How Hertfordshire’s Draft EHCP Process Undermines Parents

Hertfordshire County Council: Undermining Parents

Disclaimer: This is a long post, but shows some serious failings with the council and includes direct quotes from the council.

For those that aren’t aware, when a council issues a draft plan, parents get 15 days to review it, and respond with any comments they have. This could be because certain things are missing, the wording isn’t specific enough, essentially anything you have concerns over. The council aren’t obliged to take on board any of this, but clearly parents should be involved in the process.

That’s what is supposed to happen. Hertfordshire decide to do things differently.

Skipping Parents Entirely

Before the draft plan was even issued, the co-ordinator from the council called my wife, this was despite being informed on multiple occasions that all communication should be kept in writing directly to me. During this call, they advised my wife they would send the draft to Oliver’s closest mainstream primary school. An email sent to my wife from the co-ordinator just after this phone call said:

“As discussed the Local Authority have consulted with – mainstream school – (As the nearest suitable mainstream setting to your home address)”.

At this point, we still hadn’t received the draft, so I questioned why they sent a plan to a school without us having seen it. Consulting any school before we even had a chance to look at the draft is clearly premature. Apparently, this was just a mistake, with the co-ordinator confirming the next day:

“In response to your email I can confirm that the draft plan has not yet been sent to yourselves, but a copy will be sent out by the end of this week via HertsFx. The consultation will be sent to mainstream school at the same time as the draft is sent to yourself and not before.”

This is still wrong and there’s clear guidance on this. The council should not be consulting a school until we’ve had the 15 days to review and respond to the draft. Previous complaints have found other councils at fault for this – here is just one example from the LGO.

I believe the reason the council does this is because they push themselves into a corner by issuing the draft plan so late. Hertfordshire’s own flowchart shows the draft being issued any time between week 16 and week 20. This makes little sense, since parents should get 15 days to review and request changes, and the proposed school is also entitled to 15 days. Issuing the draft this late makes it virtually impossible to complete both before the week 20 final deadline.

Blocking the Consultation

I wrote to the council and made it clear that I withdrew my consent for the draft to be sent to the school until I had a chance to review it. At the same time, I also contacted the school to let them know that if they received anything from the council, they should delete it immediately as they no longer had consent to share.

As we now had our full 15 days to respond, we could start to review the draft properly and suggest amendments before it was sent to the school. Why the council thinks it’s appropriate to send drafts to schools when it could change is anyone’s guess. In our case, there were some key things missing, which, if we hadn’t pushed for them to be included, would mean the school making decisions based on incomplete information.

Doubling Down

When we complained about the attempt to consult before we had seen the draft, Hertfordshire didn’t apologise or admit fault (of course). They doubled down instead.

This was part of the council’s written response:

“While we recognise that the SEND Code of Practice provides a 15-day period for parents to comment on the draft EHCP (paragraphs 9.77–9.79), it does not explicitly prohibit the Local Authority from consulting with schools during this time. Our interpretation… is that early consultation—when conducted respectfully and without predetermining outcomes—can support timely and informed decision-making within the 20-week statutory timeframe. We also acknowledge that LGSCO decisions, while informative, are not legally binding and do not establish precedent.”

So, they openly admit they know what the Code of Practice says but decided to reinterpret it in a way that suits them. They even brushed off the Local Government Ombudsman’s previous decisions on the same issue, apparently the council knows better than them.

As for the council “not predetermining outcomes”? This was a lie, before any consultation took place the council said in writing:

“The Local Authority is looking to name a suitable mainstream setting”

That single line says it all. The outcome was predetermined before we’d even seen the draft, before schools had been consulted, and before anyone had actually read our views.

When a council ignores legal guidance, dismisses Ombudsman rulings, and still claims they’re acting “respectfully,” it’s obvious that they don’t actually care about supporting children.

Naming a School

During the draft stage, parents can choose to name the school they want their child to attend. In our case, we named a local specialist school. This shouldn’t have been a surprise to the council since we had already made it clear on our original application that we would not be sending him to a mainstream setting.

Naming a school doesn’t guarantee a place, but the council is expected to at least consult with the school parents name, and if it’s not suitable give reasons. Hertfordshire County Council once again seemed to follow its own process rather than the law.

What This Shows

At this stage Hertfordshire once again showed what really matters to them. Getting a plan out on time, even if it meant Oliver being placed in a school that was clearly unsuitable. Instead of making sure Oliver got the right support in the right setting, they focused on more box ticking and meeting deadlines.

The real irony is that by trying to rush everything, and interpret the law differently they caused a delay in issuing Oliver’s final plan.

Up Next: How Hertfordshire’s School Naming Process Sidelines Parents