can be monitored and enforced.
Vague: “1:1 support to be provided as needed.”
Specific: “25 hours per week of 1:1 support from a suitably trained teaching assistant, including morning transition, lunch, and all core curriculum sessions.”
'As needed' is determined by the school. The specific version defines the hours and context, leaving no ambiguity.
Why Section B wording matters for your appeal
Section B describes your child's needs — and it drives everything else. The needs described in Section B must logically connect to the provision specified in Section F. If the LA weakens Section B in a working document, the effect is to reduce the provision they are required to provide in Section F.
Look specifically for:
- Removal of specific diagnoses or assessment findings from Section B
- Replacement of concrete need descriptions with general or ambiguous language
- Deletion of references to specific professional reports that support higher provision
- Downgrading of the frequency or severity of difficulties
- Removal of references to your child's needs during transitions, unstructured time, or specific subjects
If any of the above appear in the working document, address them explicitly in your representations. Quote the original wording and request its reinstatement. Where you have professional evidence supporting the original wording, cite it by reference to the relevant report and paragraph.
How to structure your written representations
Your representations should be clear, specific, and directly cross-referenced to evidence. A well-structured representations letter follows this pattern:
- 1Reference: State the child's name, EHCP date, date of working document, and your LA reference number at the top.
- 2Agree changes you accept: Briefly acknowledge any amendments in the working document that are improvements or neutral. This shows you have engaged in good faith.
- 3Object to each specific change: For each objection, state the section and paragraph, quote the original wording, quote the proposed wording, and explain why the original wording should be retained. Cite supporting evidence.
- 4Propose any additional amendments: If you want changes beyond restoring the original wording — for example, improving Section F specificity — set these out separately with evidence support.
- 5Request confirmation: Ask the LA to confirm in writing how it intends to respond to each representation point before issuing the final EHCP.