Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
eccles said:
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 - he didn't say that at all. In fact, have a look back on the thread and see how many times the interest being a penalty was brought up, and see how many times Breadvan specifically ignored the issue.
His only comments were:
Breadvan72 said:
The rate is high, but lower than that accepted by courts in various contexts.
Well that makes it clear as mud for the OP in his situation... eh? What are 'various contexts', and how to they actually relate to this situation? Why not just answer straight? Not that he'd want to give an answer that might contradict 'pay up', of course.This is what the new Office of Fair Trading (Competition and Markets Authority) say in their guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts:
Competition and Markets Authority said:
Terms that permit excessive or disproportionally high penalties for breach of contract, are likely to be unfair and may also be unenforceable under general law. Consumers should not have to pay more compensation than is really needed to cover the damage they have caused.
A term imposing unreasonable interest rates on outstanding payments, for example, at a rate excessively above a bank’s base rate, is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty.
From here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...A term imposing unreasonable interest rates on outstanding payments, for example, at a rate excessively above a bank’s base rate, is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty.
"Clear as mud"?
Not at all.
A highly experienced barrister saying 1. pay up, and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable... put those two together and it's pretty crystal clear advice.
There is not one iota of what BV has written that isn't 100% obvious in what it means.
Justin - I honestly think that your original point that the OP should try to negotiate is a good one.
But slinging mud at BV isn't getting you anywhere.
The "one terms notice" is clear.
The interest is high but to challenge it clearly doesn't have a good expected return outcome (you would pay more in legal fees than you would save even if you won).
Isn't the best tactic here just to pull a mea culpa and appeal to their good nature?
Something along the lines of "I'll pay the fees, I'm really sorry, I still might send my kid here, let's part on good terms, can you waive the quite high interest?"
Not at all.
A highly experienced barrister saying 1. pay up, and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable... put those two together and it's pretty crystal clear advice.
There is not one iota of what BV has written that isn't 100% obvious in what it means.
Justin - I honestly think that your original point that the OP should try to negotiate is a good one.
But slinging mud at BV isn't getting you anywhere.
The "one terms notice" is clear.
The interest is high but to challenge it clearly doesn't have a good expected return outcome (you would pay more in legal fees than you would save even if you won).
Isn't the best tactic here just to pull a mea culpa and appeal to their good nature?
Something along the lines of "I'll pay the fees, I'm really sorry, I still might send my kid here, let's part on good terms, can you waive the quite high interest?"
walm said:
"Clear as mud"?
Not at all.
A highly experienced barrister saying 1. pay up, and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable... put those two together and it's pretty crystal clear advice.
There is not one iota of what BV has written that isn't 100% obvious in what it means.
Justin - I honestly think that your original point that the OP should try to negotiate is a good one.
But slinging mud at BV isn't getting you anywhere.
The "one terms notice" is clear.
The interest is high but to challenge it clearly doesn't have a good expected return outcome (you would pay more in legal fees than you would save even if you won).
Isn't the best tactic here just to pull a mea culpa and appeal to their good nature?
Something along the lines of "I'll pay the fees, I'm really sorry, I still might send my kid here, let's part on good terms, can you waive the quite high interest?"
walm - I'm not slinging mud. If I were a 'mud slinger', you would have seen some of the metric sNot at all.
A highly experienced barrister saying 1. pay up, and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable... put those two together and it's pretty crystal clear advice.
There is not one iota of what BV has written that isn't 100% obvious in what it means.
Justin - I honestly think that your original point that the OP should try to negotiate is a good one.
But slinging mud at BV isn't getting you anywhere.
The "one terms notice" is clear.
The interest is high but to challenge it clearly doesn't have a good expected return outcome (you would pay more in legal fees than you would save even if you won).
Isn't the best tactic here just to pull a mea culpa and appeal to their good nature?
Something along the lines of "I'll pay the fees, I'm really sorry, I still might send my kid here, let's part on good terms, can you waive the quite high interest?"
t-tonne dropped on me returned well before now. 
I don't even want to talk about Breadvan - however, what he said was specifically brought up - and I've quoted an alternative reference. You, not I, and not even Breadvan can give an objective opinion on how clear, fair, or enforceable the terms are without actually reading them.
With everything else you say I totally agree.
From the get-go, all I have tried to do in this thread is explain what happened to me, and hopefully give the OP some legal pointers he can go back to the school's solicitors to negotiate with - or, if he wishes, take to a solicitor and say do I have a case with X, Y and Z?
If he can avoid court, and not pay the interest - which very much seems a penalty - then he's probably got a good result.
Just to jump back in here 
As Justin pointed out, the only one that offered any actual advice, rather than just points that the OP may wish to bring up with someone who's advice he is actually paying for, was BV, and he was doing so from a position of ignorance in terms of not having read the contract, which made his flounce over "pub-lawyers" all the more amusing to me.
