Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
I do think I have to pop back here just to insert some facts and dispel some of the ideas that have developed here:
To the OP's credit, from the start, he has admitted where his fault lies in that he should have read the whole contract.
However, in looking at the paperwork and the contractual process I could quite see how the OP was lulled into a false sense that the £750 he paid was the deposit he would lose if he did not take up a place.
The contract reached to 105 separate clauses, of which the notice section was clause 75 - underneath 74 clauses about how the school disclaims themselves from this and that, and disciplinary procedures, and other stuff not directly relevant to the signatory at that time.
Another fact is that though 40 pages and 105 clauses, the actual date to cancel the contract, April 17th is not mentioned, neither is the £3000 charge for not doing so. Not once in 40 pages.
Yes, the OP could have searched the internet for these figures, but the question must be if you are presenting a consumer with something you want them not to breach - why not make it easy and just state the facts?
It might be because that in actuality, if you know the exact date, you also realise that you are literally 24 hours too late to avoid the £3000 charge should you opt for the state school... and you probably don't sign up in advance - and you wait until you know for sure.
Of course the school have the commercial right to protect themselves from people breaching the contract and the costs involved - but what's the commercial reason for not stating the actual date that breach will occur, and what's the commercial reason to set the date just before a parent can make a free choice unencumbered from the knowledge they'll lose £3000?
The other issue was the claim itself - in short, despite the contract detailing the 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' in a liquidated damages clause for the breach in not giving the correct notice, this wasn't what the claim was for.
The claim stated that it was 'not for damages', despite that this was clearly what their contract outlined.
The angle they took was to suggest that it was a 'debt' so they could charge £700 of interest on the basis of an obscure case law (not on the internet or Bailii) that they did not provide the OP, a litigant in person, a copy of.
When the OP spoke to Jason and I he'd already filed a Defence, questioning the process and particularly stating that the 18% per annum interest was an unenforcible penalty.
The response from the school was not to try to reach any kind of agreement, or settlement. In fact, they produced up a witness statement where a school admin stated that in her opinion that 18% was fair. So the OP had no option either to pay up the whole lot, or fight it.
So the amended defence Jas and I came up with was basically:
1) It makes no sense you are claiming a 'debt' not damages.
2) It makes no sense you are citing X v Y, as it is irrelevant.
3) It makes no sense that you are not more open on your breach dates and cost, and:
4) Your 18% charge is a penalty - otherwise show us how you've lost this.
I know it is easier to believe that shenanigans have gone on that consider that one's first presumption was incorrect, but there was no magic.
Furthermore, although Jas does not shout about it, he is a practising solicitor advocate. He knows what he is talking about, is very qualified, and I can personally testify assessed the situation regarding pushing for settlement from his experience perfectly. This really wasn't difficult stuff.
So, to anyone else who would rather believe otherwise, here above are the facts.
I know some will cherry pick and use the above to justify how they were right all along - go for it. The bottom line is all we know is that one day the solicitors didn't want to consider settlement, and the next they were able to accept 60% less. You can all debate how influential that was that until the cows come home. That's not my fight.
Really it's not about that though, it's about helping the OP. He wanted to settle on a mutually fair figure. And personally I was glad I was able to help despite the flak I got for it. That said, I am beginning to think that receiving vitriol and personal attacks on this forum makes participation not worth it.
To the OP's credit, from the start, he has admitted where his fault lies in that he should have read the whole contract.
However, in looking at the paperwork and the contractual process I could quite see how the OP was lulled into a false sense that the £750 he paid was the deposit he would lose if he did not take up a place.
The contract reached to 105 separate clauses, of which the notice section was clause 75 - underneath 74 clauses about how the school disclaims themselves from this and that, and disciplinary procedures, and other stuff not directly relevant to the signatory at that time.
Another fact is that though 40 pages and 105 clauses, the actual date to cancel the contract, April 17th is not mentioned, neither is the £3000 charge for not doing so. Not once in 40 pages.
Yes, the OP could have searched the internet for these figures, but the question must be if you are presenting a consumer with something you want them not to breach - why not make it easy and just state the facts?
It might be because that in actuality, if you know the exact date, you also realise that you are literally 24 hours too late to avoid the £3000 charge should you opt for the state school... and you probably don't sign up in advance - and you wait until you know for sure.
