High Court: Reeves was officially told VAT on Private Schools would impact poorer families

[Social Media]

 

Rachel Reeves proceeded with the controversial decision to impose VAT on private school fees despite internal warnings from civil servants that the policy would negatively impact poorer families, the High Court has heard. On the first day of a significant legal challenge, claimants argued that the tax measure interferes with some students' fundamental right to education.

 

 

Lord Pannick KC, representing private schools, challenged the Government’s assertion that the VAT policy primarily affects wealthy families, calling the claim illogical. He referenced Treasury documents indicating that a quarter of affected families fall below the national average wealth level. Citing a briefing presented to James Murray, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, on July 6 last year, Lord Pannick highlighted that "25 per cent of households affected will fall in the bottom half of the household income distribution."

 

 

Addressing the court, Lord Pannick emphasized that the Government’s own evidence contradicted the notion that only affluent families enroll their children in private schools. "That’s a lot of people – a very considerable number of people that go to these private schools are not wealthy," he stated. He further argued that this undermined the justification presented by Reeves, who is named in the case as Chancellor and head of the Treasury, that private school attendance serves as a reliable indicator of wealth.

 

The Government is facing legal action over its decision to apply 20 percent VAT to private school fees, a policy that came into effect on January 1. The High Court is hearing three separate challenges between April 1 and 3, with the first, led by the Independent Schools Council (ISC), being spearheaded by Lord Pannick.

 

Claimants argue that the tax measure disproportionately impacts lower-income families and hinders the right to education. The ISC’s case presents seven families as examples of how the policy affects various demographics, including children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send), a vulnerable girl attending a single-sex school, minority Jewish and Muslim families, and foreign nationals enrolled in bilingual institutions.

 

 

A second legal challenge has been brought forward by Education Not Discrimination, a private school parent group representing mainly Send students. The third case is led by four small private Christian schools and parents of children enrolled in them. The Treasury, HM Revenue & Customs, and the Department for Education are all defending the Government’s stance.

 

Lord Pannick argued in court that the VAT policy is discriminatory and violates Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to education. He compared the tax’s impact on education to a hypothetical government measure imposing "a tax every time a claimant goes to Mass, or every time a claimant has a Bar Mitzvah." He added, "You cannot do that, and the reason you cannot do that is because there is a right to education. The imposition of VAT on private education is of itself a breach of Article 2, it conflicts with and undermines the very right conferred by Article 2."

 

He also contended that the tax was disproportionate, particularly affecting certain vulnerable groups, such as Send students attending private schools due to insufficient state support. The Government has exempted students with council-funded Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) from the VAT charge. However, critics argue that these tailored plans are difficult to obtain due to bureaucratic backlogs.

 

According to the ISC’s latest 2024 census, over 100,000 students with Send currently attend private schools, many having moved from the state system due to inadequate support. Lord Pannick pointed to an interview given by Bridget Phillipson to the Northern Echo earlier this year, where she acknowledged, "The Send system isn’t working for children and young people," and admitted, "There is a lot more as a Government that we need to do to get this right."

 

The Government maintains that taxing private school fees is a legitimate strategy to generate additional funds for state education. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC, and the Department for Education, argued in written submissions that removing the VAT exemption for private school fees was a key policy outlined in Labour’s election manifesto and is projected to generate between £1.5 billion and £1.7 billion annually.

 

"Parents wishing to opt out of the system of universally accessible state-funded education are free to choose any private education for their child that they can afford, or to educate their child at home," he said. "The fact that measures of general application, such as taxes, minimum wage laws, national insurance, etc, affect the cost of providing such a service, and therefore its purchase price, does not make those measures an interference with freedom to offer or receive private education."

 

The hearing, presided over by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey, and Mr Justice Chamberlain, is set to conclude on Thursday, with a written judgment expected at a later date. While a ruling in favor of the private school claimants would not immediately halt or reverse the VAT policy, it could place significant pressure on the Government to reconsider its stance.

