Chairman
Governance
Convenes every meeting ≥4 weeks before the statutory deadline. Keeps the person-centred agenda. Minutes decisions with owners and dates. Every item closes with mark or warn.
For professionals
Your expertise. Their plan. One pod.
The EHC process asks professionals to contribute evidence, attend meetings, and specify provision — often across different systems, different formats, and different deadlines. The platform gives every professional one surface. Your evidence feeds directly into the plan sections you're responsible for. Your voice carries the same weight in the pod as it does in law.
Walk one case, step by step See Brian's plan
The pod — your colleagues in the system
Local Authority
Governance
Statutory duties under C&F Act 2014 and SEND Regulations 2014. Owns the clock, all counted from the request: 6wk decision to assess, 16wk decision to issue, 20wk FINAL plan (Reg 13(2)) — there is no 30-week deadline. Every decision carries reasons — these are what a tribunal reads.
Keyworker
Education
The one continuous relationship. Holds the whole child — education, health, care, family, voice. Briefs the chairman before every review. Tracks outcomes, not services. Escalates early.
CYP Voice
Education
Carries the CYP's wishes and feelings under s.19 C&F Act 2014. Opens the meeting — Section A is their text. Age-appropriate gathering. Never paraphrases 'the CYP agrees.' Non-verbal communication IS communication.
Parents
Community
Parental expertise no professional holds. Carries family evidence, concerns and rights. s.38 preference, 20-day response window, SEND Tribunal s.51, Personal Budgets. Translates the system into plain English.
Doctor
Community
Medical evidence for the plan. Section C (health needs) and Section G (health provision). Every recommendation quantified — duration, frequency, professional responsible. Section G is an absolute duty under s.42.
SENCo
Education
The graduated response — assess, plan, do, review. Provision mapping for Section F. Progress data with real baselines and real rates. Annual review administration. 'Not yet, and here is why' is the most valuable report.
Therapist
Education
SLT/OT functional assessment. Every recommendation quantified and section-named: educational provision (Section F) or health care provision (Section G). Ambiguity here is how provision disappears.
Social Worker
Governance
Social care context where it exists — child in need, child protection, looked-after. Explicit 'no involvement' where it doesn't. Section I gate: residential placement only after formal consultation. Safeguarding outranks everything.
How every professional contributes
Step 1
Receive the consultation
The LA emits ehc:consult. The signal reaches every professional who stakes on the relevant tag. Your dashboard shows a pending task with a deadline.
Step 2
Submit your evidence
Use the structured form on the evidence page. Every field is quantified — duration, frequency, professional responsible. The form refuses vague answers. Your evidence links directly to the plan section.
Step 3
Review the draft plan
When the LA issues the draft, you see your evidence in the relevant section. If something is misrepresented, you can flag it. The plan is a living document, not a PDF.
Statutory guidance — what you need to know
SEND Code of Practice 2015
The statutory guidance every professional must follow. Chapter 9 covers EHC needs assessments and plans. Chapter 10 covers children and young people in specific circumstances.
Children and Families Act 2014
Part 3 — the legal framework for SEND. s.19: principles. s.37: EHC needs assessment. s.42: duty to secure provision. s.51: SEND Tribunal appeal rights.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014
The procedural detail. r.6: health advice during assessment. r.7: social care advice. r.21: annual review process. Every window specified in calendar terms.
Equality Act 2010
The duty to make reasonable adjustments. The public sector equality duty. Discrimination arising from disability. The school's anticipatory duty.
See the pod on one child's plan
Brian is an avatar case, marked synthetic in the data — a worked example, not a real child. Everything below reads from that one case.