Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
MrBarry123 said:
Sounds to me like you managed to reduce the amount paid on a technicality and that as such, BV is still correct in his original point?
You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a s
tty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.
Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
Re-reading the very first post on this thread, I would agree.You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a s
tty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
MrBarry123 said:
Sounds to me like you managed to reduce the amount paid on a technicality and that as such, BV is still correct in his original point?
You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions...
...BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
For the record, BV's assumptions about the contract, and even his assumption about what the claim was for was actually incorrect from his first post.You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions...
...BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
As for the further assertions about not needing to read the contract to ascertain which laws are applicable, I think the outcome answers that.
And as for the approach of reading the contract through the lens of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 being incorrect, the school's solicitors were ready to go to a hearing to claim £3200 including interest. After receiving warning that we were planning to amend the defence based upon not much more than the Regs above, their immediate response was to offer settlement negotiation starting at £1300 - and they were covering the court and legal costs out of that.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 5th October 17:47
OpulentBob said:
MrBarry123 said:
Sounds to me like you managed to reduce the amount paid on a technicality and that as such, BV is still correct in his original point?
You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a stty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.
Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
Re-reading the very first post on this thread, I would agree.You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a s
tty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
MrBarry123 said:
Sounds to me like you managed to reduce the amount paid on a technicality and that as such, BV is still correct in his original point?
You were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a stty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.
Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
What the fYou were bang to rights and you should have paid up in full as per the contract's conditions. However, you've been a sneaky little bugger and, with assistance, made a mockery of a s
tty set of T&Cs; the stty T&Cs making it impossible for the School to enforce their charge.Now the quality of its T&Cs are of course the School's responsibility and you were well within your right to question them (so fair play) but BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
k are you wibbling on about?The school is s business. If it can't manage to avail itself of enforceable T&Cs they don't have a right to start issuing proceedings and expect people to take it.
OP, If their opening settlement offer was £1300 hopefully you settled at sub £1k.
f
king jokers. Edited by johnfm on Monday 5th October 18:12
Nuisance value / small risk of losing is an enormous factor when you cannot recover costs.
Not a chance the OP would have been able to amend his defence if it's close to trial, for example, but stil not worth the school's time fighting if there's an element of risk, hassle, etc.
I have advised plenty of clients that they were very likely to win, that the other side was raising misconceived arguments...and that the settlement offer is still one that could reasonably be accepted if the commercial view was that getting out of the case was better than probably (but not certainly) winning it at trial.
Not a chance the OP would have been able to amend his defence if it's close to trial, for example, but stil not worth the school's time fighting if there's an element of risk, hassle, etc.
I have advised plenty of clients that they were very likely to win, that the other side was raising misconceived arguments...and that the settlement offer is still one that could reasonably be accepted if the commercial view was that getting out of the case was better than probably (but not certainly) winning it at trial.
I notice that those who bang on about the contract are being rather coy about what the magical contract points were. I wonder if we shall ever know? The vague description of them set out above makes them sound a bit like what is technically known in the trade as ballsache (a Latin term), but all is mysterious as apparently the arguments are so amazing that they have to be a secret. From the narrative it sounds to me like the school did a deal on a commercial basis rather than litigate a lot of flim flam with a stubborn litigant egged on by keen "and another thing!" amateur advisers. So, if the OP has bluffed his way out of adhering to his promises, bully for him and his expert team, and for those who think that practicality and the bottom line are all that matter, and think that behaving like a straightforward person who keeps his promises is for silly people, yippee!
Breadvan72 said:
I notice that those who bang on about the contract are being rather coy about what the magical contract points were. I wonder if we shall ever know? The vague description of them set out above makes them sound a bit like what is technically known in the trade as ballsache (a Latin term), but all is mysterious as apparently the arguments are so amazing that they have to be a secret. From the narrative it sounds to me like the school did a deal on a commercial basis rather than litigate a lot of flim flam with a stubborn litigant egged on by keen "and another thing!" amateur advisers. So, if the OP has bluffed his way out of adhering to his promises, bully for him and his expert team, and for those who think that practicality and the bottom line are all that matter, and think that behaving like a straightforward person who keeps his promises is for silly people, yippee!
OP is two grand better off for not having followed your advice; end of.IIRC, did you not hint at having something to do with getting Jenson Button out of a contract once upon a time?
The OP reached a commercial settlement with the school; he didn't win any legal argument. In the process of getting his settlement he may well have damaged his chances of getting his children into that school in future, or indeed other local independent schools, should the need arise.
Yoo da man Justinp1.....
Yoo da man Justinp1.....
ClaphamGT3 said:
The OP reached a commercial settlement with the school; he didn't win any legal argument.
Again, the method of achieving victory probably matters less to most people. ClaphamGT3 said:
In the process of getting his settlement he may well have damaged his chances of getting his children into that school in future, or indeed other local independent schools, should the need arise.
As many of them are struggling, that outcome is pretty unlikely.Sheepshanks said:
Again, the method of achieving victory probably matters less to most people.
Indeed. I find it quite amusing that people who make their living exploiting loopholes and incorrectly written contracts are trying to argue that what Justin/Jas and the OP did is somehow "wrong".
Not that anyone EXCEPT Justin/Jas and the OP know EXACTLY how they got the result they did.
ClaphamGT3 said:
The OP reached a commercial settlement with the school; he didn't win any legal argument. In the process of getting his settlement he may well have damaged his chances of getting his children into that school in future, or indeed other local independent schools, should the need arise.
Yoo da man Justinp1.....
Whatever makes you feel best, really.Yoo da man Justinp1.....
I think that the school and the OP mutually decided that their paths would not cross again when he refused to pay the invoice and they spend hundreds of pound suing him, and he defended it!
ClaphamGT3 said:
I know this because the OP said so in his post......
What, this one:R2FU said:
After posting on here, a couple of PHers – jasandjules and justinP1, very generously offered to take a look at the specifics of my situation and the claim being brought against me in small claims court by the school in question. To cut a long story short it became clear to them pretty quickly that there were some major issues with the school’s admissions policy and the terms of the contract they expect parents to enter into, to the extent that it is arguably impossible for a parent to have a free choice as required under consumer regulations and still comply with the terms of their contract.
Sounds like they won a legal argument to me.Breadvan72 said:
From the narrative it sounds to me like the school did a deal on a commercial basis, quite probably having been advised to by their solicitors, rather than litigate a lot of flim flam with a stubborn litigant egged on by keen "and another thing!" amateur advisers, who actually seem to know a bit more about the legal world than I have given them (virtually no) credit for.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Centurion07 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
he didn't win any legal argument.
You know this because....?Truth is Jas is my Jedi mentor and the mediclurions are strong with me. We sent th
em a gif of me waving my hand and they changed the price just like in Episode 1.
That's a much simpler explanation than when we saw the claim and contract we highlighted faults in them.
And clearly, much more rational than simply a lawyer like Jason was able to look at a claim and contract and see faults.
That said we all know BV can talk the hind legs off a wookie...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff