Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
JustinP1 said:
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?".
In my best BV impression, what the juddery fIN 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
k are you on about? The kind of term in question is perfectly normal and not onerous or otherwise requiring of special efforts to bring it to the parent's attention. Can anyone really say that they wouldnt expect the school to protect itself against cancellations and empty classrooms? It is obvious that a notice term of this kind would be required, and if asked to get the period, I expect most people would say "A term?".ORD said:
In my best BV impression, what the juddery fk are you on about?
OK, I'll make it very clear:k are you on about? Considering £3000 is at stake, so the parent can make an informed decision, I believe that the exact cost of that default, and the date on which that default will take place should be prominent on the actual piece of paper which is signed.
Would you agree?
JustinP1 said:
ORD said:
In my best BV impression, what the juddery fk are you on about?
OK, I'll make it very clear:k are you on about? Considering £3000 is at stake, so the parent can make an informed decision, I believe that the exact cost of that default, and the date on which that default will take place should be prominent on the actual piece of paper which is signed.
Would you agree?
(And I dont actually feel sorry for the OP anyway, as he played a game and got his fingers burned.)
It can invalidate the term. There's case law about how prominent onerous terms must be. There's also statute to protect consumers.
Hence, why it is impossible to state that the OP should legally 'pay up' until the whole contractual process including the documents has been considered.
The OP has got the wrong idea somehow. It's either totally his fault, it might not be. From what the OP has said, the £750 deposit has muddied the waters.
There then leaves the question, in true BVish, that if I'm a 'well meaning amateur', and I can come up with a clear and concise term, one would expect a professional organisation with professionally drafted terms to be as clear, no?
Hence, why it is impossible to state that the OP should legally 'pay up' until the whole contractual process including the documents has been considered.
The OP has got the wrong idea somehow. It's either totally his fault, it might not be. From what the OP has said, the £750 deposit has muddied the waters.
There then leaves the question, in true BVish, that if I'm a 'well meaning amateur', and I can come up with a clear and concise term, one would expect a professional organisation with professionally drafted terms to be as clear, no?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 23 September 19:38
JustinP1 said:
It can invalidate the term. There's case law about how prominent onerous terms must be. There's also statute to protect consumers.
Hence, why it is impossible to state that the OP should legally 'pay up' until the whole contractual process including the documents has been considered.
The OP has got the wrong idea somehow. It's either totally his fault, it might not be. From what the OP has said, the £750 deposit has muddied the waters.
There then leaves the question, in true BVish, that if I'm a 'well meaning amateur', and I can come up with a clear and concise term, one would expect a professional organisation with professionally drafted terms to be as clear, no?
You really are reading far too much into it. Hence, why it is impossible to state that the OP should legally 'pay up' until the whole contractual process including the documents has been considered.
The OP has got the wrong idea somehow. It's either totally his fault, it might not be. From what the OP has said, the £750 deposit has muddied the waters.
There then leaves the question, in true BVish, that if I'm a 'well meaning amateur', and I can come up with a clear and concise term, one would expect a professional organisation with professionally drafted terms to be as clear, no?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 23 September 19:38
The OP has said he expected and was prepared to loose his deposit should a state place come up. That is undisputable.
There is a very clear reason the OP has got the wrong idea, and he's admitted to the reason, he clearly states that he didn't read the terms and conditions of the contract he was entering into.
eccles, I agree with what you say there - although the OP didn't say he 'didn't read' the T&Cs, he said they were long, and he missed the terms regarding default.
Can you see where I'm coming from here though?
£3000 might be fair to the school, but it's pretty onerous to a consumer to get nothing in return when he has to pay for a breach of contract.
1) Seeing as the school knows that new parents may very well be applying for other schools, would it be a fair business practice if they set the default date 4 months in advance and before the parent can choose between other state schools?
2) If it's not the £750 deposit paid that will be lost by default, and in fact £3000, is it fair that this exact figure is prominently displayed on the contract that is signed?
3) If there is a particular date on which £3000 is lost is it fair that this date is specifically stated and put prominently on the contract that is signed?
Can you see where I'm coming from here though?
£3000 might be fair to the school, but it's pretty onerous to a consumer to get nothing in return when he has to pay for a breach of contract.
1) Seeing as the school knows that new parents may very well be applying for other schools, would it be a fair business practice if they set the default date 4 months in advance and before the parent can choose between other state schools?