Of course the school have the commercial right to protect themselves from people breaching the contract and the costs involved - but what's the commercial reason for not stating the actual date that breach will occur, and what's the commercial reason to set the date just before a parent can make a free choice unencumbered from the knowledge they'll lose £3000?
The other issue was the claim itself - in short, despite the contract detailing the 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' in a liquidated damages clause for the breach in not giving the correct notice, this wasn't what the claim was for.
The claim stated that it was 'not for damages', despite that this was clearly what their contract outlined.
The angle they took was to suggest that it was a 'debt' so they could charge £700 of interest on the basis of an obscure case law (not on the internet or Bailii) that they did not provide the OP, a litigant in person, a copy of.
When the OP spoke to Jason and I he'd already filed a Defence, questioning the process and particularly stating that the 18% per annum interest was an unenforcible penalty.
The response from the school was not to try to reach any kind of agreement, or settlement. In fact, they produced up a witness statement where a school admin stated that in her opinion that 18% was fair. So the OP had no option either to pay up the whole lot, or fight it.
So the amended defence Jas and I came up with was basically:
1) It makes no sense you are claiming a 'debt' not damages.
2) It makes no sense you are citing X v Y, as it is irrelevant.
3) It makes no sense that you are not more open on your breach dates and cost, and:
4) Your 18% charge is a penalty - otherwise show us how you've lost this.
I know it is easier to believe that shenanigans have gone on that consider that one's first presumption was incorrect, but there was no magic.
Furthermore, although Jas does not shout about it, he is a practising solicitor advocate. He knows what he is talking about, is very qualified, and I can personally testify assessed the situation regarding pushing for settlement from his experience perfectly. This really wasn't difficult stuff.
So, to anyone else who would rather believe otherwise, here above are the facts.
I know some will cherry pick and use the above to justify how they were right all along - go for it. The bottom line is all we know is that one day the solicitors didn't want to consider settlement, and the next they were able to accept 60% less. You can all debate how influential that was that until the cows come home. That's not my fight.
Really it's not about that though, it's about helping the OP. He wanted to settle on a mutually fair figure. And personally I was glad I was able to help despite the flak I got for it. That said, I am beginning to think that receiving vitriol and personal attacks on this forum makes participation not worth it.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 6th October 12:50
JustinP1 said:
And personally I was glad I was able to help despite the flak I got for it. That said, I am beginning to think that receiving vitriol and personal attacks on this forum makes participation not worth it.
I for one hope that you will continue to post here, despite the aggro from certain quarters.
There are many commercial reasons why the contract signed by the OP is reasonable.
Private schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
Private schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
Yes, I'm sure any court would find in the school's favour in light of this:
I think some people either can't, or more likely won't, believe that anyone other than a practising legal professional is capable of putting together a reasonable defence. Never mind the fact that Jas actually happens to be one such professional.
Either way, the result is what counts regardless of whether certain posters like it's manner or not.
JustinP1 said:
Another fact is that through 40 pages and 105 clauses, the actual date to cancel the contract, April 17th is not mentioned, neither is the £3000 charge for not doing so. Not once in 40 pages
...along with a punitive 18% interest rate.I think some people either can't, or more likely won't, believe that anyone other than a practising legal professional is capable of putting together a reasonable defence. Never mind the fact that Jas actually happens to be one such professional.
Either way, the result is what counts regardless of whether certain posters like it's manner or not.
In fairness the date must be certain, just that the actual date was not written in the contract?
It's quite usual, say, for a power of attorney to expire '90 days after the day of the date hereof'. The actual expiry is thus calculated using a calendar and the date of execution. I assume a similar thing applies here? Its a bit of a PITA, but it saves redrafting the T&Cs over and over and is fairly common in all sorts pf agreements, including those for much larger sums of money.
ETA: as to the three grand, i presume some sort of formula or reference to some schedule or other was made or did the school literally pluck that figure from thin air?
It's quite usual, say, for a power of attorney to expire '90 days after the day of the date hereof'. The actual expiry is thus calculated using a calendar and the date of execution. I assume a similar thing applies here? Its a bit of a PITA, but it saves redrafting the T&Cs over and over and is fairly common in all sorts pf agreements, including those for much larger sums of money.
