Advice on dispute with a private school please

[johnfm]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Yes - thought it was in the case of unreasonable fvckwittry and green pen use.Agree on your public purse point.

Personally, I wish Sky would commission the tv series...you'd be very entertaining.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Breadvan, how do you know which laws may or may not be applicable to the terms of the OP's contract without reading the whole contract first to understand the context of the terms and how they are presented?

Again, you've singled me out of the thread and put words in my mouth and twisted them to imply something that I have not. Then you've linked me to the OP having a costs order against him. That's great arguing that I represent all that is unholy, but it is scant on fact or what is likely to occur.

My position is clear: the OP might have some traction if his contract is looked at. He might not. What I am stating is that he has more hope than the none that you gave.


I thank you for your prose about me, very entertaining. We all have faults and limitations, and I know where mine are. I cannot possibly hope you entertain you with anything as high brow as Alexander Pope, but I hope you enjoy this:




There once was a lawyer named Breadvan,

Who said "I can, but nobody else can

discuss the law, coz I know more than you all"

But when they discussed fact, off he ran.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 14:19

[Lurking Lawyer]

FWIW, I think it's pretty unlikely that if the OP turned up as a litigant in person, argued the toss and lost that he'd be on the wrong end of an unreasonable conduct costs order.

District judges in small claims hearings in my experience are generally very slow to make such orders, especially against unrepresented parties, in circumstances where there is no bad faith or the impression of them having tried to play the system or mislead the court.

[JustinP1]

vxr8mate said:

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?

If the OP put his side to ten qualified lawyers, none of them would give him indemnified advice on how he should approach this matter (what he asked in the OP) without seeing all of the contractual paperwork first.

After that, and once they have ascertained the facts, they'd give him the options and risks he'd take by paying, settling, or, going to court.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 14:06

[walm]

JustinP1 said:

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!

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?

It's not rocket science or even divine inspiration, you told us in your first post!

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.

[JustinP1]

Walm, are you here to help the OP, or just argue the toss with posters who are?

Your opinion of me is that I simply must have been successful because I am a 'nuisance', rather than what I wrote to them might actually be correct. Were you at my Uni seeing me sleep through Law lectures? Maybe you'll claim I bribed the examiner?

I thank you for your opinion, but it is just that, and it is an opinion on facts you know absolutely nothing about.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 14:44

[walm]

JustinP1 said:

Walm, are you here to help the OP, or just argue the toss with posters who are?

Your opinion of me is that I simply must have been successful because I am a 'nuisance', rather than what I wrote to them might actually be correct.

I'm here for the full half hour!
I believe you are being disingenuous about your mum's case. You simply didn't win because the law was on your side.

I didn't mean "nuisance" in the pejorative sense but in the sense of cases where there is no legal merit but it's cheaper (or better for someone's reputation) to pay them off (or not press on, in your case). I may have not used the right word. No offence intended!

I believe what you wrote to them is incorrect because BV has told us repeatedly that you're wrong that "a term's notice" is "deficient", yet that is the only grounds you have given for getting them off your mum's back.

Breadvan72 said:

It is standard for a private school to stipulate for a term's notice to terminate the contract.

Breadvan72 said:

The contract required a term's notice. Term is an ordinary word with an ordinary meaning. The requirement for a term's notice is neither onerous nor unusual, and is on the contrary the norm in private school contracts.

Breadvan72 said:

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.

[JustinP1]

walm said:

I believe you are being disingenuous about your mum's case. You simply didn't win because the law was on your side.

...I believe what you wrote to them is incorrect because BV has told us repeatedly that you're wrong that "a term's notice" is "deficient", yet that is the only grounds you have given for getting them off your mum's back.

Nope:

JustinP1 said:

...and when I started asking serious questions about how they came up with their pre-estimate of loss and their mitigation they ran a mile.

When you call someone dishonest in their intentions, and you're shown to be wrong, what then?

Give it a rest on this point now?

You don't know what the OP's contract says, you know even less about what my Mum's contract says. You don't know what I wrote to them, you don't know why they discontinued. It's silly to argue anything otherwise.

[anonymous-user]

JustinP1 said:

Breadvan, how do you know which laws may or may not be applicable to the terms of the OP's contract without reading the whole contract first to understand the context of the terms and how they are presented?


...

The law that applies to the contract is the law of contract of England and Wales (I assume none of this stuff is happening in Scotland or anywhere other than England or Wales). I add that the chances of an English (or Welsh) language private school contract made in England or Wales containing a clause that stipulates that it is governed by the laws of Nevada or Nigeria or Never Never Land are so small as to be immeasurable. I am familiar with English/Welsh contract law by virtue of long acquaintance, and through practising that law on a regular basis. Practice does not make perfect, but it gives you a clue, something of which, in this thread, you are sadly bereft (you have many a clue in other threads). I do not need to read a lot of verbiage to take a view on whether a stipulation that you give a term's notice or pay a term's fees is an enforceable stipulation. Nor would a Judge. A busy DJ, if told "But, Sir, there are another 47 pages!", would say "So fking what?", only more politely. In other words, I can see the wood for the trees. Clever Judges can do so too. I refer you once again to Mr Pope's measured words.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 24th September 15:34

[walm]

JustinP1 said:

JustinP1 said:

...and when I started asking serious questions about how they came up with their pre-estimate of loss and their mitigation they ran a mile.

When you call someone dishonest in their intentions, and you're shown to be wrong, what then?

BV dealt with that point too:

Breadvan72 said:

The claim is not for "costs", but for the loss that the school has incurred. The school's running costs will not be reduced by the absence of one pupil, and so a term's fees are a reasonable estimate of the loss incurred.

"Dishonest" a bit harsh, perhaps you honestly believe that the law was on your side despite everything BV has said.

But as a layman able to follow an argument, I think encouraging the OP to waste anything other than nominal time and effort on this is madness, because legally it appears he doesn't have a leg to stand on and your counterexample simply isn't a legally relevant counterexample.

[JustinP1]

walm said:

I believe you are being disingenuous about your mum's case. You simply didn't win because the law was on your side.

...I believe what you wrote to them is incorrect because BV has told us repeatedly that you're wrong that "a term's notice" is "deficient", yet that is the only grounds you have given for getting them off your mum's back.

JustinP1 said:

...and when I started asking serious questions about how they came up with their pre-estimate of loss and their mitigation they ran a mile.

walm, seriously, do you still believe that I am being disingenuous? Because that's a pretty stty thing to accuse a poster who has simply come to help the OP with an experience of what happened to him.

I don't care what you think about me, but if you are going to accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting facts, at least get your facts straight. And if you're shown to be wrong, at least have the decency to retract it.

I can take that Breadvan says I know fk all, I can even take the fact he wrongly proclaims I always sue people. However, accusing me of deliberate dishonesty is where the line is drawn.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 16:02

[thelawnet1]

The interest may well be deemed to be excessive.

http://www.wslaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/press-and-...

I would be inclined to wait for them to sue and then make an offer of settlement if and when that happens.

[ClaphamGT3]

Sheepshanks 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.....

So what? Maybe the manner of the victory is important to you, but if it was me I couldn't care less.

JustinP1 got the outcome he did because he's a bit 'special' and a busy bursar valued not having to deal with his particular brand of interaction at or above £3k. That is subtly but fundamentally different to any likely hood that the OP will get the same outcome.

If JP1 had said to the OP "act like you're on the spectrum until the school loses the will to live and stops chasing you" then that would has been a legitimate, experience-based piece of advice. The pseudo-lawyer babble, passed off as legal 'advice' is what, I think, is problematic

[JustinP1]

ClaphamGT3 said:

JustinP1 got the outcome he did because he's a bit 'special' and a busy bursar valued not having to deal with his particular brand of interaction at or above £3k. That is subtly but fundamentally different to any likely hood that the OP will get the same outcome.

If JP1 had said to the OP "act like you're on the spectrum until the school loses the will to live and stops chasing you" then that would has been a legitimate, experience-based piece of advice. The pseudo-lawyer babble, passed off as legal 'advice' is what, I think, is problematic

Obviously, just like walm you know exactly what the contact between myself and the school's solicitors said. Is it too hard to contemplate that someone with a degree in something is capable of using those skills in the real world?

As it happens, the figure in my case was £6000 plus £100 a month interest. I wrote them two letters, one to ascertain facts, and a second to lay out our legal position. No more.

If what I said was incorrect, or some 'wibble', the solicitors could have *at very least* made a last ditch offer of £500 to grab that. If I didn't accept such an offer, and they got more in a judgment I'd most likely be liable for not only the judgment, the court costs and their legal costs too.


