VAT on private school fees does not infringe human rights.

[CrocusesFlowering]

So the Court of Appeal have rejected the appeal by parents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/private-school-vat-appeal-high-court-ruling-human-rights-b2928803.html
Can it be taken further now?

The cost doesn't automatically disappear just because a child has an EHCP.

Then there are the number of children who attend private school for smaller class size and more in-class support because mainstream doesn't meet their needs - not because they've got an EHCP.

@Ohfudgeoff I am aware of those points.

But I was responding specifically to the PP who thought an argument that the policy was discriminatory would have a stronger chance in court.

Well my wages are a barrier to this right. Surely this is just putting more people into the same category as me?

For me the extraordinary increase in fees (way beyond inflation, for years) is the barrier. I could have afforded it easily if my nearest school charged what they did 30 years ago adjusted for inflation.

“Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to open and run a private school…”

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_2_protocol_1_eng

Not really. Your wages do not alter the cost. However government taxation does.

Weirdly before the taxation I equally couldn't afford it for my SEN child.

What a silly case. No surprises.

Would you use private schools if you could afford it?

From your later post:

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to open and run a private school…”

The right in any given country to open and run a private school is not a right of any individual to a private school education though.

of course not. They do have a right to an education either state or private.

ECHR article 2 guarantees the right to non state education. VAT is a barrier to that right.

An individual has a right to a state or private education. If a state education is provided, then the right is fulfilled, isn’t it?

No. The state has the obligation to not interfere in the right to a private education. The provision of a state education pathway does not remove that obligation.

“Such regulation must never injure the substance of the right to education nor conflict with other rights enshrined in the Convention.”

Many SEN individuals in state schools don't make progress as their needs are not being met by state SEN provisions or ordinary available inclusive practice.

If an individual is not making progress in learning, which could be evidenced, could it not be argued that they have not then received an education? In which case the right would not be fulfilled.

Define education.

From the judgements thus far, though, it doesn’t seem the courts view the imposition of VAT as a breach of EHCR protocols? Presumably disability discrimination law wouldn’t change the judgement of the protocol applicability?

Free Education is a right for all and legally has been in the UK since 1944. This right was what promoted state schools to be set up all over the country catering for all children up until they are 16. Private education existed before this and exists alongside it. Anyone who can afford it has the right to use it if they so desire, but there is no right for someone to be provided with it if they can't afford it.

Private Education always was and still is a luxury for the rich. There is no obligation for anyone to use it and no one has a right to use it. As such having VAT on it was fine, because it is an unnecessary luxury product.

What's muddied the waters, is the huge and awful numbers of children who now end up in private school because of the lack of provision which meets their needs in mainstream. This has fundamentally changed the whole role of private education, because it has now meant that significant numbers of children are using it out of necessity, because it is the only way they will get an education. In looking at the VAT situation, it means that now families of children who cannot be educated in other ways are paying VAT on an essential product.

I’m not a lawyer or politician and I’m not the person who defines education

But I think education is defined within the protocol. And I don’t think it puts specifics as to outcomes vs expected outcomes, or class sizes or school set up. I skimmed it though so happy to be corrected.

I don't think VAT is the barrier to most kids. I think its the fees that are the barrier.

Thus far the courts have - as much as I understand the ruling - deemed that children’s rights have been infringed; but that is outweighed by the presumed benefit yo the public purse. A sort of, the many outweigh the needs of the few. We need some proper numbers of the net cost, and impact which only time can provide. I think there is still a long way to go here.

Exactly - this seems such an obviously wrong position. If it is illegal to place a barrier to non state education then the fees cause that barrier.

Yes. VAT is a barrier for a few. Fees are a barrier for the many.

State SEN provision is not great, I agree. But I would argue that a more successful case would be to petition for the VAT on private schools to be flipped to state provision.

I think the argument posters are trying to make is that the addition of VAT is a state implemented barrier. That a private barrier is OK, state barrier is not.

Yes, there were always huge numbers of children with disabilities who would benefit from private education but whose parents couldn’t afford it.

Now there is VAT, suddenly there’s a lot of parents with children at private school who have discovered they really care about disabled children not being able to afford it, and are using that to argue against the whole policy. But they only seem to care about the children whose parents can afford the pre-VAT fees, because they weren’t complaining about the human rights of other disabled children before now.

VAT was introduced with minimal consultation, mid-school year; and done so to inflict maximum harm.

The simple fact is that most households don’t contribute enough in tax, yet expect a huge amount in return. If we want good schools, pot hole free roads, and a brilliant health service; then the majority need to pay lots more tax.

53.3% of all UK households [latest fig. released 23 Sept 2025] are taking more in benefits and services than they contribute in all taxes (in 1977 it was 37%).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/2024

Now you may say “those with the broadest shoulders”, but the reality is that they already contribute a huge amount. So no, no sympathy, you want better SEND provision? Then pay more tax.

Because private schooling is not an equal opportunity thing. It's a privilege thing. The kids with sen are a red herring for most. Unless they can leverage that to exempt all kids from VAT.