Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Those above who say I am wrong, can they please explain how? I advised the OP to try and knock something off the claim in a settlement.
In fairness BV your first post said "pay up".It was only a while later (after handbags with Justin) that you suggested the OP try to knock something off the school's demand.
Cheers walm, you've saved me posting the obvious.
This thread would have been much less personal and a lot more productive if it had not changed at a key moment. At the moment BV turned on me on page 2, he could have instead said:
I don't know why BV saw (and sees) it as such a desperate and personal struggle against me personally (although Jason and the OP have been insulted too) but I think that's completely unnecessary and uncalled for. There's many times I could have retorted with something equally as personal and probably much more effective in the search of winning a point but that's not a level I wish to lower myself to nor a game I want to play. I came here to help the OP, not get internet 'wins'.
A number of posters on here have come back and gone 'well done' or 'that's not what I expected' despite their views to the contrary at the start, and respect should go to them for that, as it takes a big person to say so when they could easy simply lay silent.
I think BV loves/hates me deep down, but certainly doesn't, under any circumstances, want to concede any point (however obvious) which would lead towards admitting that actually, what I said on the first few pages was right.
And this is all forgetting of course that it was indeed Jason, a fully qualified and practising lawyer who was also instrumental in helping the OP - who also from the start made the same assertions about reading the contract and getting the facts.
This thread would have been much less personal and a lot more productive if it had not changed at a key moment. At the moment BV turned on me on page 2, he could have instead said:
Breadvan72 out of the other side of the bed said:
"It is of course right in that if you want the correct view whether you should pay the claim, you must understand what the claim is for, and read the contract. In my view though, 'a term's notice' has been upheld previously, but each case comes down to the facts."
Instead of doing that, I was made a personal target for belittling instead of highlighting the obvious sense in what I said. A poster previously hit the nail on the head that the thread since then was a dogmatic struggle to prove that the thoughts of 'pay up' were indeed correct all along. I don't know why BV saw (and sees) it as such a desperate and personal struggle against me personally (although Jason and the OP have been insulted too) but I think that's completely unnecessary and uncalled for. There's many times I could have retorted with something equally as personal and probably much more effective in the search of winning a point but that's not a level I wish to lower myself to nor a game I want to play. I came here to help the OP, not get internet 'wins'.
A number of posters on here have come back and gone 'well done' or 'that's not what I expected' despite their views to the contrary at the start, and respect should go to them for that, as it takes a big person to say so when they could easy simply lay silent.
I think BV loves/hates me deep down, but certainly doesn't, under any circumstances, want to concede any point (however obvious) which would lead towards admitting that actually, what I said on the first few pages was right.
And this is all forgetting of course that it was indeed Jason, a fully qualified and practising lawyer who was also instrumental in helping the OP - who also from the start made the same assertions about reading the contract and getting the facts.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 14th October 12:59
Breadvan72 said:
Football is a competition. Each side has the same number of players. The goal is the same size at each end. The playing field is level. Does fairness of opportunity mean nothing to you?
At present, the football team that is my daughter can be Chelsea, and the football team that is the kid from the council flats down the road can be Wisbech FC. That is because I can buy the best players and a good coach. The parents of council house kid cannot. This is not necessarily because those parents are less interested in their child's education than I am in my child's education.
Parental commitment is vital, and many do lack that commitment, but resources also matter - look at the facilities that even an average private school deploys, and compare those to the facilities at the average state school. Blair, for all his faults, improved education through applying resources to State schools - I saw this happen during the noughties as a school governor and through doing school visits to talk about careers. If we put everything down to parental commitment, how can we help the children unlucky enough to be born to feckless parents? It is not the fault of the child that the parents are layabouts. I have a colleague from a crappy council house background whose parents were hostile or at best indifferent to education. A good State school helped him to go to Cambridge and Harvard, get a first degree and then a Doctorate, and become a leading civil liberties lawyer, changing the world for the better, and paying buckletloads of tax.
I think you answer your own question. To give children the most equal opportunity to better themselves it isn't about the schools but the parents.At present, the football team that is my daughter can be Chelsea, and the football team that is the kid from the council flats down the road can be Wisbech FC. That is because I can buy the best players and a good coach. The parents of council house kid cannot. This is not necessarily because those parents are less interested in their child's education than I am in my child's education.
Parental commitment is vital, and many do lack that commitment, but resources also matter - look at the facilities that even an average private school deploys, and compare those to the facilities at the average state school. Blair, for all his faults, improved education through applying resources to State schools - I saw this happen during the noughties as a school governor and through doing school visits to talk about careers. If we put everything down to parental commitment, how can we help the children unlucky enough to be born to feckless parents? It is not the fault of the child that the parents are layabouts. I have a colleague from a crappy council house background whose parents were hostile or at best indifferent to education. A good State school helped him to go to Cambridge and Harvard, get a first degree and then a Doctorate, and become a leading civil liberties lawyer, changing the world for the better, and paying buckletloads of tax.
It's no coincidence that the State schools that do well do so because they have the support of parents who actually parent their children.
s
t schools are st because there are too many st parents dragging the school down. Whether that is some extremely expensive public schools which have become the dumping ground for unwanted offspring from disfunctional marriages, vulgar new money who think an illegal immigrant on minimum wage is an appropriate person to raise their children and take them too and from school why they go to the high street etc or whether it is a State school who's parents demand that their children be poisoned with chips and cola etc. The real problem is the meteoric rise of the incompetent parent. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the State system, children will lose their once in a lifetime opportunity in life if that school is overweight in s
t parents.Deal with the lack of parenting skills and dysfunctional families and the school disparity will resolve itself.
Hol said:
And football is not the best analogy these days.
About 7/8 years back the FA stopped any leagues for children under 9 from keeping official scores on any basis - as it was upsetting to the teams that lost and the decision was made to make the early years non competitive.
Yes even if no score is recorded the kids in the losing team still know they have lost.About 7/8 years back the FA stopped any leagues for children under 9 from keeping official scores on any basis - as it was upsetting to the teams that lost and the decision was made to make the early years non competitive.
Silly 'rule' IMO.
In my lads club its frowned upon by some (Committee members) if the score is mentioned in the match report, however most of the comments are from people asking what the score was.
Yes, stating the players are improving is all well and good but winning more games also proves that a team is improving.
Even U7s know that winning is better than losing but its the way you win and lose that's the most important thing.
GreatGranny said:
Yes even if no score is recorded the kids in the losing team still know they have lost.
Silly 'rule' IMO.
In my lads club its frowned upon by some (Committee members) if the score is mentioned in the match report, however most of the comments are from people asking what the score was.
Yes, stating the players are improving is all well and good but winning more games also proves that a team is improving.
Even U7s know that winning is better than losing but its the way you win and lose that's the most important thing.
Can't those offended 'look away now'? Silly 'rule' IMO.
In my lads club its frowned upon by some (Committee members) if the score is mentioned in the match report, however most of the comments are from people asking what the score was.
Yes, stating the players are improving is all well and good but winning more games also proves that a team is improving.
Even U7s know that winning is better than losing but its the way you win and lose that's the most important thing.
Isn't that how football has worked for decades?
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Education is a competition, the idea is to have more of it, and better quality, than others get. I don't think grammar schools are 'fair', but I am very glad that I went to one (a very good one).
Football is a competition. Each side has the same number of players. The goal is the same size at each end. The playing field is level. Does fairness of opportunity mean nothing to you?However, I got into the school in question by passing a competitive examination. There were plenty of boys there from working class backgrounds who had also passed.
Hol said:
Why do you feel the good state schools would cease to exist, if Grammars also exist.
There is no dictate that says the best teachers, or more money has to go to the grammar and not the 'comprehensive'.
