
Parents of SEND children fight private school VAT hike in court: ‘We're working seven days a week to pay fees'
Families gathered at the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of a High Court hearing on Tuesday to challenge the government's decisions to impose 20 per cent VAT on private school costs.
Nearly 20 families and several faith schools were part of the effort to bring legal action against the Treasury, as they claimed the new VAT on fees is discriminatory and a breach of human rights law.
The Education Not Taxation campaign argues that Special educational needs and disability (SEND) children have been disproportionately affected by this tax hike.
One mother, Leanne Gunn, said she'll be forced to work all her life in order to afford her son Charlie's fees, adding: 'there is no other option for him.'
The self-employed accountant's son was diagnosed at age two with transverse myelitis, a rare neurological condition caused by inflammation to the spinal cord, which means he uses a wheelchair and experiences sensory problems such as hearing loss.
Ms Gunn has said her son couldn't access education in a larger class size and is 'flourishing' at his school. Already, she starts work at 5am and doesn't finish until just before midnight in order to pay the fees.
She said the education tax 'just means that I'm gonna be working seven days a week until forever.
'I work really long hours as it is and for Charlie, there is no other option for him. We don't have another state option', she continued.
Ms Gunn's working hours have already taken a toll on their relationship.
'I spend very little time with him. I'm always working and he's always complaining to me about how much I work, but I have no choice. That is just the position we're in.'
Education Not Taxation's spokesperson Loveena Tandon said: 'We are deeply grateful to the many families who stood with us today, showing their unwavering support as the High Court hears the case against Labour's Education Tax.
'It is a shame that parents, schools, and children have had to turn to the courts to address the harms this policy is causing. Parents are making difficult choices to pay Labour's tax and keep their children in their schools.'
The High Court heard on Tuesday that at least 35,000 children with SEN could be displaced from private schools and into state institutions because of increased costs.
Jeremy Hyam KC, representing two children with SEN in private schools, said in written submissions: 'That displacement will have a particularly prejudicial impact for displaced SEN children compared with those entering the state sector who do not have SEN.'
He said that provision for SEN pupils in the state system 'is in crisis' and those displaced 'will be going into a system which either will not meet, or is highly unlikely to meet, their needs, as compared to the needs of those without SEN in the same situation.'
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC and the DfE, responded that abolishing the VAT exemption for private school fees was expected to yield between £1.5 and £1.7 billion per year.
He continued in written submissions that while parents were welcome to opt out of the 'universally accessible' state education system, the measures that affect the cost of providing private education services, and therefore its purchase price, don't make the measures an interference with freedom to offer or receive private education.
Mother-of-two Dagmara told The Independent that her husband works seven days a week in order to pay for their son's private school, after they moved him out of their local state primary school last year.
'He works on Saturdays and Sundays', she said. 'It's just very frustrating, really heartbreaking because we as a family do everything we can to keep him happy. We've tried everything.'
Dagmara found that she was having to take her eight-year-old son out of state school most days around 11:30 am, meaning he wasn't getting a whole day at school.
She said the school repeated on a daily basis 'they don't have the resources' to take care of his needs.
Since moving schools, she said her son is 'very happy.'
'His academics definitely improved, but it's all about pastoral care and he seems to be very happy.'
A survey conducted by Education Not Taxation of 2,279 parents with SEND children found that 46 per cent were now 'likely' or 'very likely' to take their children out of the independent sector in the coming years.
More than 98 per cent of those likely to leave said they did not believe the state school local to them would meet their children's needs properly.
Labour promised to 'end the VAT exemption and business rates relief for private schools to invest in our state schools' in its 2024 general election manifesto.
A government spokesperson said: 'We do not comment on ongoing litigation matters.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What the Bell Hotel closure reveals about the asylum housing stalemate
Photo byThe Bell Hotel must oust its asylum seekers within 28 days. A High Court judge has ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council's request to stop asylum seekers being housed at the local hotel – a site of numerous recent protests, one of which turned violent, since a resident was charged with sexual assault. The Home Office's last-minute attempt to have the case dismissed failed. It had warned that the decision would 'substantially impact' its ability to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels. Whether this is a victory for mob rule and the far right or planning regulation and nimbys, it reveals the true extent of government impotence. The Home Office has a duty to avoid destitution – it cannot empty the hotels until there are enough houses available to shelter asylum seekers. This dispersal strategy is currently underway with the likes of Serco contracted by the government to offer dreamy deals to landlords to convert their properties into houses of multiple occupancy to house asylum seekers. But these, too, will bring the same tense dynamics of the hotels. They already draw local complaint and unease – and pressure on councils to regulate against them. While Labour ministers have made repeated promises to close the asylum hotels, and are vocally opposed to the policy – introduced by the Conservatives when the pandemic hit in 2020 – cases such as the Bell Hotel reveal how the Home Office has to fight to keep them open. 'Do you think anyone wanted to house asylum seekers in hotels?' as one despairing minister put it. The government is stuck in asylum hotel California. It can check out of the policy any time it likes, but it can never leave. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related


South Wales Guardian
29 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ministers braced for further legal challenges after High Court Epping decision
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage hailed the High Court decision in Epping as a 'victory' and said he hopes it 'provides inspiration to others across the country', while the shadow home secretary argued that residents have 'every right to object' to people being housed in their area. The 12 councils where Reform UK is the largest party are understood to be exploring the prospect of legal challenges following Tuesday's ruling. The Home Office had warned the judge that an injunction could 'interfere' with the department's legal obligations, and lawyers representing the hotel's owner argued it would set a 'precedent'. Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Reacting to the news, Mr Farage said that 'young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should NOT be free to walk the streets anywhere. They must be detained and deported'. 'I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country,' he said. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that the migrants housed at the hotel 'need to be moved out of the area immediately', while her shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that 'residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town'. He said: 'Local residents have every right to feel safe in their own streets and every right to object when their community is treated as a dumping ground.' A Labour source said the move by the Tory-led council, who did not challenge the Conservative government when they were housing asylum seekers, was politically motivated and authority leaders were 'scared' of Reform. Asked on Tuesday why the council did not previously take legal action, Epping Forest District Council leader Chris Whitbread told the PA news agency: 'It goes back to 2020 when we were in the pandemic originally, and at that time, it was used for young families, women and children, which is completely different to having it used for single males. 'Obviously, we have always raised our concerns with the Home Office, whether it be the previous government or this government, we raised our concerns.' Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the Government will 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns'. She added: 'Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.' Meanwhile, the council leader for Borough of Broxbourne Council, Corina Gander, told PA the High Court's injunction set a 'massive precedent' and the council would gather 'more detail about what Epping has done' before considering a bid to shut down another hotel housing asylum seekers. Lawyers for the Home Office had warned the court that an injunction 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Edward Brown KC also said the injunction would 'substantially interfere' with the Home Office's statutory duty in potentially avoiding a breach of the asylum seekers' human rights. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels Limited, the hotel's owner, the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. Piers Riley-Smith, for the company, asked the judge to be allowed to appeal against the ruling, citing its 'wide-reaching ramifications'. He said that there was a 'compelling reason for the appeal to be heard', including the 'precedent that would be set' by the ruling and the impact that it could have 'on the wider strategy of the (Home Secretary) in relation to the housing of asylum seekers in hotels as part of meeting their statutory duties'.

Rhyl Journal
30 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'