Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Perhaps BV could pro bono the contract so we can all put this to bed? 
Prima facie the OP doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on, but who knows whether term could be deemed to be contra proferentem.
Note: Some/all of the above is jibberish IANAL.
The above all said and done the OP could throw money at getting an assessment of his chances, and on the balance of probabilities still end up having to pay out what was asked for originally - plus legal fees - so would almost certainly have been best advised to swallow his pride, pay what was asked at the outset and accept that signed contracts aren't to be trifled with.
Prima facie the OP doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on, but who knows whether term could be deemed to be contra proferentem.
Note: Some/all of the above is jibberish IANAL.
walm said:
The OP has seen the contract.
And he said, " I didn't pay enough attention to the many pages of detailed terms and conditions and missed letting them know in the required timescales (one term's notice) that my daughter wouldn't be attending."
Seems pretty black and white doesn't it?
Strictly speaking, no. BV72 is most likely right, the contract is very likely to be watertight, but not having read it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have ambiguities that could be exploited. IANAL though, and it appears the school had already made quite a concession on what they were prepared to accept that compared to litigation costs would've been a no-brainer. *shrug*And he said, " I didn't pay enough attention to the many pages of detailed terms and conditions and missed letting them know in the required timescales (one term's notice) that my daughter wouldn't be attending."
Seems pretty black and white doesn't it?
The above all said and done the OP could throw money at getting an assessment of his chances, and on the balance of probabilities still end up having to pay out what was asked for originally - plus legal fees - so would almost certainly have been best advised to swallow his pride, pay what was asked at the outset and accept that signed contracts aren't to be trifled with.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 21st September 11:50
Breadvan72 said:
Justin makes the keen amateur's error of assuming that his cases are a guide to anything other than their own facts. There is nothing in the information provided by the OP to suggest that the contract is ambiguous. A term's notice means a term's notice. These are ordinary words, not technical terms.
As an aside, when I was Governor of a school a few years back, the school decided to designate each half term as a full term (thus we had 6 terms a year). One unexpected consequence was that parents now thought they only needed to give a new term's notice. Not the intention of the school, but when it happened we were bang to rights and didn't protest. The rules then got re-written to put matters back where they belonged.Truffles said:
As an aside, when I was Governor of a school a few years back, the school decided to designate each half term as a full term (thus we had 6 terms a year). One unexpected consequence was that parents now thought they only needed to give a new term's notice. Not the intention of the school, but when it happened we were bang to rights and didn't protest. The rules then got re-written to put matters back where they belonged.
That would be a fun one to argue. My guess is that the notice term may have meant different things in different parent's contracts (depending on the matrix of fact for each contract). But I imagine most people would find that counter-intuitive and unattractive, including s few grumpy judges.The one above re signing s contract containing a notice term that cannot be complied with at the time of signature...hmmmm.... Might get an implied term in those circumstances but the answer is probably 'It depends'. My instinct is that it would usually be tough luck for the party that cannot give valid notice, as the purpose of the notice term is to protect the other party and he is not to blame for the Johnny Come Lately parent's decision to sign up late in the day. But I haven't looked it up or even engaged more than 1/2 of my brain.
What do you think, BV? Come across anything like that?
I don't understand this point about not being able to comply with the notice period at the point of signing.
Of course the OP could have given a term's notice in line with the contract he just signed. What he chose to do was pay a term's fees in lieu of notice, which amounts to the same thing.
Of course the OP could have given a term's notice in line with the contract he just signed. What he chose to do was pay a term's fees in lieu of notice, which amounts to the same thing.
Zigster said:
I don't understand this point about not being able to comply with the notice period at the point of signing.
Of course the OP could have given a term's notice in line with the contract he just signed. What he chose to do was pay a term's fees in lieu of notice, which amounts to the same thing.
ORD brings up an interesting point, but an academic one as it depends on the facts of the matter. I guess his point is there is a clause that the parent cannot comply with.Of course the OP could have given a term's notice in line with the contract he just signed. What he chose to do was pay a term's fees in lieu of notice, which amounts to the same thing.
My guess is the wording would usually be such where the clause covers the fact that they are unlikely to refill the spot after a certain date, and therefore encounter a loss due to breach of contract. If the contract is signed late, it does not change the estimate of loss for the school. That's hypothetical though.
The more major issue from reading the OP is that he did not 'choose' as such to give late notice, he gave notice, but not as per the contract.
He may have missed something blindingly obvious. However, equally it might not have been brought to his attention well enough considering that he is contractually obliged to pay £3000 as damages for not fulfilling an obligation.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 22 September 13:14
We actually went through something similar - my youngest was at the nursery of a private school near us and we had expected him to carry on through to the reception class.
For various reasons, during the summer holidays we applied to a different school for him and then gave notice to the current school. We knew we had to give a term's notice but looked at the contact to confirm the details. The contract seemed pretty clear cut - the only possible quibble was on what might be meant by a term's notice might have been if we had given notice part way through a term. In that case, it seemed that we would probably have to pay a term's fees - private school fees are, in my experience, defined as £X per term. Terms are also clearly defined (with posho private school terms: Michaelmas, Lent and Trinity for example.