 

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-04-03

 

Related Topics:

Parents Struggle to Afford Private School Fees for Special Needs Children Amid VAT Increase

Human rights Legal Challenge Could Force Labour to Rethink Private School VAT Plan

Private Schools Struggle as Labour’s VAT Policy Triggers Closures

Looming Crisis: Private Schools Face Closures Amid VAT Hike 

Top Oxfordshire Prep School to Close Amid Controversial VAT Policy on Private Education

England’s Special Educational Needs Crisis: A System in Desperate Need of Reform

Legal Challenge Against Private School VAT Policy Deems It Discriminatory

 

 

[JonnyF]

45 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Rachel Reeves proceeded with the controversial decision to impose VAT on private school fees despite internal warnings from civil servants that the policy would negatively impact poorer families, the High Court has heard.

 

So what?

 

Labour hasn't cared about the poor for decades. In fact, they despise them, they have disdain for them, especially if they are indigenous working class Brits.

 

They openly mock them.

 

 

 

 

 

[Homburg]

So not quite Robin Hood then? 

 

Robbin Reeves, takes from the poor, gives to the rich, what a witch.....

[Surasak]

I labelled her 'Rachel Thieves' from the very beginning, which has proved correct in everything she has done so far.

[Surasak]

I am hoping the Judges find in favour for the schools and parents. I may then lead to other court cases against the brainless idiot we have as chancellor.

[Thingamabob]

Reeves is a Marxist, along with comrade Starmer, indulging in a class war. Starmer will, however, not hesitate to ditch her at an opportune moment.

[Purdey]

Actually, I think it would be a good idea to tax churches and other places of worship to help fund education. There is no benefit for children at churches, as priests have shown. I don't understand why priests need laptops if they only use them to watch porn.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

So what?

 

Labour hasn't cared about the poor for decades. In fact, they despise them, they have disdain for them, especially if they are indigenous working class Brits.

 

They openly mock them.

 

 

 

 

 

And yet Labour have raised the minimum wage, increased payments of pension credits by 42500.

 

Labour’s ’Employment Rights Bill’ is currently being passed, against Tory opposition, and will improve the workplace rights of millions of workers.

 

Labour’s ’Renters Rights Bill’ also currently in process, also opposed by the Tories, also improving the rights and security of millions of renters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/31/senior-tories-and-big-landlords-discuss-ways-to-thwart-renters-rights-bill

 

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-02-03/debates/3E505AF4-C28C-482B-9288-B08EBF444BD8/PensionCreditTake-Up

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet Labour have raised the minimum wage, increased payments of pension credits by 42500.

 

Labour’s ’Employment Rights Bill’ is currently being passed, against Tory opposition, and will improve the workplace rights of millions of workers.

 

Labour’s ’Renters Rights Bill’ also currently in process, also opposed by the Tories, also improving the rights and security of millions of renters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/31/senior-tories-and-big-landlords-discuss-ways-to-thwart-renters-rights-bill

 

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-02-03/debates/3E505AF4-C28C-482B-9288-B08EBF444BD8/PensionCreditTake-Up

 

 

How many old people will Labours policies kill again because of the cold? By their own figures that is, the figures they already knew about?

[SunnyinBangrak]

Dont know why they dont just ban white cisgender people with jobs from residing in the UK. Get Labors utopia now rather than waiting another decade.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Dont know why they dont just ban white cisgender people with jobs from residing in the UK. Get Labors utopia now rather than waiting another decade.

Because that’s all the ramblings of your own mind, it has no basis in reality or the fact based universe.

 

[James105]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet Labour have raised the minimum wage, increased payments of pension credits by 42500.

 

Labour’s ’Employment Rights Bill’ is currently being passed, against Tory opposition, and will improve the workplace rights of millions of workers.

