When must an LA fund EOTAS?

An LA must fund EOTAS once it is satisfied a child's provision would be inappropriate to make in any school. It then goes in Section F of the EHC plan, and section 42 makes funding it a legal duty. EOTAS, education otherwise than at school, only exists for a child or young person who already has (or is being issued) an EHC plan.

Section 61 is a power, not a duty

This is the point the top results blur. Section 61(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 lets a council arrange special educational provision otherwise than in a school or post-16 institution. The verb is "may". It is a power, not a duty, so a council can never be made to agree EOTAS in the abstract. Two further conditions sit on that power:

• The council may arrange EOTAS only if it is satisfied it would be inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school or post-16 institution (section 61(2)). That "inappropriate" test is the trigger.
• Before arranging it, the council must consult the parent or the young person (section 61(3)).

Where the funding duty actually comes from

The duty to fund does not flow from section 61 at all. It flows from section 42. The moment EOTAS provision is written into Section F of a final EHC plan, the council must secure every element specified there, and securing it means paying for it. Where EOTAS is agreed, Section I is left blank (no school is named) and Section F has to set out the package in full: what the provision is, who delivers it, and how often. From that point the duty is absolute, not a matter of budget or discretion. Our answer on the LA's duty to secure Section F provision sets out how far that duty reaches.

The Tribunal can decide it for you

The "inappropriate" question is not the council's alone. On appeal, the SEND Tribunal can decide that question and order EOTAS into Section F, which binds the council just as firmly as a package it agreed itself. So the honest answer to "when must an LA fund EOTAS" is this: when EOTAS provision sits in Section F of a final EHC plan, whether the council put it there or the Tribunal did. IPSEA's guidance on EOTAS confirms the test rests with the council and that the Tribunal can order it on appeal.

What this means in practice for the council

For a caseworker, the decision point is the "inappropriate" finding, not the funding. Once you accept that no school can meet the child's needs, the cost follows automatically through Section F. Defending a refusal to fund by pointing back to section 61 as a discretionary power tends to fail, because the argument the Tribunal weighs is whether a school is appropriate, not whether the package is affordable. A clear, evidenced view on appropriateness at the outset is what protects the council's position later. EOTAS sits inside the EHCP framework, so keep a light watch on the 2026 SEND reform consultation, which may change the wider plan structure around it.

This page is general information, not clinical or legal advice.