To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

[feesss]

we went to look round a school this morning and we obviously asked about VAT and the lady showing us round said there has been a challenge this week so it may not happen? Is anyone aware of this? I can’t see much online about it?

Or worst case for Starmer, the case goes all the way up the chain to the European Court of Human Rights, with funding backed by all sorts eventually. Including some free speech types.

Proportionality would be quite complicated to apply in this case. It is related to the state's legitimate aim for interfering with the right (presumably here to raise money to spend elsewhere, something on which the courts are inclined to defer to accountable politicians). Even with a legitimate aim the state can only interfere to the extent that it is necessary to achieve that aim. It must not take measures which go too far. The usual comparison is that it cannot use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If you really want to explore proportionality further then look up the four-stage test in the Bank Mellat case!

There is a legitimate aim to raise money (albeit a small amount) for state schools from a multi multi million pound sector. Nobody disputes that. However, Labour have used the sledgehammer by introducing the VAT half way through an academic year, applying it to children in key exam years too (like Year 10 and 11 and 12/13 who realistically will always be harmed by a school move), children with SEND, small faith schools etc etc - the ISC has literally been telling them very clearly how to mitigate the harmful effects of this policy and they have decided to ignore it. What they should have done is introduced it in the future to certain years and certain children only - if they wanted to comply with human rights principles.

Human Rights isn’t discounting luxuries for the wealthy. FFS. anymore than Brighton College and the like are ‘charities’.

@Lookslikemeemaw - what are you on about? Brighton College has charitable status- I literally posted the link of the registration number and the accounts. It’s incorporated as a charity, that’s it. It’s a legal status with set obligations enshrined in law. The Human Rights Act is also very specific, it is not a question of what someone thinks is fair and moral etc, it’s about legal principles and laws and case law etc.

‘Brighton College et al are a small % of indy schools. The majority are not for profit.’

mmm, but Like MANY private schools, taking 10s of 1000s in fees each year - Brighton College IS a ‘charity’… nice tax breaks there for them.

I feel like you’re making my argument for me! Should a company charging the wealthiest people the highest fees in the UK for providing an education service be a ‘charity’?
Discuss….
I agree with you on the law. And once the law says VAT is payable on fees AND then proper business rates are to be paid, that’s the law.

No because education isn't classed as a luxury under HRA, no matter how or where it is delivered. The ECHR enshrined parental choice based on ethical, moral or philosophical basis, free of government interference. That's why 1 of the legal cases is from a faith school, 1 is due to access to single sex education and 1 is SEN. The Scottish one is different as the Scottish education landscape is different.

Charitable status has nothing to do with running a business, or whether the people involved are wealthy. Legally it's largely to do with not making a profit and having the right sort of objectives or purpose. Education is a charitable objective.

As for the law, all other law is in effect subject to the rights in the HRA and the ECHR. Parliament (unless it goes rogue) cannot legislate incompatibly with human rights. The Johnson government would undoubtedly have no hesitation in going rogue. Kier Starmer won't do that.

‘Charitable status has nothing to do with running a business, or whether the people involved are wealthy. ’

few people IRL would look at a private school and think of it as the definition of a charity.
Fairshare is a charity. Women's Aid is a charity. food banks are often charities.

Schools charging upwards of £15k per child per year. Used by the wealthiest in our country? Mmm, not quite in the same league.

We avoided private school precisely for this reason. We would have been pushed to afford it anyway without an increase. Plus our local boys private option gets worse results than our local state. But yes, it’s happening.

@Lookslikemeemaw - what would you prefer- a whole lot of private schools with charitable status and some charitable obligations or a whole lot of private schools run for profit owned by large private equity groups. Because that is what Starmer is now encouraging. As VAT, business rates all the same now. So the future ones will all be Cognita group style. And there is going to be a massive boom in tutoring for profit through overseas businesses. Multi billion industry - but we won’t see the profits here. And long term actual state education will deteriorate as people do maths/science online lessons run by Indian graduates.

Charitable status is a legally defined term that involves undertaking a worthy cause and not making a profit. That's it. It's irrelevant what "most people's idea" is. Educating children is a worthy thing. And schools with CS don't make a profit. Thats it. There are no shareholders, dividends or anything similar. It is a business in the sense that it is an entity that requires a financial input and needs to balance it's books but you could say any domestic household is a business in that sense. Your continuing griping about this is tiresome and pointless. Academy schools run by consortia that DO make profits are far more worthy of your ire. You could argue that they are ripping off the gov far more so than independent schools who take 7% of kids out of the state system and in many cases take up the slack of SEN provision which is utterly broken.

https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/our-news/press-releases/vat-on-education-challenge-reaches-the-high-court

The claim has been filed and R Reeves is named as a defendant. She/The Government has 14 days to respond (without an extension). I am sure, as prepared and clever as she is, she has previously instructed lawyers and is ready to go.
The families are calling for the claim to be heard on an expedited basis. The children will remain anonymous and the court has been asked to rule on that basis.
Let’s hope the Government will show these vulnerable families some respect and file their defence promptly. Seeing that this was a key manifesto promise, there should be no problem as they must have all the information and research. Given they put it in the manifesto.

Given how thought through this policy is purported to be, of course she will be ready to go. They said they looked into all options and analysed this?

There preparations to be ready to go will serve them well, I work in the public sector and I am off until second week of January, so is most people I know. Those 14 days will go quickly….

Many thanks for the link to the update. I hope the litigation is won.

Almost done