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.

I totally agree with this, it’s clear that this is what happened.

OP, come back when you've stopped reading tabloids 🙄

I don't see what the issue is here.

The child is entitled to a state school place plus transport if it's over 3 miles away. The council is legally obligated to provide child with.a school place. The only school place was 25 miles away, so the council has to pay for transport.

The parents being able to afford it/able to home educate/whatever makes no difference to the child's legal rights. The child doesn't lose her rights because she previously attended a private school.

It's a bit of a shame that this child is now costing the UK taxpayer £7,000 odd for a school place per year plus £8,000 per year in taxis, so £15,000 that the taxpayer previously didn't have to pay. But that only matters if we think the reasoning behind the VAT policy is financial rather than ideological. If we accept that it's ideological, we can't really object to parents making use of the state provision (including transport costs) to which they and their children are entitled.

So are we supposed to believe that parents previously motivated to pay for private school, and to appeal twice for transport were not motivated enough to exercise their right to apply for any other school or use the LA admissions system?

They clearly wanted a state school
that was as close to a private one as you can get . They didn’t want to exercise their rights to do things properly as it may have resulted in their dd going to a school they didn’t like

I can't see how the council would have ended up paying if actually they'd been able to point to a nearer school and say "look, there are places here". Surely that would have been their defence to the appeal - "we won't pay for transport but you can have a place at X closer school".

@BustopherPonsonbyJones
I'll try to explain my position. I have to make it clear that I am starting from a position of political and philosophical objection to private education-and a belief that it is wrong for it to be VAT exempt.
Moving on. I don't think that waiting to apply VAT would have made any difference to the preparedness or otherwise of parents. Anyone who was aware of what was going on would have known it was happening and made plans-many parents did. And some schools absorbed some or all of the fee increase. Drawing the process out would not have made any difference. There are plenty of state school places available. And of course there will be the occasional hiccup. There is when any new legislation is introduced. There appear to have been remarkably few, however.

As for the lady in the Mail- I have no issue with her getting school transport. However, I do question whether she is acting in good faith. If she had genuinely wanted her child to have a place at a school close to home, she would have put her name on the waiting lists at local schools. But she didn't. I suspect she was delighted that there were no places available-she could then get a place at the school she wanted. And because her case was all about making a point, she made it as public as possible. Using her child in a way that I think most of us would find distasteful. Have I addressed all your points?

Incidentally, I suspect that the LEA knew perfectly well what she was up to-which is why her initial application for transport was turned down.

Well, if attacking a young girl and her family makes you happy, then that says more about you than about them.

It makes it very clear, in my opinion.

Parents must not be refused the opportunity to make an application or be told that they can only be placed on a waiting list rather than make a formal application.

If they are refused the opportunity to apply or are told they can only go onto a waiting list, that means there would be no spaces, as if they have a space, state schools must offer it to the child of the next applicant or, if there is a waiting list, the child that comes highest on the basis of the admissions policy (outside a FAP direction or EHCP naming the school, that is).

I’m not attacking them I’m questioning what has been stated about this case and just pointing out some facts about their lifestyle. Facts are not attacks.

Parents in this situation are being told by many local authorities to approach schools directly about places. It’s not the fault of the parent in this case that only one of the schools was decent enough to advise her on that she could go on the waiting list.

It’s convenient isn’t it.

After pages and pages of this, it is the Council’s responsibility to find children a school place promptly and if they fail to do so, then they have to fork out on transport costs, potentially. We should all be annoyed at the Council for wasting taxpayer resources and at the Labour Government for not giving the Council’s clear funding and direction what to do, in these circumstances. It is all completely reasonably foreseeable and has been discussed on MN for over a year as to what the consequences of this policy will be. They should all get their act together and plan properly given they decided to implement this policy on short notice. The mother in question is just highlighting the absurdity of the situation. None of this is surprising. The whole State in this country is hugely inefficient and wastes tons of taxpayer resources. We need more accountability for this inefficiency.

I'm not sure that the council could have offered her a place at a closer school after she had already taken up the place at the school of her choice. This appeal was only about transport and the fact that it was refused twice before the MP helped the family out suggests that actually it's not a clear case of being eligible. I suspect they have pushed for exceptional circumstances, likely using the child's mental health if she's "forced" to move schools again, conveniently ignoring the fact the situation was of their own making.

I doubt they even approached the LA and just found a school they liked took her themselves for a bit then sprung this on the LA. Without the other side of it from the LA we will never know.

💯. It is the job of parents to do what is best for their children. It is the job of councils to ensure they have school places for all children who require them and provide transport where required.

Of course parents aren't going to choose a shit school for their kids if they can choose a good one. It was for the council then to come back and say "we're not paying for transport to X good school because you can have a place at Y shit one instead". They couldn't even manage that, and so they quite rightly have to pay up. The parents are not to blame here.

There weren’t actually two proper appeals for transport. The parent in question just received emails from the council saying “no” within an hour of her notifying them that she wanted to appeal the decision. The one proper appeal in front of a panel was successful.

At no point in the article does it say they contacted the local authority to inform them of the need for a school place though... they only got in touch with the LA to apply for transport costs to be covered AFTER she'd started at the school.

I agree that it's unlikely they approached the LA until they wanted transport.
I also done believe the mother only found out about funded school transport when a friend mentioned it. They like in a rural community that is more than 3 miles from any school, so ALL children they will be using the funded bus service to get to school, everyone it these areas knows all about it

They should have found the child a school place at a nearer school more quickly then.

“I'm not sure that the council could have offered her a place at a closer school after she had already taken up the place at the school of her choice.”

Wouldn’t anyone have to first make a formal inyear application to their local LA? And if the LA decides to ignore it and not find a school place within a reasonable timeframe it is on them? Perhaps the law needs clarifying. At the moment, LAs are not treating private school applicants who still have a school place as urgent. However, any private school applicant who has given written notice to their private school should be prioritised as an immediate priority like kids moving into the area. If the LAs fail to do this, there will be transport appeals and people will game the system applying to the best academies which will be happy to make places for privileged high attaining kids. If the LAs and Labour do not realise this, then that is their inefficient and stupidity.

How could they have done that if they weren't informed of the need for a place?

If the process for in-year applications involves applying directly to schools, rather than through the council, then the parents are not at fault because this is what they did.

The school the child now attends is in a different county, so Lincolnshire would have played no part in that application process, they would only have been involved in an application to a Lincolnshire school and the mother has admitted she didn't apply to any of those.

Well then perhaps the Labour Government who had this brilliant VAT idea should have implemented a system where you also have to apply to the LA for all inyear transfers as well as to the schools directly? So the LAs can plan and avoid transport costs? It is hardly rocket science!