I respect BV's knowledge and experience, but in this case his reaction was totally unjustified, although I gather this was one in a long list of similar threads for him.
walm said:
A highly experienced barrister saying 1. pay up
Without having seen the contract...walm said:
and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable...
...under certain circumstances, which weren't elaborated upon and so no-one is any the wiser as to whether or not those circumstances apply here.As Justin pointed out, the only one that offered any actual advice, rather than just points that the OP may wish to bring up with someone who's advice he is actually paying for, was BV, and he was doing so from a position of ignorance in terms of not having read the contract, which made his flounce over "pub-lawyers" all the more amusing to me.
I respect BV's knowledge and experience, but in this case his reaction was totally unjustified, although I gather this was one in a long list of similar threads for him.
Centurion07 said:
Just to jump back in here
I disagree.walm said:
and more explicitly on the interest 2. it's high but acceptable...
...under certain circumstances, which weren't elaborated upon and so no-one is any the wiser as to whether or not those circumstances apply here.Of course the circumstances must apply here - otherwise BV (whose entire job is focused on choosing his words carefully) would NOT have brought it up.
He would have said "interest seems high in my experience, you might have some wiggle room".
But he didn't. He said "pay up" despite the high interest.
Look, at £3k (i.e. small claims level) - it is worth a pop.
You're not risking paying the other side's costs.
Make a WP offer for the £750 deposit. They'll then issue proceedings in the small claims track. At worse, you're in for the £3k + interest. A small claims court might not budge on the £3k but might on the excessive interest - given it isn't a B2B contract.
If the money is fk all to you in the general scheme - you pay it and move on.
You're not risking paying the other side's costs.
Make a WP offer for the £750 deposit. They'll then issue proceedings in the small claims track. At worse, you're in for the £3k + interest. A small claims court might not budge on the £3k but might on the excessive interest - given it isn't a B2B contract.
If the money is f
k all to you in the general scheme - you pay it and move on.walm said:
I disagree.
Of course the circumstances must apply here - otherwise BV (whose entire job is focused on choosing his words carefully) would NOT have brought it up.
He would have said "interest seems high in my experience, you might have some wiggle room".
But he didn't. He said "pay up" despite the high interest.
Then why not just say "interest rate perfectly acceptable by a court in this case"? Why introduce doubt about certain circumstances?Of course the circumstances must apply here - otherwise BV (whose entire job is focused on choosing his words carefully) would NOT have brought it up.
He would have said "interest seems high in my experience, you might have some wiggle room".
But he didn't. He said "pay up" despite the high interest.
The real issue though, is the fact he said "pay up", going on nothing more than the scant details provided in the OP.
If the interest rate is acceptable, and the term "a term's notice" has a fairly obvious meaning when used in a contract with a school, do those two points automatically mean the rest of the contract is watertight? Of course they don't, but BV was only interested in arguing those two points and when Justin offered his own experience of an almost identical situation, was promptly accused of being a "pub-lawyer/well-meaning amateur" and should be completely ignored because the great and all-knowing BV has spoken.
johnfm said:
Look, at £3k (i.e. small claims level) - it is worth a pop.
You're not risking paying the other side's costs.
Make a WP offer for the £750 deposit. They'll then issue proceedings in the small claims track. At worse, you're in for the £3k + interest. A small claims court might not budge on the £3k but might on the excessive interest - given it isn't a B2B contract.
If the money is fk all to you in the general scheme - you pay it and move on.
I totally agree - and my point from the start.You're not risking paying the other side's costs.
Make a WP offer for the £750 deposit. They'll then issue proceedings in the small claims track. At worse, you're in for the £3k + interest. A small claims court might not budge on the £3k but might on the excessive interest - given it isn't a B2B contract.
If the money is f
k all to you in the general scheme - you pay it and move on.If proceedings have already started then the OP loses nothing by going over the contract, telling the schools solicitors that "I'm going to turn up and battle you on points A, B and C", but, making a sensible offer.
The solicitors will know and advise that court at the lowest end of the scale can be a bit of a lottery.
Centurion07 said:
If the interest rate is acceptable, and the term "a term's notice" has a fairly obvious meaning when used in a contract with a school, do those two points automatically mean the rest of the contract is watertight? Of course they don't...
Go on... I would love to see what you can come up with that would make it leaky.Just a couple of sentences would do...
I'm not being facetious but if everybody agrees the notice period was fine and the interest rate was fine WHAT ON EARTH is left to argue about???!
Seriously!
The total sum? We've covered that too - it's totally standard to be a term of fees and the deposit.
I honestly just don't see any avenue to debate if the only two points that matter aren't in contention!!
Centurion07 said:
I have no idea, but then I'm not a lawyer.
Seriously though, without seeing the entire contract there could be anything in there and as Justin pointed out, he managed to win his very similar case...