ETA: as to the three grand, i presume some sort of formula or reference to some schedule or other was made or did the school literally pluck that figure from thin air?
Edited by Actus Reus on Tuesday 6th October 20:49
As I understand it, £3k is the fee for a term.
The fact that the agreement did not specify the date by which notice had to be given is neither here nor there given that this information could be obtained by just looking at the calendar. I would be amazed if there isn't case-law saying precisely this. We are not yet in a world where literally everyone is assumed to be a blithering idiot.
The fact that the agreement did not specify the date by which notice had to be given is neither here nor there given that this information could be obtained by just looking at the calendar. I would be amazed if there isn't case-law saying precisely this. We are not yet in a world where literally everyone is assumed to be a blithering idiot.
Actus Reus said:
In fairness the date must be certain, just that the actual date was not written in the contract?
It's quite usual, say, for a power of attorney to expire '90 days after the day of the date hereof'. The actual expiry is thus calculated using a calendar and the date of execution. I assume a similar thing applies here? Its a bit of a PITA, but it saves redrafting the T&Cs over and over and is fairly common in all sorts pf agreements, including those for much larger sums of money.
ETA: as to the three grand, i presume some sort of formula or reference to some schedule or other was made or did the school literally pluck that figure from thin air?
Take your points Actus, I'm all up for reasonable discussion of the facts:It's quite usual, say, for a power of attorney to expire '90 days after the day of the date hereof'. The actual expiry is thus calculated using a calendar and the date of execution. I assume a similar thing applies here? Its a bit of a PITA, but it saves redrafting the T&Cs over and over and is fairly common in all sorts pf agreements, including those for much larger sums of money.
ETA: as to the three grand, i presume some sort of formula or reference to some schedule or other was made or did the school literally pluck that figure from thin air?
Edited by Actus Reus on Tuesday 6th October 20:49
The actual date that notice had to be given by and the fee that had to be paid were nowhere in the 40 pages of exhibits they presented to the court, so not on the contract that was signed, or the T&Cs referred to.
I take your point about the power of attorney but there's a key difference. The PoA is something written for a particular situation by a solicitor who is there to advise on the repercussions.
A consumer contract is a rather different kettle of fish and governed by statute regarding not only the clarity, but 'good faith' in drafting by the business. Indeed, in this situation it's the professionally written standard terms of a consumer contract which apparently doesn't want to the consumer to breach it, but fails to take basic steps to define breach clearly.
'A term's notice' is a period that the parent of a current pupil is reasonable - they know when their child starts back after the holidays.
But a prospective parent? They are not running through the same thought processes nor do they have the date at which term starts as their child is not at the school.
In any case, they could solve it by making the term '...notice by May 1st of the year of entry' for prospective parents to cancel. No need to redraft each year, and a definite date can be put on the contract.
If they had done that then the OP would have no argument - he would have had to pay up.
However, if the contract was that clear, he may have taken the decision that he was not willing to risk £3000 to keep his options open.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 6th October 21:19
Wow, some people on here are like a dog with a bone, just wont let it go, what I know about contracts and Law I could write on the back of a postage stamp. (So feck all)
If ? the school thought they were one hundred per cent in the right they would have taken it to court, that is what they pay their legal bods for after all.
To the OP, well done on a good compromise that you are happy with, and to the two guys who gave up their time and knowledge another well done.
As some body mentioned a few posts up, this has been the best and worst of Pistonheads.
If ? the school thought they were one hundred per cent in the right they would have taken it to court, that is what they pay their legal bods for after all.
To the OP, well done on a good compromise that you are happy with, and to the two guys who gave up their time and knowledge another well done.
As some body mentioned a few posts up, this has been the best and worst of Pistonheads.
Hungry Pigeon said:
There are many commercial reasons why the contract signed by the OP is reasonable.
Private schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
I couldn't agree with this more. It's worth adding that, as a governor of two schools in the maintained sector and one in the independent sector, parents who do this are a pain in the arse to both sectors. I know people want the best for their children but I really wish that people would choose one route or the other and stick to it.Private schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
eccles said:
singlecoil said:
JustinP1 said:
However, if the contract was that clear, he may have taken the decision that he was not willing to risk £3000 to keep his options open.
Exactly.Technically speaking, not reading a contract is not a defence in law.
However, if you draft standard terms in a consumer contract that do not meet the standards of 'good faith' and clarity, then that's unlawful, and whether they are read or not makes no difference to their enforceability.
If we consider this exact scenario though, the OP did read the terms, but not in great detail to appreciate the consequences of particular actions, as they were not made clear or prominent. However, as I've given the example above, there is a very simple way that the school could have referred to a single document and said:
"Look, on the same page as your signature, it said that to cancel this agreement without cost you had to give notice by April 16th - its there in black and white. Also it said that if you gave notice afterwards but changed your mind you'd be paying £3000."
The OP would have been stuffed. They couldn't to that simply due to poor drafting of their contracts.
In short, if you are a business and you want to enforce a consumer to pay you a sum of X (especially if that sum is as large as £3000) as damages if they don't do Y by Z, then if you don't actually make X, Y and Z prominent and explicit, then you will have a hard time enforcing it.
Additionally, you will trap people simply on the basis that they have not invested a considerable time poring over all 105 clauses to know that they can't pull out - which is not a fair business practice IMHO.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 6th October 23:04
Hungry Pigeon said:
There are many commercial reasons why the contract signed by the OP is reasonable.
Private schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
How the fPrivate schools don't want to have their books clogged by folks who can afford to send their kids to private school but want to hedge their bets in case they can educate their kids for free. That's why they set things up so you can't wait to see if you get a free place before accepting a private school place.
The OP sought to hedge his bets but got his arse burnt because he was stupid enough to sign something without reading it.
Folks here have bailed him out by proving themselves to be a pain in the arse. This is why the school settled, not because your legal arguments are blindingly wonderful. You've clearly indicated that you are the archetypal LIP, and they've run a mile - as would any businessman with half a titter of wit.
Whilst your flim-flam may have persuaded the school's solicitors that it's more trouble than it's worth to fight you, I'm with BV in that agreements of this type have been around for yonks (I signed one 15 years ago) and had it gone to court you'd have had your arse handed to you on a plate, and quite rightly so.
Happy days!
k would you know without seeing the contract?The last private school contract I saw (when I was enforcing the school's right to unpaid fees) was a joke. I expect many private school contracts haven't been updated for decades.
Well done on the tenacity and the settlement guys. If they had been upfront and helpful on the due date it may not have even happened.
Some businesses operate hoping you WONT read the T&C's and purposefully make them un-digestible and long winded to encourage that. Key terms and costs really should be a one pager though - even if it means they may not then get the business.
Some businesses operate hoping you WONT read the T&C's and purposefully make them un-digestible and long winded to encourage that. Key terms and costs really should be a one pager though - even if it means they may not then get the business.
JustinP1 said:
Of course the school have the commercial right to protect themselves from people breaching the contract and the costs involved - but what's the commercial reason for not stating the actual date that breach will occur, and what's the commercial reason to set the date just before a parent can make a free choice unencumbered from the knowledge they'll lose £3000?
This is certainly the nub of the issue with quite a few school contracts. I have seen versions that are very clearly designed to entrap parents into this event. Unecassarily long winded and deliberately opaque. If you go to all the huge effort to cover every single fine detail over hundreds of clauses but then omit clarity on the one single clause that has the financial ramification then it is pretty obvious what the intent is In addition, as I've mentioned earlier, the purpose of the deposit is to cover the school for this cost. It is exactly why deposits have risen so strongly in the last two decades as parents have begun to wait until the LA release places at the primary schools before making the final descision on the prep school.
We have a local prep that does exactly this. But it is the local school for new money media and overseas bankers and they make a good return out of this game in an area where there is never an issue filling spaces.
The more established and old fashioned private schools have no issue working with the system and parents and firstly accepting that there is a brief round of extra admin after the LA date and secondly not to treat this as a profit opportunity, especially when the cost is already fully covered by all the large deposits that the parents in the round have collectively forfeited.
If the OP's contract was as you say then good on you for batting it back and helping him obtain a settlement. Deliberately obscure consumer contracts are a vile aspect of the legal profession.
DonkeyApple said:
We have a local prep that does exactly this. But it is the local school for new money media and overseas bankers and they make a good return out of this game in an area where there is never an issue filling spaces.
Could it ever be considered reasonable to keep anything more than a nominal amount if the place is filled anyway?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff