Thread 2: VAT on school Fees- High court challenge

[EHCPerhaps]

Following on from thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5160565-vat-on-school-fees-high-court-challenge

Background to legal challenge (not yet a case):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13824931/amp/Single-mother-autistic-child-launches-High-Court-challenge-Labours-private-schools-VAT-raid-claiming-violates-daughters-right-education.html

Sorry to begin a new thread, OP, but your thread filled up very quickly!

@EndlessLight - you make it as wide as possible, all of PIP/DLA etc etc private and NHS diagnosis. Any and all of it would count. They are vulnerable due to a disability or learning difficulty, end of.
Just like we widened Free School Meal eligibility.

You cannot morally conclude a kid isn’t vulnerable simply because of their parents or grandparents wealth status. That thinking is simply fundamentally flawed.

But not all DC with any type of diagnosis (via NHS or independent) meets the legal definition of SEN. So, if you want any child with any diagnosis to be exempt, that is far wider than “just make all kids with SEND exempt from VAT”. Similarly, there are some DC in receipt of DLA who don’t legally have SEN.

You cannot morally conclude a kid isn’t vulnerable simply because of their parents or grandparents wealth status.

I have not concluded that.

If SEN kids require a private education out of necessity, they can get an EHC and the LTA will pay.

Otherwise, their parents can, and will, pay VAT on their fees. They can almost always afford them. Let them join the other 1.5m kids with SEN in the State sector.

Also, this is incredibly complicated when mental health is included under the SEND criteria. Because when does anxiety, trauma or eating disorder suddenly make you qualify for VAT exemption? Who decides that?

Mental health is not like autism or dyslexia, it ebbs and flows. What kind of assessment and how often would they possibly put children through?

I can see that being counter-productive from a child welfare point of view.

Mental health difficulties can be classed as SEN as long as they meet the legal definition just like any other difficulties. They are SEMH needs.

Yes, but my concern is around creating a financial incentive for these to meet the criteria.

Lots of DC with SEN have needs/the SEP they reasonably require to meet those needs which change over time. It is why there is the APDR process. It is also why EHCPs have ARs and early reviews can be requested. It isn’t unique to SEMH needs. So if that is your concern, your concerns shouldn’t only be limited to SEMH needs.

I am not going to weep for a bunch of wealthy people paying a bit more tax.

Then you would presumably be even happier if it was a tax aimed at ALL wealthy people...even those relying on a state funded benefit?

In addition, of course! I'd happily pay it. Instead, no.

Yes that is true.

Then that really goes to show your motivation behind this doesn't it.

This is a carefully targeted discretionary tax which raises money, so of course I support it. There is no real downside. I'd also be happy with a wealth tax, or increased NI for top earners. It really isn't an either/or.

@DadJoke - you seem to be forgetting that the children in private schools have their own human rights, especially those with protected characteristics, like a disability. The state cannot pick and narrowly choose their own definition of disability that suits them!
That is the whole point. They are going to lose!

They have the same human rights as people not at private school. If they have an EHC and can prove there is no suitable state provision, they pay no fees. That is true of everyone, even those without money.

Otherwise, if they want to buy their way out of the provision the other 93% have, they can pay tax on it.

Being at private school is not a human right, however much you want it to be.

I don’t think so @DadJoke - the burden of proof will be on the state. Not the other way around. As they are choosing to disrupt and penalise 100k plus disabled children.

Yes we get it, people other than you don’t pay enough tax and you by pointing this out are an extremely virtuous and moral member of society….now let’s try and disrupt 5 year old Beatrice’s life and see if we can make her cry to further prove my virtue.

I do understand you are only trolling, but being callous about children as ‘no downsides’ is below the belt.

So the state will have to prove that for the 100k the state sector is going to be perfectly adequate and meet their needs.

And given some of the mass failures of academies towards, EBSA, rise in homeschooling, mental health problems etc, this is going to be quite interesting, including for us as state parents.

We all know the DFE and Central Government have failed to fund local councils to have sufficient budgets to meet the needs of DCs with SENDs across the board, so I really do not understand why anyone would not want this to go to the High Court.

Once the child has an EHC, they can follow the LTA procedure and appeal if they wish. The burden of proof is, in fact, on the parent.

They are chosing to charge VAT. The parents can chose to pay it or not. They can send their kids to private school, or do what the 93% do. I suspect that barely any will switch to the state sector.

Perhaps you could spend your time and effort advocating for better state SEN provision rather than disengenously using SEN as an excuse to avoid paying tax.

It's clearly discriminatory and illegal is what it is. I'd love to hear from a VAT lawyer on this specific point.

Quinn has made it absolutely clear that this court case is a wedge issue.

A win in this case is, however, not just a win for children with special needs. It is a win for everyone. The impact of this punitive tax will be felt by every family in independent schools. It will also be felt by children in mainstream schools which have to accommodate more pupils. If I win it will also be because the Government’s reasons for discriminating against special needs children will be shown to be not good enough to justify that discrimination. The whole scheme will be called into question and will need to be reconsidered.

I don’t think so!
The lady bringing the claim felt forced into the private sector because the barriers/walls put up by the state legal process in getting the help her child fundamentally and automatically deserves in all state schools, by virtue of their human rights, was not forthcoming.
She felt forced to pay private because that was less of a barrier to her than having to fight the council and state via their deliberately convoluted and slow process for getting the help her child automatically deserves by virtue of their disability.
The state process itself is under scrutiny here. That is the whole point. A child should NEVER first have to fail in the state sector to get what they deserve by virtue of their human rights.
The fact the child is now better off in the private sector itself is proof that that sector is meeting the child’s needs. That is enough for me.

@DadJoke - you can keep on with the sound bite of “wedge” issue but it won’t fly.
Quinn is fighting for the needs of all disabled children, in both sectors, very clearly.

No - she literally says she is also fighting for all parents at private school. You've said yourself quite clearly that you are against the 20% tax on all private schools parents. It isn't just the kids with SEN you want excluded. It is the definition of a wedge issue.

The impact of this punitive tax will be felt by every family in independent schools.