Council spends £8000pa on a taxi due to VAT on private schools

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14403627/Labours-VAT-raid-teenage-girl-private-school-council-fund-8-000-taxi-bill.html

So now a place is being taken up in an overscribed school, a 15 year old has had her eduction severely disrupted and the local council has 8k less in the pot.

Well done Labour!!! One of many stories, i'm sure and so predictable.

Does her husband work? She’s 59, he “spent” 23 years in the army, lots of details of her work but none for his. Why couldn’t he have driven her to school?
If they couldn’t afford VAT on school fees how were they going to pay the fees during retirement at that age?

Surely as well that close to GCSEs you’d make sure you have at least that last years fees ? Or maybe they didn’t want to lose their second car or miss out on their holiday that year ?

Presumably if fees are going up by 10%, the VAT would increase the rise to 30%! It’s not an either/or… surely you can see that?

This mum has failed her daughter, not Labour.

Indeed.

Opponents clutching at straws now.

But why should they have to? The transport isn't means tested a the VAT increase wasn't their choice. It's the government last fault for bringing in a spiteful policy, disrupting kids education and not really thinking through the consequences of that policy.

I mean , they're literally making a point . If she can afford to quit her job and previously private school fees, they could afford transport. They just didn't want to and it's all a big gotcha... you kicked me, I'll kick you.

Shitty , entitled behaviour.

Why should anyone have pay £8k a year on taxis to get their child to a school over 25 miles away, just because the local authority doesn't have sufficient provision nearby? Or be forced to home school because the LA is remiss? No child or family should be punished simply because they made use of private schools at some point.

It feels some posters do not get enough joy at a child's education being disrupted by the imposition of VAT (on top of the annual inflation of fees), but now object to the parents/child taking up the state provision (which includes free transport if over 3 miles away, as it should given education is mandatory and no child should miss out because there are insufficient places available within walking/cycling distance).

And legally, councils are obliged to provide transport children to school if they live more than three miles away. They aren’t allowed legally to mean-test.

The family have been forced into this by changed the government have made. The parents were willing to pay x for child's education (saving said government around £8k per annum) but government want them to pay 20% more. So government can suck up the outcome!

You are aware that a lot of private education is for children with additional needs ... who are let down by the shate as there is no suitable provision for their education.

Precisely!

It’s so obvious everyone will see it for what it is as most on this thread have already!

We need to be really honest as a society about what we are willing to pay for and not.

Without sharing too many details, have a friend who was massively let down by NHS. Why are we paying for anyone's taxis? There are some things which are just reasonable for us to expect to pay for individually.

The parents have failed their daughter. It isn't only on the mum.

💯 this. The mental gymnastics used by some in this thread is unbelievable.

The government have to pay if the school is over 3 miles away spectacular own goal Labour.
If you think this is bad go to the area where a PRU is we have one and there are 50/60 taxis with one child in it lined up at 9 and again at 2 5 days a week the rate is around £100 per trip no wonder councils are going bankrupt
in this case the government are paying for transport and education which is a direct result of the vat plus the 4KCs now employed to fight the change in law

Surely the outrage should be that the Council does not have sufficient power to direct more local schools to take the child so that they do not have to fulfil their legal obligation to fund transport due to the distance?
Every child is entitled to a state school place and school transport above 3 miles for secondary, that is the law. So the Council has to fulfil its legal obligations.

If you implement a VAT policy on private schools, you should also have given Councils the power to create and allocate more state school places on short notice, where the need arises, via emergency funding to do so.
Any organised Government would have done this.

Imagine sacrificing the wellbeing of your child just to attempt to make a point. Ridiculous. It is in the Daily Fail though, so how much is true is always questionable.

How have the parents failed their daughter? Are all state educated children being failed by their parents? Anyone who has to move outside of the "normal" break points being failed, regardless of reason?

As the schools nearby were full, I suspect the LA is obliged to pay for transport because it is, in effect, the nearest school with vacancies. The LA is obliged to offer a place and the parents have a right to accept it. As a result, the dc is awarded transport to school. Which has now been awarded. The parent did not really choose it and why on earth should anyone home educate? I could not have done it plus it would have been utterly wrong for my dc.

In this case, I would also suggest the parents don’t have high paying jobs so probably struggled with fees but dc didn’t get a bursary either.

The big issue with this vat hike is that LAs have not been able to plan for additional places that might be needed. Lincolnshire is rural and if a school is full that’s closer, then it’s highly likely another one is 25 miles away. This school was forced on the parents and they won’t be the only parents in this situation. Not for 1 second will Labour care about costs this policy brings about because the vat hike is about punishing the better off.

I suppose the nearest suitable school for your child isn't 25 miles away (meaning 100 miles per day in school run). There is legislation around that and for a good reason.

That only helps children whose parents can afford to go private for some additional needs
The real scandal is that there are thousands of children with additional need, s who are bring let down by he education system and whose parents can't afford private
And lots of these kids will have significant needs which couldn't be met by a private school

The father is now in security

Theres another article (FT) from nov 24 but it mentions a child called Nicole and says they have 3 children ?

Whatever motivation drives the action has no impact on the financial outcome, which is clearly, that councils and taxpayers do have to suck up these costs.

A lot of councils are putting up rates by 10% so perhaps that will help to cover it.

But as AI develops there’s also a chance councils will be able to class virtual education as covering their regulatory requirements.

Many countries have remote learning.

They’ll save money on teachers and taxis and children will be able to reduce to 1-2 days a week in person.

@Burnoutforever
Shame it wasn’t means tested as the mother has a company SLL clinical services you can see the accounts etc and I’m sure they would have managed
not just the wee job DM make her out to have

It's normal for the LA to pay for transport for kids in special schools/ PRU,s 600 children are transported across my LA daily