I don't have the contract to hand but I would guess that private schools have pretty similar wording which has been refined over the years to be as clear as possible.
The bit I still don't get is why it wouldn't be possible to provide a term's notice. If you give notice during the summer holidays then the next term is Michaelmas and that's the term you have to pay for (whether or not you attend) regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
IANAL but my wife is a general commercial litigator so knows her way around contracts
For various reasons, during the summer holidays we applied to a different school for him and then gave notice to the current school. We knew we had to give a term's notice but looked at the contact to confirm the details. The contract seemed pretty clear cut - the only possible quibble was on what might be meant by a term's notice might have been if we had given notice part way through a term. In that case, it seemed that we would probably have to pay a term's fees - private school fees are, in my experience, defined as £X per term. Terms are also clearly defined (with posho private school terms: Michaelmas, Lent and Trinity for example.
I don't have the contract to hand but I would guess that private schools have pretty similar wording which has been refined over the years to be as clear as possible.
The bit I still don't get is why it wouldn't be possible to provide a term's notice. If you give notice during the summer holidays then the next term is Michaelmas and that's the term you have to pay for (whether or not you attend) regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
IANAL but my wife is a general commercial litigator so knows her way around contracts
Zigster said:
I don't have the contract to hand but I would guess that private schools have pretty similar wording which has been refined over the years to be as clear as possible.
The bit I still don't get is why it wouldn't be possible to provide a term's notice.
This is why you have to see the contract:The bit I still don't get is why it wouldn't be possible to provide a term's notice.
As I mentioned in page 1, the private school contract I saw a few years ago stipulated 'a term's notice' with absolutely no definition or other explanation or date. My Mum thought that 8+ weeks was enough considering the next term was 8 weeks of school.
Sometimes your personal situation changes, like you move house for example as my Mum did.
Exactly.
Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
I agree that the contract would need to be seen to be more certain but, in the absence of that, the only odd bit of this thread is that the OP signed a contract for significant sums of money without reading the contract first.
Same with my job. I have a six month notice period. If my employer wants me to stop working for it, it has to give me sixth months' notice of that. Alternatively, and as would be more likely to happen in practice, it would give me the sum of money represented by that six months' notice and not require me to come to the office every day.
Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
I agree that the contract would need to be seen to be more certain but, in the absence of that, the only odd bit of this thread is that the OP signed a contract for significant sums of money without reading the contract first.
Same with my job. I have a six month notice period. If my employer wants me to stop working for it, it has to give me sixth months' notice of that. Alternatively, and as would be more likely to happen in practice, it would give me the sum of money represented by that six months' notice and not require me to come to the office every day.
Zigster said:
Exactly.
Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
Oh - hold on - I see what you are implying now:Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
That even *if* you give a full term's notice, that you have to pay anyway?
JustinP1 said:
Zigster said:
Exactly.
Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
Oh - hold on - I see what you are implying now:Private school fees are defined in terms. If the fees are, say, £3,000 per term and the contract requires a term's notice then you have to pay the £3,000 fees for that term regardless of whether or not your child attends the school for that term.
That even *if* you give a full term's notice, that you have to pay anyway?
If, say, you gave notice during the Easter holidays that you wished your child to leave the school at the end of the summer term, you would have to pay for the summer term. You would not pay for the autumn term when your child was no longer attending the school.
If you gave notice in the summer holidays that your child would not be returning to the school after the summer holidays, you would still have to pay for the autumn term even though your child is no longer attending the school.
Private schools don't mess about with this sort of stuff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews...
JustinP1 said:
Zigster said:
I thought the figure in question was £3k plus interest at 1.5% pm? Where does £7k and £19k come from? (I admit I might have lost it in the 7 pages of this thread so far.)
Your link! I read that article a few days ago - forgot about the numbers in it. I agree - that's a lot of interest and costs, assuming it wasn't journalistic exaggeration.eccles said:
JustinP1 said:
The more major issue from reading the OP is that he did not 'choose' as such to give late notice, he gave notice, but not as per the contract.
He 'chose' not to read the contract. JustinP1 said:
He may have missed something blindingly obvious. However, equally it might not have been brought to his attention well enough considering that he is contractually obliged to pay £3000 as damages for not fulfilling an obligation.
It may very well be that somewhere the school have a piece of paper with the OP's signature, and above it it has in capital letters:IN SIGNING THIS FORM YOU AGREE THAT SHOULD YOU NOT CANCEL YOUR CHILD"S PLACE BY APRIL 7TH 2015 THAT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR £750 DEPOSIT AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR THE FIRST TERM'S FEES OF £3000.
In which case, he'd be quite negligent. But, from what the OP had said regarding being willing to lose £750 that things were not as clear. As jasandjules has also pointed out, the date that the OP may have been liable to escape paying the fees might have been *after* the LEAs give their decision about state schools.
I'd suggest that if that date was on the form he signed, he would have had the knowledge that he'd be stung for £3000 either way - even if he didn't need the place.
He may be 'bang to rights', and there may be a term like I capitalised above. However, if there isn't - one might ask "Why not?".
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 23 September 18:10
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff