In the interest of transparency and open communication, we formally request that any discussion beyond the scope of our complaint be held in an open forum where all voices can be heard equally.

We represent not only a small group of parents who signed a complaint, but a significant number of parents who share these concerns. Therefore, we are not the appropriate party to answer questions or justify our position. When citizens collectively submit a complaint about institutional wrongdoing, the burden of response lies with those complained about, not those complaining. However, to prevent any redirection of attention from the concerns raised, who are yet to receive answers, we list our opinions on several other points raised by current committee members and several other pro-dissolution parents. Please answer the concerns in our letter and any other issue should be discussed in the open forum.

Was the PTA subject to any legal action?

No. Following months of requests for reasonable adjustments at PTA events, one parent of a child with significant additional needs wrote formally to the PTA advising that, in continuing to decline any adjustments, it may be in breach of the Equality Act 2010, and that a legal complaint would follow if engagement remained refused. This was a letter from a parent, not a solicitor. No legal complaint was ever filed. The PTA responded, acknowledged the concerns, and agreed that more could be done. The parent was satisfied, and the matter was closed.

The only legal action was against the school in relation to the curriculum and teaching, which does not involve any financial matters. But this does not involve the PTA at all and started much before the email about the EGM, where dissolution would be voted on. 

However, in the few weeks before the EGM, it became clear that parents were being given inaccurate information about the SEND requests and a court case against the PTA (which didn't exist), and that was provided as the justification for the PTA dissolution process in private chats (public messages questioning the actual justifications for dissolution were deleted in parent groups). Only after learning about the spread of this false information, a solicitor reached out to the PTA and requested a correction at the EGM so that parents could learn that there is no court case against the PTA and vote accordingly. The correction was not made despite the solicitor's letter. 

Did parents of SEND children make the PTA unsustainable?

No. The adjustments requested were modest, largely cost-free, and did not require additional volunteers. By way of example: the only request made in relation to the Casino event was that numbers in the bingo room be capped. No additional resource was required, only a willingness to act. This was largely the nature of every request made: not comprehensive adjustments, but simple, proportionate measures to enable disabled children to participate alongside their peers.

The Equality Act 2010 defines a reasonable adjustment as one that is achievable and proportionate to the size, budget, and capacity of the organising body. Nothing requested came close to making any event unworkable. The consistent response of "why don't you volunteer yourself?" was therefore not an answer; it addressed a burden that was never being placed. What these parents asked for, above all, was to be heard. To have a conversation about what might be possible. The response to that request is part of what this complaint addresses.

Why don't you use your energy for something better?

While what is "better" and "positive" is a subjective issue, the only sustainable path to something better in a school governance is to build strong institutions by correcting wrongdoing. Accountability is not optional in democratic governance, it is the mechanism by which transparent and fair processes become institutional culture rather than aspirational language. Without it, there is no guarantee that a future committee will not repeat the same conducts such as deleting members' messages, failing to declare conflicts of interest, transferring assets without full committee approval, or recording inconsistent information on formal charity registers. No governance body can reach its full potential and good governance without transparency and accountability. 

Why didn't you volunteer before?

No parent is required to demonstrate a record of voluntary service in order to exercise their democratic right to raise concerns about transparency and fair process. The two are entirely unrelated.

More critically, while the publicly stated reason for dissolution has been a lack of volunteers, a number of parents have separately reported being told in private is that the PTA needed to dissolve because "the PTA was subject to legal action." This is factually inaccurate, as addressed below. The deletion of WhatsApp messages and the suppression of public discussion are directly relevant here, private misinformation cannot be challenged or corrected if open discussion is prevented. Since this information was given in private and we can't document evidence, we didn't include these private parent statements in our letters. 

Furthermore, if the genuine motivation for dissolution was a lack of volunteers, the appropriate course was simple: Make an open statement: "Unless sufficient new people come forward to form a functioning committee, we will put dissolution to a vote, and here is what governance of school fundraising will look like thereafter." That statement was never made. Instead, members' messages asking about the reasons for dissolution, or canvassing interest in forming a new committee, were deleted. Had open discussion been permitted, a new committee may well have come forward and rendered dissolution unnecessary. Given the current number of parents who express their interest in forming a committee to sustain the PTA, we are sure that dissolution is not necessary. This question, therefore, is unfounded.