 

Labour’s ’Renters Rights Bill’ also currently in process, also opposed by the Tories, also improving the rights and security of millions of renters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/31/senior-tories-and-big-landlords-discuss-ways-to-thwart-renters-rights-bill

 

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-02-03/debates/3E505AF4-C28C-482B-9288-B08EBF444BD8/PensionCreditTake-Up

 

 

 

Yes the geniuses in Labour raised the minimum wage at the same time as hitting businesses with higher NICs and a lower threshold.  The clueless morons didn't even stop to think why there was a difference in minimum wage between an 18 year old and a 21 year old either.  No doubt you didn't either.   

 

They are clueless idiots that are going to preside over reduced employment which means higher benefits payouts and less tax receipts despite higher taxes.   

[Tiger1980]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet Labour have raised the minimum wage, increased payments of pension credits by 42500.

 

Labour’s ’Employment Rights Bill’ is currently being passed, against Tory opposition, and will improve the workplace rights of millions of workers.

 

Labour’s ’Renters Rights Bill’ also currently in process, also opposed by the Tories, also improving the rights and security of millions of renters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/31/senior-tories-and-big-landlords-discuss-ways-to-thwart-renters-rights-bill

 

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-02-03/debates/3E505AF4-C28C-482B-9288-B08EBF444BD8/PensionCreditTake-Up

 

 

I take it your not British otherwise you would not talk such utter ignorance.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet Labour have raised the minimum wage, increased payments of pension credits by 42500.

 

Labour’s ’Employment Rights Bill’ is currently being passed, against Tory opposition, and will improve the workplace rights of millions of workers.

 

Labour’s ’Renters Rights Bill’ also currently in process, also opposed by the Tories, also improving the rights and security of millions of renters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/31/senior-tories-and-big-landlords-discuss-ways-to-thwart-renters-rights-bill

 

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-02-03/debates/3E505AF4-C28C-482B-9288-B08EBF444BD8/PensionCreditTake-Up

 

 

 

You're just regurgitating The Guardian's newsletter again. 

 

I'm on there as well Chomps. For lolz. You are a professional reposter.

 

What you (or more accurately The Guardian) fail to acknowledge is the freezing of poor pensioners, the disruption to children's education, the disabled losing their benefits and the farmers being forced to sell their land to the state. Not to mention everyone feels poorer. 

 

Labour detest the white British working class. That's why Starmer wants the "documentary" Adolescence shown in schools because it portrays them so badly and attempts to blame them for the black on black knife crime epidemic.

 

That's also why Thornberry mocked the white working class on the tweet I showed.

 

Your white guilt and self loathing forces you to acquiesce. You have my sympathy. Self hatred must be awful. 

 

 

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, Tiger1980 said:

I take it your not British otherwise you would not talk such utter ignorance.

It depends on the day.

 

Sometimes this poster is a father of 4. Sometimes a semi professional female Cyclist in San Francisco.

 

Sometimes American sometimes British.

 

They forget their identity as easily as they forget what username they are posting under.

 

One thing is considtent. They always regurgitate The Guardian newsletter. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tiger1980 said:

I take it your not British otherwise you would not talk such utter ignorance.

Feel free to dispute the facts I’ve presented with links to back them up.

 

You of course will need links of your own to do so.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

It depends on the day.

 

Sometimes this poster is a father of 4. Sometimes a semi professional female Cyclist in San Francisco.

 

Sometimes American sometimes British.

 

They forget their identity as easily as they forget what username they are posting under.

 

One thing is considtent. They always regurgitate The Guardian newsletter. 

 

 

I’ve never once stated how many children I have, nor stated my nationality.

 

Your gender issues are all in your own head.

I have one username. If you have evidence to the contrary present it to the moderators.

 

I would thank you for your attention to my personal information, although mostly imaginary on your part, but I don’t think any of your fixations are entirely healthy; afterall  this isn’t a dating site and I don’t feel it appropriate to encourage you.