Nothing EXTRA in the contract is going to somehow void the bits we agree on though - that's my point.Seriously though, without seeing the entire contract there could be anything in there and as Justin pointed out, he managed to win his very similar case...
I suppose there could be something in there saying "we waive the fee if the OP agrees to be tarred and feathered instead" or something, but giving the OP just a tiny bit of credit, don't you think he would have spotted that?
Justin really didn't win under similar circumstances here though.
He won on grounds of "nuisance".
He thinks he won because he proved the paperwork was "deficient" and that he knows consumer law better than some solicitors.
Do you not think that BV saying that "a term's notice" is fine means that Justin's "deficient" paperwork is total BS. The paperwork was fine, it was just that it wasn't worth them going to court over it. (That's the definition of a nuisance case.)
In the OP's situation, the lawyers are already proactively involved. That's very different.
JustinP1 said:
In the end, I wrote to the firm of solicitors, who didn't know what they were talking about with consumer law, especially the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regs. I wrote back to them, informing them of the law, and the deficient paperwork, and warning that we would not pay and were willing to defend that position in court.
Never heard from them since.
The only way Justin's strategy would work for the OP is if the OP also makes himself a nuisance.Never heard from them since.
Unless you believe that Justin is right that "a term's notice" is somehow deficient, even though BV explicitly stated that it was fine.
walm said:
Nothing EXTRA in the contract is going to somehow void the bits we agree on though - that's my point.
Would it not? I know there are times when contracts are enforceable even if certain parts of them are not, but is it impossible for this contract to contain something that renders the whole thing void? Genuine question.As for Justin's victory, whether a nuisance or a legal argument that won, much like an own goal it still counts.
walm said:
Justin really didn't win under similar circumstances here though.
He won on grounds of "nuisance".
He thinks he won because he proved the paperwork was "deficient" and that he knows consumer law better than some solicitors.
This is total gold! He won on grounds of "nuisance".
He thinks he won because he proved the paperwork was "deficient" and that he knows consumer law better than some solicitors.
I would love to see the explanation of how you know all this!
It's one thing you being able to accurately assess the validity of the OP's contract on the 6 words provided, but how on earth do you know what my contract said, or what I wrote to them?
ClaphamGT3 said:
I think that we are now beginning to get a picture of why the bursar at JustinP1's sister's school let the outstanding fees go.....
I cannot help but pop out of the Flouncebunker to agree with this. I quoted Alexander Pope once already above, but he really is right about Justin in this thread (not all threads, Justin is sometimes spot on). A reminder of what Pope says:-A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !
Justin's stuff about onerous or unusual contractual obligations illustrates Pope's point in action. The principle of law that Justin invokes has no application here because the contractual obligation in question is neither onerous nor unusual. It is bog standard. If the OP hearkens to Justin, then he (the OP, not Justin, and there's the rub) might end up on the fat end of a costs order for taking silly points. I am sorry, Justin. I know you mean well, but you really are stretching your small portion of marmalade over far too much toast.
Anyway, that's me off again. Have happy times, law lovers!
I have followed this thread over the last few days (it has been most entertaining) and whilst I can offer the OP no help whatsoever I will ad this: If the OP were to put his side to 10 qualified lawyers would they all tell him to pay up? Or, would one or two at least see some hope in his plight?
Breadvan72 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I think that we are now beginning to get a picture of why the bursar at JustinP1's sister's school let the outstanding fees go.....
I cannot help but pop out of the Flouncebunker to agree with this. I quoted Alexander Pope once already above, but he really is right about Justin in this thread (not all threads, Justin is sometimes spot on). A reminder of what Pope says:-A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !
Justin's stuff about onerous or unusual contractual obligations illustrates Pope's point in action. The principle of law that Justin invokes has no application here because the contractual obligation in question is neither onerous nor unusual. It is bog standard. If the OP hearkens to Justin, then he (the OP, not Justin, and there's the rub) might end up on the fat end of a costs order for taking silly points. I am sorry, Justin. I know you mean well, but you really are stretching your small portion of marmalade over far too much toast.
Anyway, that's me off again. Have happy times, law lovers!
pacoryan said:
OP - man maths required. You have spent £3,000 and got your daughter in to the school at the top of your preferred list with no ongoing school fees. Result!
That saved you £10k a year for however long, time to go shopping.
THIS to the power of THIS multiplied by THIS, with added THIS, and some THIS on the side. Joy!That saved you £10k a year for however long, time to go shopping.
johnfm said:
On the small claims track for a £3k dispute?
Yes, if the defendant (OP) takes an unreasonable stance. Costs awards are rare, but not unknown.Anyway, the OP risks his own time and stress levels, and there is a knock to the public purse if crappy cases are litigated, and to other litigants waiting for their better cases to be heard.
Anyway, off I go to Flouncey Towers once again. La la la.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff