Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
gshughes said:
DonkeyApple said:
They are a business ...
A point of pedantry, but don't private schools claim to be charities rather than businesses to allow them to claim various tax breaks, or it that no longer the case?Besides, charities still need to be competitive to survive against their peers. Not all charities have the advantage of receiving endless donations by threatening to smash a puppy's head with a claw hammer or to end the world in the next few weeks.
Justin and I are having a love in on a thread elsewhere, which is nice. As to this one, undoubtedly the OP got a good result here, so yay that. I still haven't seen anything, however, to alter my view that the OP had no defence to the claim on the contract. All the flim flam about the other terms of the contract sounds like flim flam to me. None of that other stuff appeared to bear on the simple question of whether the OP gave the notice stipulated in the contract. He didn't. The school did a commercial deal, which is what you might expect given the amount involved, and the hassle of going for the full amount.
I am doing one of these in real life at present. The parents have taken the child out of the school half way through the child's first term there and are arguing that the school has repudiated the contract in various ways (inappropriate academic streaming, harsh discipline, nasty boarding conditions, bullying). I expect that the dispute will settle for around fifty per cent of the amount claimed. Paying my fees on the case is just daft, but both sides have deep pockets and both sides are stubborn.
I am doing one of these in real life at present. The parents have taken the child out of the school half way through the child's first term there and are arguing that the school has repudiated the contract in various ways (inappropriate academic streaming, harsh discipline, nasty boarding conditions, bullying). I expect that the dispute will settle for around fifty per cent of the amount claimed. Paying my fees on the case is just daft, but both sides have deep pockets and both sides are stubborn.
BV - I make no secret of the fact that I agree with your viewpoint almost without exception... The exception being this one, and the reasons why were discussed in the first few pages.
A few pages back I posted up a precis of the actual issues involved and why I along with Jason chose to help the OP. If I thought that the school were blameless in their approach, I would not have helped him.
As it was, the drafting of the contract was so shoddy that the solicitors did not even make reference to it in the claim. I think you'd agree with me that the point of drafting terms is that the party you are engaging can understand the implications of what they are agreeing to and adhere to the agreement, rather than a verbose catch-all that simply means that you win a dispute.
In practical terms, if the school had presented their terms in a simple, open way, the OP would have understood that he was not putting the £750 deposit he was handing over on the table pending the state school lottery, he was actually putting down £3000. That was wrong, as was the interest charge.
There's no doubt it was a commercial choice by the school - but, it has to be said that their confidence to proceed diminished dramatically between the OP's defence and the amended defence. IMHO, we could have possibly taken an aggressive stance and pushed all the way to discontinuance, however, we would then risk the lottery of the hearing. The OP took a commercial view as well.
The OP could now send you the paperwork, and our amended defence and you could look over it and give you opinion on whether it would have worked, however, all parties would not know the mind of the Judge on the day and it would have been a lottery. At the end of the day it was enough to come to settlement, which is all we set out to do.
I'd suggest that the situation of your private school case could not be more different. However, I would suggest that unless either party is particularly bonkers (or if not on the small claims track thinks their costs will be covered) that your client and the school will also make a similar commercial decision.
I don't think that is to be ashamed of at all, and has benefits all round.
A few pages back I posted up a precis of the actual issues involved and why I along with Jason chose to help the OP. If I thought that the school were blameless in their approach, I would not have helped him.
As it was, the drafting of the contract was so shoddy that the solicitors did not even make reference to it in the claim. I think you'd agree with me that the point of drafting terms is that the party you are engaging can understand the implications of what they are agreeing to and adhere to the agreement, rather than a verbose catch-all that simply means that you win a dispute.
In practical terms, if the school had presented their terms in a simple, open way, the OP would have understood that he was not putting the £750 deposit he was handing over on the table pending the state school lottery, he was actually putting down £3000. That was wrong, as was the interest charge.
There's no doubt it was a commercial choice by the school - but, it has to be said that their confidence to proceed diminished dramatically between the OP's defence and the amended defence. IMHO, we could have possibly taken an aggressive stance and pushed all the way to discontinuance, however, we would then risk the lottery of the hearing. The OP took a commercial view as well.