I didn't use magic words in my letter. if you go back to the first page I said the issues I raised around the fairness of terms, mitigation, genuine pre-estimate of costs, and that the interest was punitive, underpinned by the UTCCRs - the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Breadvan has vociferously said that this approach is misguided. Well actually, he said I didn't have a clue.

thelawnet1 though has linked something a commercial litigating partner in a solicitor's firm has published to advise independent school bursars. I'll expand some of that below:

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 21:48

[JustinP1]

thelawnet1 said:

The interest may well be deemed to be excessive.

http://www.wslaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/press-and-...

I would be inclined to wait for them to sue and then make an offer of settlement if and when that happens.

From the article:

The contractual relationship between the school and a fee‑payer is governed by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”), under which any term that has not been negotiated is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable if it causes significant imbalance in the party’s (the school’s) rights and obligations to the consumer’s (fee-payer’s) detriment. Schedule 2, paragraph 1(e) of the Regulations provides that a term, which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for their failure to fulfil their contractual obligation, may be regarded as unfair.

The Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) has issued guidance on clauses it considers unfair in consumer contracts, including in one where the term requires the consumer to pay “unreasonable interest”, for example, at a rate excessively above the clearing banks’ base rate.

[JustinP1]

And before a 'straw-man' argument is put up about me, who I am, and what I think, I'll reiterate:

1) I think the OP needs to get advice from someone who has read all of the contract.

2) Analysis of the whole contract is necessary to decide whether the OP should 'pay up'.

3) If there is an unfair term, the UTCCRs are relevant - sorry BV we'll have to agree to disagree.

4) I don't think the OP should blindly litigate. See 1. He should settle.

5) The interest is punitive and unlikely to be enforced if even a basic defence is put up.

6) I know that the OP's situation will be different than mine - see 1 and 2.

Cheers chaps, I'm out for now. Put your abuse, and your thoughts about me somewhere else.

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 25th September 09:01

[eccles]

JustinP1 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

JustinP1 got the outcome he did because he's a bit 'special' and a busy bursar valued not having to deal with his particular brand of interaction at or above £3k. That is subtly but fundamentally different to any likely hood that the OP will get the same outcome.

If JP1 had said to the OP "act like you're on the spectrum until the school loses the will to live and stops chasing you" then that would has been a legitimate, experience-based piece of advice. The pseudo-lawyer babble, passed off as legal 'advice' is what, I think, is problematic

Obviously, just like walm you know exactly what the contact between myself and the school's solicitors said. Is it too hard to contemplate that someone with a degree in something is capable of using those skills in the real world?

As it happens, the figure in my case was £6000 plus £100 a month interest. I wrote them two letters, one to ascertain facts, and a second to lay out our legal position. No more.

If what I said was incorrect, or some 'wibble', the solicitors could have *at very least* made a last ditch offer of £500 to grab that. If I didn't accept such an offer, and they got more in a judgment I'd most likely be liable for not only the judgment, the court costs and their legal costs too.


I didn't use magic words in my letter. if you go back to the first page I said the issues I raised around the fairness of terms, mitigation, genuine pre-estimate of costs, and that the interest was punitive, underpinned by the UTCCRs - the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Breadvan has vociferously said that this approach is misguided. Well actually, he said I didn't have a clue.

thelawnet1 though has linked something a commercial litigating partner in a solicitor's firm has published to advise independent school bursars. I'll expand some of that below:

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 21:48

Purely out of interest as you've mentioned it a couple of times, what's your degree in?

[Steve H]

JustinP1 said:

From the article:

The contractual relationship between the school and a fee-payer is governed by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”), under which any term that has not been negotiated is deemed to be unfair and unenforceable if it causes significant imbalance in the party’s (the school’s) rights and obligations to the consumer’s (fee-payer’s) detriment. Schedule 2, paragraph 1(e) of the Regulations provides that a term, which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation for their failure to fulfil their contractual obligation, may be regarded as unfair.

The Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) has issued guidance on clauses it considers unfair in consumer contracts, including in one where the term requires the consumer to pay “unreasonable interest”, for example, at a rate excessively above the clearing banks’ base rate.

I take your point on the interest but if a parent signs up for three terms and the school commits to the staffing and facilities that this entails and then the parent pulls out and only has to pay for one term, I don't see how that is an imbalance in the school's favour or disproportionately high.

[anonymous-user]

3 grown up pages here.

[johnfm]

1. jesuisjustin