VAT on school fees - High Court Challenge.

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Labour’s plan to impose VAT on private school fees in January faces a High Court legal challenge over claims it breaches human rights law.

Lawyers have written to HM Treasury arguing the policy discriminates against special needs children and has threatened court action if it is not dropped.

Showtime…

Yes, I do realise this, but the government isn't just sat there with piles of cash in the education budget just waiting to allocate it to a school. There also isn't a magic money tree, so the £80k that is required to fund the 10 additional places has to come from somewhere and it sure as hell won't be from the money raised via this crazy VAT policy. The education budget is £80k down and someone somewhere will lose out.

If state schools are under subscribed then this is a great opportunity to start to consolidate schools and save some real meaningful money. We shouldn't be looking to divert private school pupils into the state system because not only will this end up costing a whole lot of money keeping a school unnecessarily open but you can bet your bottom dollar thay if the school is under subscribed because it isn't very good then it generally won't be the potential private school kids going to these sink schools.

Education should not be taxed. And education is a right. This is why the EU does not allow VAT on private education.

And as for it being a luxury - if that's the case, we better add VAT to everything from healthcare to funerals (beyond the basic)- after all you have 'perfectly adequate provision' there already. No need for anything luxury.

Also for many people, private school is childcare because the school day is longer. Will after school clubs in state school and childminders be taxed too?

Uh huh.

How? What path? Tribunals - a third of parents already are. Each county currently has around 300 appeals a year. That's well over 14,000 Tribunals a year now. The costs of that in stress, effort and despair for those families is just extraordinary, and to the court system, too. But it costs less to defend an appeal for a year than it does to provide for a disabled child, so the LAs do it.

Yes, it's down to central government underfunding. But as a parent who can prove our LA hid many, many months my child was out of any education at all, despite my chasing and chasing and chasing, by registering her in the systems as electively home educated when they knew she wasn't, and on roll at a school when they knew she wasn't - who exactly do I sue?

There is zero accountability. When I threatened Judicial Review over failure to provide any education at all (not knowing she was registered secretly as home educated, so why would they?) the LA promptly named a school that had said not only that they could not meet her needs, but that it woudl harm her to go. That means you can't go to JR, so have to go to Appeal - which takes a year.

They have unlawfully denied her five terms of education in the last nine, and hidden her from the systems. I can prove all of this.

If we could "sue the LA" for this as easily as is claimed, don't you think that we would? The remedy is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who can't provide compensation for any time you're in an appeal, even if the school is glaringly unsuitable, and even if they can provide compensation it's a few thousand, when savings from not providing anything are tens of thousands a term.

Unless and until the system properly penalises LAs from doing this, they will keep right on doing it. And I'm a parent who does know the system, at that. If this is what they do to us, do you know what they do to others? I can tell you: threaten them that they'll be fined if they don't send the child in every day, despite that child attempting suicide, because they know that child will then be deregistered as home educated and nothing is cheaper for the LA and school than nothing. And if placement breaks down and the child is at home and not registered as home educated as far as the parents know, they can be so for years. I'm on a national SEN Facebook group and parents on there talk of three, four, five years with no provision at all - the law says it must be made after 15 days, in section 19 of the Education Act!

The system is broken in a way that those not involved in it really can't begin to imagine. And then people bleat judgementally about parents who work in bars after leaving their full time day job, desperate to try to protect their autistic child, but who can't afford VAT as they can barely afford the fees as it is? Really?

Privileged, my arse. Privilege is being able to send your child into mainstream state school, without having them talk about killing themselves from Reception onwards at home, while pretending to be Mr Everything Is Awesome in school. Privileged is not having to call 111 constantly because the one time you don't check that the agonising stomach ache is just stress, it'll be appendicitis and they will die from the oversight. Privilege is not sitting in a psychiatrist's office, being told that your child was so "not fine in school" that they are being formally diagnosed with PTSD from school trauma.

If you think that's privileged, bluntly, fuck off.

EDIT: @CurlewKate this isn't aimed at you at all! I am just frustrated by the thread, and the lack of knowledge and understanding from the general public around how horrific SEN has become. It turned into a rant, but it is NOT aimed at you.

Just want to give and and a massive hug (only if you like hugs) to the posters on here who are suffering in this inhumane chaotic system along with their kids.

It’s a completely abusive set up of official shrugging off of responsibility (while threatening us with fines if our kids can’t go to the inappropriate schools we are allocated). For so many there is little to no support, just opposition and gaslighting. it’s exhausting and it ruins parents’ MH when we’re already struggling to support our disabled kids.

This, is the post.

Really, it says it all.

Haven't rtft and no idea what the legal outcome will be but at least there's a challenge to the very poor policy

Ummmm let me think.
Perhaps because the state provides a loan to EVERYONE regardless of there financial circumstances to cover the fees . Then the living costs are paid in the form of a maintenance loan that is paid back throughout the service users working life once they reach a particular earning threshold.

Pretty sure you can't get a loan to attend Eton or Winchester!

University is a state provision. There are very few 'private' universities in the UK and are generally attended by the rich nice but dim.. fees at Buckingham Uni for example are £12500 So whilst no vat neither are they subsidised by the govt, unlike mainstream universities.

It's about opportunity. Where the opportunity is there for all its is not a luxury. Where the only criteria is the ability to pay then it is.

This Policy needs to be implemented and the money used to improve the state sector which has been driven to its knees by 14 years of a govt who have only cared about the wealthy and lining their own pockets. This is LONG overdue.

I presume that a compromise that would suit everybody might be a VAT exemption for fees for children with SEN?

Totally agree. perfectstorm put it perfectly.

Universities aren't state bodies. They're not run by or controlled by the government, though they get huge amounts of government funding.

Polytechnics used to be, but they were taken out of local government control when converted to University status, in the end of the last century.

There's some really interesting discussion on it here actually.

Weirdly, the older Cambridge colleges were so free of government control that 20 odd years ago they had to consent to the police and the tv license authorities setting foot on their land, like an embassy.

I think the difference in terms of any VAT argument is that admission is merit-based in its entirety for UK applicants, and there are significant state loans and grants for the worse off - so if someone achieves the admission criteria, then their entry isn't based on family income. I mean, the point would be that if Eton wanted to move to income-blind admission, done solely on entrance testing, and fees payable on sliding scale of families with the slack picked up by their endowment, they could get away with contesting VAT for them, too, as they'd have a solid case for truly being a charity. I agree that that's a good argument, so I'm not disagreeing with the basis of your point. Just wanted to pick up on the state/private aspect as it's not quite correct. And I'm a dork who loves facts. 😊

Absolutely - that's been my argument all through.

If a family gets medium rate care or above in DLA, the child should be exempt - EHCP or not - as that's a legitimate public good.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s that straightforward. What about children at performing arts schools? The state system can’t provide for their needs fully. Shouldn’t they be exempt as well? Many children without SEN are at private school for various reasons which boil down to the state system not being adequate to provide for their needs. Children with mental health problems for example who can only cope with smaller classes.

At the end of the day it’s a totally ridiculous and pointless policy which latest figures suggest will actually end up costing the taxpayer money.

I doubt that’s a ‘compromise’ that would suit everybody, no.

I think this is a fairly binary discussion, with discrimination against SEN children being the catalyst perhaps.

Choosing to send DC to a performing arts school is not the same as being disabled.

Children with mental health difficulties who need smaller classes meet the legal definition of having SEN. They can also be eligible for an EHCP and/or DLA.

There are plenty of multi millionaires using the state system who could afford legal fees more easily than many using the private system. Why aren’t they fighting for better state provision? Could it be that they live in catchments of excellent state schools or in areas with grammar schools and are happy with their education? Why people using the state system are happy to accept the postcode lottery of state education is a mystery to me. Rather than concentrating on the minority of children at private school, people would do better to use their efforts on addressing the inequalities inherent in the state system,

Universities are not accessible to all - you need to get certain grades / experiences to be offered a place. So you if don’t get the grades you are excluded - a uni education is a privilege / luxury.
It’s also not true the kids all get loans - children applying for uni are means tested based on their parents income until that ‘child’ is 25. They are not automatically given a loan for all their uni expenses. The government assumes their parents will be paying towards their costs.

Mental health is an SEN. SEMH (social, emotional and mental health) is a category on the EHCP in B and F, and there are SEMH specific schools, though that's code for "extremely challenging" by now because almost all kids in specialist who move across from mainstream have a diagnosed mental health problem underlying the move.

I’m absolutely not saying it’s the same as being disabled. It obviously isn’t. My point is that many use the private system for different needs.

Many children who would perhaps fall under a SEN definition use the private system without an EHCP or SEN plan in place because their chosen school works for them. Their parents haven’t tried obtaining an EHCP because they are managing at their chosen school. It’s well known that it’s extremely difficult to obtain an EHCP and waiting lists are long.

How do I, as a strong advocate for better state SEN provision take class action to do so? I have seen others try and get no where. Where's the collective uproar? Nowhere... that's where. Its just us SEN parents. The 1 or 2 in a class of 30. The other 28 don't care as they are fine. Don't kid yourself. Most people font give a F.

You can do a judicial review at zero cost in your child's name. But a law needs to be broken
State schools being a bit shit is not illegal.

By saying what about DC attending performing arts schools, your post compared sending DC to a performing arts school to those with SEN. They aren’t the same and arguments for or against VAT for the former should not be thought about in the same way as it is for the latter.

Many children who would perhaps fall under a SEN definition use the private system without an EHCP or SEN plan in place because their chosen school works for them.

Yes, they do. I didn’t say otherwise. What I actually comment on was ”Many children without SEN are at private school for various reasons which boil down to the state system not being adequate to provide for their needs. Children with mental health problems for example who can only cope with smaller classes.” because DC in your second sentence do have SEN yet you use it as an example of DC without SEN attending independent schools.

Don't be so juvenile.

I want an equal society with excellent education from pre school to primary to secondary. It's the right of all children in the UK not just those of us who can afford to pay.

Don't you agree, OP?

The debate has moved on.

Please bring yourself up to speed and then feel free to rejoin - in a constructive manner.

OPs short for 'I am not able to answer'.

Jorvik1 · Today 04:59
I want Labour to ban private education and grammar schools.