2) If it's not the £750 deposit paid that will be lost by default, and in fact £3000, is it fair that this exact figure is prominently displayed on the contract that is signed?
3) If there is a particular date on which £3000 is lost is it fair that this date is specifically stated and put prominently on the contract that is signed?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 23 September 21:54
JustinP1 said:
eccles, I agree with what you say there - although the OP didn't say he 'didn't read' the T&Cs, he said they were long, and he missed the terms regarding default.
Can you see where I'm coming from here though?
£3000 might be fair to the school, but it's pretty onerous to a consumer to get nothing in return when he has to pay for a breach of contract.
1) Seeing as the school knows that new parents may very well be applying for other schools, would it be a fair business practice if they set the default date 4 months in advance and before the parent can choose between other state schools?
2) If it's not the £750 deposit paid that will be lost by default, and in fact £3000, is it fair that this exact figure is prominently displayed on the contract that is signed?
3) If there is a particular date on which £3000 is lost is it fair that this date is specifically stated and put prominently on the contract that is signed?
It doesn't matter whether it's fair, the OP signed up for it.Can you see where I'm coming from here though?
£3000 might be fair to the school, but it's pretty onerous to a consumer to get nothing in return when he has to pay for a breach of contract.
1) Seeing as the school knows that new parents may very well be applying for other schools, would it be a fair business practice if they set the default date 4 months in advance and before the parent can choose between other state schools?
2) If it's not the £750 deposit paid that will be lost by default, and in fact £3000, is it fair that this exact figure is prominently displayed on the contract that is signed?
3) If there is a particular date on which £3000 is lost is it fair that this date is specifically stated and put prominently on the contract that is signed?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 23 September 21:54
If he'd read it and thought it unfair, he'd not have entered into a contract with them.
He signed that he agreed with the terms of the contract.
All the rest of it is just semantics.
eccles said:
It doesn't matter whether it's fair, the OP signed up for it.
eccles, have you heard of the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?Answering the three questions I put to you before will give you three good reasons why the notice term in the contract could be construed to be unfair.
And that's before you consider the 18% interest which if you read up about those laws you would find is certainly unfair and a penalty in the eyes of the OFT.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 01:02
JustinP1 said:
eccles said:
It doesn't matter whether it's fair, the OP signed up for it.
eccles, have you heard of the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?Answering the three questions I put to you before will give you three good reasons why the notice term in the contract could be construed to be unfair.
And that's before you consider the 18% interest which if you read up about those laws you would find is certainly unfair and a penalty in the eyes of the OFT.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 01:02
Also this 18% you keep on about has been mentioned a couple of times by BV72 that it's a bit on the high side, but within the boundaries that courts accept as reasonable.
eccles said:
Surely the time to decide whether or not terms are unfair is before you sign to say you accept them?
Also this 18% you keep on about has been mentioned a couple of times by BV72 that it's a bit on the high side, but within the boundaries that courts accept as reasonable.
Read above before you outright dismiss the point.Also this 18% you keep on about has been mentioned a couple of times by BV72 that it's a bit on the high side, but within the boundaries that courts accept as reasonable.
R2FU said:
Hi, hoping someone suitably qualified out there can guide me. To summarise a long story - when my daughter was starting school we applied for a place at our preferred local state school but weren't sure of being in the catchment area so as a fallback applied to the local private school. The private school offered my daughter a place which we accepted and paid a deposit, in full knowledge that if we got the place we wanted at the state school we'd lose the deposit we'd paid with the private school. No argument with that, that was the price of hedging our bets. Bottom line, we got a place at the state school and I wrote off the deposit with the private school. All good.
Except it wasn't! In accepting the place at the private school 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. So they are now coming after me for the balance of a term's fees, plus interest at 1.5% per month. Which is what is stated in their Ts & Cs that without really paying proper attention I signed up to up-front.
I fully accept I'm not squeaky clean here - I did miss the date they had set and they tell me the place did not subsequently get filled that term (no reason to think they'd go to the trouble of lying about that). So I'm prepared to come to some arrangement.
But my questions are these:
Is it correct that regardless of what of what their terms and conditions say, they are only entitled to seek to recover actual costs they've incurred?
If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty, which I'm told they are not legally entitled to do?
As it stands I have been served with a claim by the school's solicitors and things are currently on track to go to small claims court unless I work something out.
Basically, I'm not blameless here, and as you can hopefully see I am looking to reach some compromise (even if it is just them waiving the several hundred pounds of interest they're claiming) and am trying to find an angle to come from.