Or have I misunderstood?
If that was directed at me, then you have indeed misunderstood. I have not suggested that there can be no good (non grammar) state schools if there are also grammar schools (by the way, grammar schools are state schools, but perhaps you meant "good state schools that are not grammar schools"). There are many good state schools, some of which are grammar schools and some of which are comprehensive schools, and some of the latter try hard to be real comprehensives, rather than the fakey type that I went to (that was a good school for me, although I disliked the place, but a bad school for kids dumped in the bottom sets). There is no dictate that says the best teachers, or more money has to go to the grammar and not the 'comprehensive'.
Or have I misunderstood?
My point is that a relatively wealthy nation like the UK should be able to offer consistently good state schools across the board, and parents should not have to undergo postcode lotteries (at present there are lots of good state schools but also quite a few and maybe lots of bad ones). Of course, much depends on the socio-economic conditions in the area where a school is located, but a properly resourced system might redress some of the inequalities that children are burdened with even before they start school, because of background, parental attitudes and so on.
The white flight of the middle classes to the private sector (a product of the 1980s and 1990s, when state schools were poorly resourced and often bad) perpetuates unhelpful social divisions. Grammar schools did foster social mobility, but that came at a price (secondary mods) that arguably need not have been paid. I am not, by the way, an egalitarian, although I believe strongly in equal opportunity. On the contrary, I believe in elitism based on merit. Well educated and economically, politically, scientifically or culturally productive elites drive help us drive forwards.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th October 20:06
RobinOakapple said:
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Education is a competition, the idea is to have more of it, and better quality, than others get. I don't think grammar schools are 'fair', but I am very glad that I went to one (a very good one).
I am sorry to be picky, but a good grammar school would have produced the following sentence: -Education is a competition. The idea is to have more of it, and of better quality, than others have. I don't think that grammar schools are "fair", but I am very glad that I went to one (a very good one).
walm said:
Breadvan72 said:
Those above who say I am wrong, can they please explain how? I advised the OP to try and knock something off the claim in a settlement.
In fairness BV your first post said "pay up".It was only a while later (after handbags with Justin) that you suggested the OP try to knock something off the school's demand.
This thread seems to have degenerated into a crusade of arrogance and self righteousness.
Perhaps its appropriate to emphasise "when in a hole, it might be a good idea to stop digging"
and "...empty vessels make most sound.."
There's little doubt that the theme of the OP's post has long since been lost.
Perhaps its appropriate to emphasise "when in a hole, it might be a good idea to stop digging"
and "...empty vessels make most sound.."
There's little doubt that the theme of the OP's post has long since been lost.
JustinP1 said:
...
I think BV loves/hates me deep down, but certainly doesn't, under any circumstances, want to concede any point (however obvious) which would lead towards admitting that actually, what I said on the first few pages was right.
And this is all forgetting of course that it was indeed Jason, a fully qualified and practising lawyer who was also instrumental in helping the OP - who also from the start made the same assertions about reading the contract and getting the facts.
I have no personal animus against you, Justin and you have made the classic internet error of mistaking an attack on your ideas as an attack on you. My point is that your posts sometimes exemplify Mr Pope's observation about the danger of a little learning. This is not because learning is only for the learned, or because professions are priesthoods, but because I think that, whilst having some good practical ideas and advice to offer, you also seem to have some silly ideas about how contracts work or don't work. I think BV loves/hates me deep down, but certainly doesn't, under any circumstances, want to concede any point (however obvious) which would lead towards admitting that actually, what I said on the first few pages was right.
And this is all forgetting of course that it was indeed Jason, a fully qualified and practising lawyer who was also instrumental in helping the OP - who also from the start made the same assertions about reading the contract and getting the facts.
