SEND at Breaking Point:

How £5 Billion+ in Deficits Threatens the System and What Parents Must Know


The SEND system in England is approaching a tipping point. Under the surface of funding pledges and political assurances lies a growing crisis: Local Authorities (LAs) are carrying mounting high-needs deficitsand the knock-on effects for families of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are already profound.


This is not a theoretical problem for the future. It is an immediate and escalating threat to your child’s right to education.


The Scale of the Crisis: A £5 Billion Black Hole


According to a comprehensive investigation by The Guardian, by March 2026, the cumulative SEND deficits across English local authorities are forecast to exceed £5.3 billion. At least 15 councils are on track to accumulate individual high-needs shortfalls of more than £100 million each.


In reality, the number could be higher, because deficits have been temporarily hidden by the Department for Education’s “statutory override,” a mechanism that allows councils to exclude SEND overspending from their main accounts. When that protection expires in March 2026, LAs will be forced to reveal the full extent of their debt and may be required to issue Section 114 notices, effectively declaring insolvency and freezing all non-statutory spending.


Why Families Are Already Feeling the Impact


There is a direct correlation between these financial deficits and the day-to-day erosion of support for children with SEND.


Here’s what we’re seeing on the ground:


  • Delays in EHCP needs assessments, often running 6–12 months beyond the 20-week legal deadline
  • Inappropriate school placements being named in EHCPs, sometimes without consultation
  • Reductions in Section F provision, even when ordered by tribunal
  • Cost-saving measures disguised as "review outcomes" used to downgrade TA hours, remove therapies, or delay specialist referrals


While these actions are unlawful or challengeable, many families either accept them out of exhaustion or don’t know they can push back.


Why This Matters: The Legal and Human Cost


SEND law in England is clear. The Children and Families Act 2014, the SEND Regulations 2014, and the SEND Code of Practice all state that:


  • EHCPs must be specific, quantified, and legally enforceable
  • Parents have the right to request placements, and LAs must offer reasons based on needs—not cost
  • Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 requires that all children unable to attend school receive suitable education, regardless of budget


Yet, as deficits grow, many LAs are making decisions that prioritise financial survival over statutory duty.

For families, the result is often a multi-year struggle through complaints, mediation, and tribunal appeals—while children remain under-supported, out of school, or emotionally deteriorating.


The Policy Response: Too Little, Too Late?


The government has acknowledged the issue, but many experts believe the current response is grossly inadequate.


What Has Been Promised:


The Treasury’s 2025 Spending Review includes a £760 million “transformation fund” to support SEND reform


The upcoming Schools White Paper (expected Autumn 2025) is set to outline further changes to EHCP processes, accountability, and mainstream inclusion models


What’s Missing:


  • There is no binding legal commitment to fund existing EHCPs
  • No clarity on whether LAs will be held accountable for unlawful refusals or delays
  • The “Delivering Better Value” programme places a strong emphasis on reducing EHCP growth, rather than ensuring appropriate provision for those with clear needs


What Parents Should Watch Out For


Here are red flags that may signal your child’s education is at risk due to budget-led decisions:

   

EHCP delayed beyond 20 weeks

What the Law Says: The local authority must issue the EHCP decision within 20 weeks from the request.
What You Can Do: Escalate the case in writing, file a formal complaint, and consider notifying the SEND Tribunal.


Placement named without consultation or based solely on cost


What the Law Says:  Parental preference must be given proper consideration unless the placement is unsuitable or unreasonably expensive.
What You Can Do:  Appeal to the SEND Tribunal, challenging Sections B (needs), F (provision), and I (placement).


Provision reduced or removed post-tribunal

What the Law Says: Tribunal orders are legally binding. Provision cannot be reduced or altered informally or administratively.
What You Can Do: Submit an enforcement request. If repeated, consider judicial review or complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.


Repeated “reviews” downgrading provision


What the Law Says: EHCP provision can only be changed via lawful annual review processes with consultation and evidence.
What You Can Do:  Keep detailed records of all changes. Challenge reductions and escalate decisions using formal letters and complaint channels.


What You Can Do Right Now


Even in a strained system, parents have rights backed by law, but enforcement often depends on understanding your position and acting early.


Review your EHCP:  Check for vague wording. If Section F lacks hours, frequency, or specified professionals, provision is unenforceable.

Document provision:  Keep a daily record of what support is (or isn’t) delivered. Include missed sessions, staffing gaps, and timetable changes.

Challenge delays: If your assessment or review is overdue, notify the LA in writing and copy in the SEND Casework Officer. Consider a pre-action letter if ignored.

Use expert advice: Organisations like IPSEA, SOS!SEN, and SENDIASS can help but if deadlines are slipping or provision is being denied, legal advocacy is often the most effective route.


Need Help Navigating This?


As a professional SEND advocate, I work with families at all stages whether you're just noticing provision drop off, or you're weeks away from tribunal.


 Book a free 30-minute consultation here:

In Summary


The SEND system is not broken because of families asking for too much. It is broken because it is underfunded, overstretched, and under-regulated.


This is a pivotal moment.


Either we uphold the legal and moral promise of education for all or we allow finance led decision-making to roll back decades of inclusion and rights.