Thanks in advance for any help or guidance anyone can offer as to how I can approach this.
First World problems thread?Except it wasn't! In accepting the place at the private school 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. So they are now coming after me for the balance of a term's fees, plus interest at 1.5% per month. Which is what is stated in their Ts & Cs that without really paying proper attention I signed up to up-front.
I fully accept I'm not squeaky clean here - I did miss the date they had set and they tell me the place did not subsequently get filled that term (no reason to think they'd go to the trouble of lying about that). So I'm prepared to come to some arrangement.
But my questions are these:
Is it correct that regardless of what of what their terms and conditions say, they are only entitled to seek to recover actual costs they've incurred?
If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty, which I'm told they are not legally entitled to do?
As it stands I have been served with a claim by the school's solicitors and things are currently on track to go to small claims court unless I work something out.
Basically, I'm not blameless here, and as you can hopefully see I am looking to reach some compromise (even if it is just them waiving the several hundred pounds of interest they're claiming) and am trying to find an angle to come from.
Thanks in advance for any help or guidance anyone can offer as to how I can approach this.
JustinP1 said:
eccles said:
It doesn't matter whether it's fair, the OP signed up for it.
eccles, have you heard of the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?Answering the three questions I put to you before will give you three good reasons why the notice term in the contract could be construed to be unfair.
And that's before you consider the 18% interest which if you read up about those laws you would find is certainly unfair and a penalty in the eyes of the OFT.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 01:02
I am starting to see why BV gets bored and frustrated trying to guide your amateur's zeal a bit. You genuinely seem to think that you can work out answers by having a little think about what you consider would be fair or sensible. Lawyers tend prefer to rely on decades of case-law
ORD said:
You don't understand the concept of fairness as used in contract law. It's not some unguided, top down, gut feel kind of thing. English law is a bit more sophisticated than that. The OP is complaining about a perfectly vanilla and unsurprising notice term. Plenty of contractual dates are specified by reference to things other than calendar days. If he goes to a competent lawyer for actual advice, I expect he will be told the same.
I am starting to see why BV gets bored and frustrated trying to guide your amateur's zeal a bit. You genuinely seem to think that you can work out answers by having a little think about what you consider would be fair or sensible. Lawyers tend prefer to rely on decades of case-law
Yeah, but it seams at the time missing the point of trying to find the best outcome for another forum member. Without a doubt something is due... Care to give any advice regarding how to fairly limit the damage?I am starting to see why BV gets bored and frustrated trying to guide your amateur's zeal a bit. You genuinely seem to think that you can work out answers by having a little think about what you consider would be fair or sensible. Lawyers tend prefer to rely on decades of case-law
JustinP1 said:
£3000 might be fair to the school, but it's pretty onerous to a consumer to get nothing in return when he has to pay for a breach of contract.
He isn't getting nothing, he's paying for the insurance of a guaranteed place at the private school if his state options don't pan out how he would like. Whether £3k is fair compensation for a breach that will probably cost the school £9k (one year fees?) is another question.IANAL so I'm not commenting on whether the terms in the contract are legal but it doesn't strike me as unfair or unsurprising that such terms would be in the contract and available to the OP to read.
Black_S3 said:
Yeah, but it seams at the time missing the point of trying to find the best outcome for another forum member. Without a doubt something is due... Care to give any advice regarding how to fairly limit the damage?
Negotiate, or pay now before the interest stacks up higher?JustinP1 said:
OK, I'll make it very clear:
Considering £3000 is at stake, so the parent can make an informed decision, I believe that the exact cost of that default, and the date on which that default will take place should be prominent on the actual piece of paper which is signed.
Would you agree?
100% disagree.Considering £3000 is at stake, so the parent can make an informed decision, I believe that the exact cost of that default, and the date on which that default will take place should be prominent on the actual piece of paper which is signed.
Would you agree?
The exact cost is explicit, if not prominent. That's fine, IMHO.
But remember this is a STANDARD contract. The school doesn't get in lawyers for each time a parent signs their kid up.
So it needs to be generic enough to be used multiple times - maybe revised once every couple of years.
Therefore it would be absurd to have the explicit, one-off, "1st April 2016" somewhere in there.
"A term's notice" is completely standard and perfectly acceptable, since it lets the contract be used multiple times.
I also strongly doubt they would set it up to be impossible to cancel without penalty.
You usually find out about September school places in Jan/Feb - maybe April at the latest. Plenty of time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff