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.

Anyone else bored of private school parents trying to convince us that their hike in bills because they lost a tax break is somehow OUR business? I know I am.

How? They are using what they are entitled to. If you are a billionaire you are able to use the NHS… does that make you a freeloader?

As per the article, the closest school space was over the threshold for transport. They are therefore eligible.

That’s the point I’d like clarified as I think there were spaces at schools closer to
their home but they’ve tried to circumnavigate the system and claim transport costs that they weren’t eligible for hence the 2 rejections .

this is not means tested.

If there is a space closer you are not eligiable for the transport.

it states in the article ‘and the only state school that had places at such short notice was 25 miles away.’

I have worked in a school and in my LA it is not uncommon for transport to be rejected for no reason. I helped a parent fill out the form for the third time as they were rejected when they were clearly eligiable.

But this isn’t the case!!!!

So which nearer schools offered?

They all said they were full. This one had a place.

No, I’m enjoying watching people demonstrating their right to free speech and holding government decisions to account. I approve of the way that private school parents are fighting for what they believe is right and not rolling over to accept what the Labour Party believes they should accept. Each to their own though. If it bothers you, just avoid the threads, perhaps?

“Maybe they feel like they are done subsidising the state.”

And this is why I think this policy was misguided from the start. This is a demographic largely that pays a lot of tax and does pay their way in society. So to go and penalise their kids for the choices they made is opening a potential can of worms of people altering their behaviour to get “something” back, in more than one way. And that is exactly why this policy will lose money long term in more ways than people just using state schools instead. If you punish people’s children they feel undervalued and so they are less likely to be good little citizens contributing into the pot for everyone.

We don’t know because at no point does it appear that the parents approached the LA to ask for a school place closer to them. They applied directly to the school, and if the school is an academy, they are their own admissions authority.

And I bet they did that because if they had approached the LA, the LA would have invoked the FAP and given the parents their closest school. Which I can guarantee you would not have been one the parents wanted.

The LA are the only ones who can clarify this and they haven’t released a statement so how can we know as the mother has just said she didn’t apply to any other schools so there’s a good chance there was a space at a nearer (and less desirable one ) I expect

Precisely. They wanted an outstanding school in a nice new building with connections to services families, not some run down secondary in a deprived area.

So having re read the article… my guess is that the reason is they were initially rejected is because they rang round the schools themselves instead of going through the council for an in year placement. Therefore the council would have - rightly - rejected on the base that they made the ‘choice’ of the school she ended up at. They would have had to investigate to assess that the nearer schools did not have space and then would have issued the transport payment. To be so so so clear - there is no loophole, and you cannot get this payment if you are not eligible.

to call someone a freeloader for accessing a benefit that are fully entitled to is a) just wrong and b) kind of horrible. Do you call people who receive DLA and have a job freeloaders?

And if you read the article, it is very carefully NOT making factual statements about whether other places were offered or even available.

And what will happen (as has happened in many counties previously), the LA will review their transport policy and the family is no longer eligible. There is no guarantee that this funding will continue.

“Precisely. They wanted an outstanding school in a nice new building with connections to services families, not some run down secondary in a deprived area.”

And that is what that demographic tend to strive for, across the board. Why is it a problem? It happens in every sought after state school up and down the country. Anyone can literally rent or buy a house and buy their way into a great school in this country. Hardly a novel idea? And if the law was on their side regarding school transport (presumably they had evidence to win), then that is exactly what all these types of families are going to do. Hardly a big win for social mobility or going to fund the 6500 teachers which we were promised. However, no surprise to anyone who knows how the system works. Sorry some of you got fooled by the Labour promises. You must be feeling quite disappointed by being so gullible and getting tricked, yet again, by politicians.

Of course not as anyone getting dla is a child?

They clearly tried (and succeeded) in bypassing the usual process and that is why they were rejected twice . They are so entitled they then decided to appeal.

Sorry! Should say if parents work. You could earn millions and a child living with you is eligible for DLA.

in this instance the child is eligible for transport.

It was always pretty clear that this policy would not make money, and in fact might well cost money.

The LP has long had a faction that wants to make private education illegal, and the policy is mainly IMO about appealing to these people.

You can see it in the thread, they are just desperate to see people punished for having accessed private education.

But the fact that they don't seem to have considered increasing school provision to account for those leaving private education is nuts.

So the mother gave up her job as they couldn't afford the £3k extra for fees? How much was she earning, surely more than £3k.

I suppose the key phrase is ‘at short notice’
That’s a get out phrase

Yes they are entitled. The appeal determined they were entitled to support. That is the point of the appeal process.

if a SEN child is rejected for a specialist place initially but an appeal offers them support - does that make the parent ‘entitled’? Should they not have an appealed?

@BustopherPonsonbyJones "No, I’m enjoying watching people demonstrating their right to free speech and holding government decisions to account."

I'd be happy if they actually did "hold the government to account"

But all they seem to do it go on about spite, and the politics of envy and how private school parents are doing the state such a favour. Which makes any discussion pointless.