I do not think that you were or are right about the contract (although it does not matter, save for the purpose of a purely academic debate whether or not you were or are). If you are right, you have failed to explain why you are right. You appear to me to have have taken a number of what appear to be confused (and possibly confusing) points about the contract, none of which address the rather simple issue that the claim was about. Anyway, let us agree to disagree. If you would like the internet to award you some sort of a prize, then by all means claim it, but I am not bothered by prizes (except the Mrs Joyful Prize for Rafia Work, obvs*)
* obvs is, I am told, modern netspeak for "as any fule kno".
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th October 10:44
If education is reduced to being purely a matter of parental support, then we condemn children to disavantage because of the accident of who their parents are. Banging on about feckless parents seems to me rather moralistic - people are poor and ignorant because they deserve to be poor and ignorant. I don't agree. I reiterate that I am not calling for all poppies to grow to the same height, but there is no reason not to do something to address the differences in the soil in which poppies grow.
Breadvan72 said:
Do please share with us what the defence was. I am genuinely curious to find out, but Justin hasn't thus far been able to explain the defence to me. Perhaps you are clued in, and could share the killer point with us.
Page 14, Tuesday 6th October. It was explained there.At the end of the day, Jason and I wrote the defence not to make you concede that 'pay up' was wrong, but to allow the OP to obtain the best settlement possible.
We very much succeeded in the latter, and I think pigs will fly before you admit the former.
The OP is £2200 better off. I don't feel bad that don't agree with me, or Jason.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 14th October 22:21
Breadvan72 said:
I do not think that you were or are right about the contract (although it does not matter, save for the purpose of a purely academic debate whether or not you were or are). If you are right, you have failed to explain why you Are right. You appear to me to have have taken a number of what appear to be confused (and possibly confusing) points about the contract, none of which address the rather simple issue that the claim was about.
BV, to hopefully get some catharsis from our loggerheads, I think you have misread me - both about my understanding of law, and on this matter.To suggest that my response to tangental points brought up by other posters means that my understanding of the important points is wrong has the same logic as suggesting that you believe that reading the claim and contract is unimportant in advising someone.
Lets move on...
You've made me out to be a 'gung ho' ranter about random points. But, to be entirely open, as Jason and the OP will confirm, my opinion was that whilst the defence was very decent, I advised that whilst £700 on the interest was likely to be won, going to a hearing on the other points was 50/50 and not a risk worth taking.
Our sole goal was convincing the other party that they should settle too. In that, we succeeded.
As a side note, because your comments about 'keeping to a promise' attacks the OP's morals, and also mine and Jason's in helping him, I say again that if the OP was knowingly 'breaking a promise' I wouldn't have helped him. The school entrapped the OP by burying important cancellation terms and he believed that his deposit of £750 would be lost if he defaulted. From first hand reading of the documents I can see how that happened.
Your current client also doesn't want to keep to their 'promise' of giving a term's notice to pull their child from school. They'd rather pay your rightly substantial fees than do so. I would suggest that what you are advising is pushing back a bit in order to get settlement?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 14th October 22:23
Breadvan72 said:
RobinOakapple said:
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Education is a competition, the idea is to have more of it, and better quality, than others get. I don't think grammar schools are 'fair', but I am very glad that I went to one (a very good one).
I am sorry to be picky, but a good grammar school would have produced the following sentence: -Education is a competition. The idea is to have more of it, and of better quality, than others have. I don't think that grammar schools are "fair", but I am very glad that I went to one (a very good one).
.RobinOakapple said:
I assumed you were using simple English words, and as such there is no misunderstanding. You were criticising another poster's grammar, and you made a mistake.
There was no grammatical error. The meaning of the sentence in question was and is clear. The usage is commonplace. See for example "Sandhurst produces army officers, Caltech produces scientists, and INSEAD produces useless MBA fkwits". You perhaps don't like the mode of expression, but there was no mistake. You usage of "as such" is grammatically incorrect, and very poor style, to boot. You should have written "so" or "therefore" in place of "as such". I would also insert "that" after "assumed", but that is a matter of style, not grammar.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff