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.

After all, vapes need 2 years to have VAT added...

Who would think schools are so simple in comparison?

It's more that there was a defined process to follow, rather than the financial pros and cons of options.

And there are a number of state secondary schools within a 10 mile radius - they are rural, but not completely out in the sticks.

Yeah, hard for any council to have procedures in place for people who haven't contacted them and they've never even heard of. The process from the council's website that a previous PP quoted sounds OK to me. Perhaps BustopherPonsonbyJones can recommend an improvement to deal with these unknown applicants.

While it was possible to apply directly to schools, none of which had places when the family enquired, the family chose only to apply to this one school, 25 miles distant which was in a different LA. Then only applied for free transport when she was happy and settled. The council was quite right to refuse in the first instance.

Not every 13 year old child. Just the chippy ones who won’t accept their fate according to diktats of the Labour Party.

Still not the family’s problem that the procedures don’t work for the council. I don’t have to recommend any changes because I don’t care. I’m happy the family used the procedures to get the school of their choice and transport costs paid. If I cared as much as you do that this is unfair, I’d be putting more energy into campaigning to change things. If you are genuinely outraged that a young girl was forced to leave her school (because of Labour policies) and found an alternative state school (with a long commute as those more local to her didn’t have places) then I’m sorry for you. I hope it works out well for them.

It isn't "cheating the system". Lincolnshire appears to allow direct-to-school applications. The mother followed an allowed, approved procedure. The fact that she could have acted in a different allowed, approved way which (you think, although we don't know) might have cost the LA less isn't "cheating the system".

I suspect what is irritating most people is that this situation was entirely avoidable in the best interests of the child concerned, and that the family is allowing the Mail and the Tory party to exploit it. Basically they didn't choose the sensible route to finding a school place, hence putting their child in a position where she has this long journey when it was entirely avoidable. Then when they get transport to help them out of the problem they have created, they are using it as a stick to beat Labour with. Not impressive.

You have cared enough to criticise the council and you can't think of any procedures that would work in these circumstances because there aren't any. It isn't really all that relevant why the girl had to change schools (parents have to apply for in-year admissions all the time for all sorts of reasons). And, again, none of the schools had places when they enquired, including the only one they actually applied to. And I'm will to bet they didn't try every school within a 25 mile radius.

Nail on the head. Goods and services that are zero rated or exempt from VAT aren't a "tax break" nor a "loophole". It's exactly what Parliament has decreed.

What about all the people "utilising tax loopholes" by buying sugar free fizzy drinks instead of full sugar fizzy drinks to avoid the sugar tax - it's exactly the same for those thinking private school parents used to get a tax break - it wasn't.

The mother is part of the Education Not Taxation group - so I expect she’s exploiting the Mail / Telegraph / Times / FT just as much as the other way round.

But the Labour party politics of envy is just as bad - they didn't introduce VAT on private schools for any valid reason - they did it to punish the rich and pander to their baying mob of unionised public sector supporters.

@SabrinaThwaite It’s all a matter of timing isn’t it. There’s no indication as to how quickly a refusing school must contact the LA or how quickly the LA must act on the info they get. I suspect not very quickly so another school was found.

Another aspect in this is data sharing. Reading through data protection protocols for schools, sharing phone numbers and details of contacts is open to question if these parents did not give consent. It’s possible to make an enquiry about places without saying anything about who you are. Popular schools get this often but I bet they don’t take all details down and inform the LA. Some people are just making casual enquiries.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones "Not every 13 year old child. Just the chippy ones who won’t accept their fate according to diktats of the Labour Party"

0h, come ON!! You're suggesting the child orchestrated this??? That is just silly.

I am not sure the concept of a united parent group advocating for their children’s rights is bad per se? For the longest time, the State and unions have not necessarily acted in the best interests of children and families so the fact there is now some sort of parental lobby group with traction, I cannot see it as a bad thing. I think we need more of those, not less. Especially for children with SEND. So if the VAT gave rise to that, who cares. Someone has to stand up for children’s rights. It is on Labour if they decided to introduce a taxation policy that directly harms children. It is really quite unforgivable that they did this. So if they have to deal with the fall out, I am all for it. And no, not part of that group whatsoever. The Tories used a referendum on Brexit to get into power and Labour threw tons of children under the bus. Not too different in my opinion. I think this mother and their daughter are really brave. Hats off to them!

I don’t care so I won’t be putting any time or effort into the improvements YOU feel are necessary. I’m perfectly happy with what has happened! Do your own work if you care so much. I’m delighted with an outcome that allows the young girl to attend a decent state school with transport costs covered too - all by following legal procedures.

Labour caused this mess, not the family and not me. They can deal with the consequences.

@TizerorFizz I’ve done an in year move through an LEA, although for a different county. All very straightforward, even when applying to schools that handle their own admissions, it just requires good communication from all parties. It’s should be easier when you’re not factoring in a house move as well.

I think most 13-year olds will have an opinion about leaving their school. For most of them, it is their world. You are underplaying the impact of Labour’s policy on children! Even if the new school is okay in the end (and I’m sure it will be fine), I wouldn’t underestimate the strength of feeling from a teen who has had this move forced upon them.

@SabrinaThwaite That was your choice though. The parent here took the other option offered. LAs differ in how quickly they sort out a place too. No LA will magic up a place when there isn’t one. Where I live, the 13 grammars are totally full. You might approach the LA with the brightest child likely to get a starred first from Cambridge, but you won’t get a place.

This is what I struggle to understand.

Why would the parents knowingly send their child to a school that they couldn't afford, and then risk having to uproot them. The VAT can't have come as a huge surprise to them as the child is 13 and presumably only started secondary education within the last couple of years.

Surely, if the child is angry, that anger should be directed at her parents for failing to plan properly?

I don't know the full story but their might have been a drop in family income, for whatever reason.
Business not doing well, illness, Granny that was paying the fees no longer able to, illness there.

But nobody would want to move their 13yo. Or maybe the 13yo wasn't happy, wasn't making the grades, getting bullied who knows.

Previously private schools would maybe have helped with a burseries, scollarship for a child who's family hit hard times.
But little points in them keeping charity status if they are being forced to pay VAT.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones This is what you said about another poster. "You seem to dislike this poor girl just because she’s been to a private school"
Which is ridiculous.

Of course there might have been a drop in income. Circumstances can change for anyone at any time. Surely that's part of the planning that you do before you commit to sending your kids to a private school. You need to think through whether you'll still be able to afford it if circumstances change. For some people, not having enough to cover the fees upfront would mean that private education wasn't worth a risk. Others might hope for the best and take a punt on it.

It's sad if a child has to move schools because their parents have sent them to an expensive school that they can no longer afford, but any anger in this situation should be directed towards the parents who made that decision - not to a democratically elected government that implemented a tax change that was well publicised long before they came into power.

I don't know where the child was previously, but if she went to the private school in Y7, that move would have been done in Autumn 2021, so before Boris was ousted, and with the Conservatives sitting on the sort of majority that most would have expected another win at the next GE.

The vast majority of people were expecting the last GE to be Nov 2024 - Jan 2025 even if it was clear the Conservatives were unlikely to win. Nobody saw July 24 GE coming.

So, parents could have reasonably assumed that Labour would take a year to implement the policy and that it would be introduced from the start of an academic year.

This would mean it coming in for either Autumn 2025, or even Autumn 2026 (given the 2 years foreseen for vapes that doesn't seem unreasonable for something this complex). By this stage, the child would be going into Y11 and so the parents would only need to find the VAT for a year.

There was also the possibility that VAT might have been introduced for those starting YR, Y7 and Y12 rather than all year groups.

The child's parents have been rather sensible to realise that they can't afford 3 years of VAT and jump ship now in Y9 rather than with potentially greater numbers for the start of Y10. Or finding themselves in a real mess and unable to fund school at the beginning of Y11.

The VaT for some could well be the final straw. We don't know the full picture.
A 20% hike in fees is massive.

Fair enough. So they took a punt that the Tories would be in power for a while, and it didn't work out for them. Bad luck for the kid, but these things happen, I guess.