The OP could now send you the paperwork, and our amended defence and you could look over it and give you opinion on whether it would have worked, however, all parties would not know the mind of the Judge on the day and it would have been a lottery. At the end of the day it was enough to come to settlement, which is all we set out to do.
I'd suggest that the situation of your private school case could not be more different. However, I would suggest that unless either party is particularly bonkers (or if not on the small claims track thinks their costs will be covered) that your client and the school will also make a similar commercial decision.
I don't think that is to be ashamed of at all, and has benefits all round.
RobinOakapple said:
Probably wouldn't hurt to let Justin have a quick squiz at the contract.
Robin, I'm sure in a head to head match BV would wipe the floor with me on who knows most about contract law. I make no bones about that. I don't know how much BV has used the UTCCRs in his cases as I doubt his income is derived from small consumer claims! However, that was something I happened to study in great depth in terms of how they affect businesses, the drafting of contracts and how the OFT (as they were then) adds to that mix.
When Jason and I discussed the OPs situation, we actually had two separate angles of defence, and we amalgamated the points of both. For example, you can make a point about the clarity and prominence of terms by using contract law or statute.
I've got no doubt that BV could have got a similar result if he had read the contract and seen the terms and wanted to help the OP. He might have even taken a third angle.
Breadvan72 said:
Still not an answer, Justin. Why does any of that blah matter? The issue was notice.
Because the contract was neither explicit about when notice had to be given if a prospective parent did not want to proceed with schooling, or what the charge was for not doing so - a bit unforgivable on a contract, or even in the terms which reached 105 clauses.The claim itself didn't actually use clause 75 as it was to argue that the OP had breached the term which outlined the 'term's notice' and the 'genuine pre estimate of loss of 1 to 5 years fees'.
The claim argued that it was tacit that 'fees in lieu of notice, payable as a debt' was due, and specifically 'not damages'.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 13th October 15:14
JustinP1 said:
Because the contract was neither explicit about when notice had to be given, or what the charge was for not doing so - a bit unforgivable on a contract, or even in the terms which reached 105 clauses.
Firstly, good result and apologies again.However, the length of contract is surely no defence?
And not saying the exact date or amount is absolutely fine because as we know "a term's notice and a term's fees" is perfectly acceptable no?? (And makes more commercial sense for the school so they don't have to use a different contract EVERY TERM!!)
What I really want to know is whether it was even possible for the OP to cancel without (extra) penalty after he found out about the state place.
You alluded to it being impossible which sounds outrageously cheeky of the school to me!!
walm said:
JustinP1 said:
Because the contract was neither explicit about when notice had to be given, or what the charge was for not doing so - a bit unforgivable on a contract, or even in the terms which reached 105 clauses.
Firstly, good result and apologies again.However, the length of contract is surely no defence?
And not saying the exact date or amount is absolutely fine because as we know "a term's notice and a term's fees" is perfectly acceptable no?? (And makes more commercial sense for the school so they don't have to use a different contract EVERY TERM!!)
What I really want to know is whether it was even possible for the OP to cancel without (extra) penalty after he found out about the state place.
You alluded to it being impossible which sounds outrageously cheeky of the school to me!!
However, he would have had to search the internet for that actual term date - it wasn't even annexed to the contract, let alone on it.
The 'terms notice' is an arbitrary thing, cancellation does not really cost them nothing one day and £3000 the next. It would make perfect sense to simply make the cut off point say 1st May each year. No redrafting each year, no expecting a potential parent to search the internet to find out that year's term dates. Total clarity, and importantly allows the parent to make a free choice on which school is best, not just on the basis that they would lose £3000 by cancelling.
I got your apology before, you are a gentleman for doing so.
Breadvan72 said:
I am doing one of these in real life at present. The parents have taken the child out of the school half way through the child's first term there and are arguing that the school has repudiated the contract in various ways (inappropriate academic streaming, harsh discipline, nasty boarding conditions, bullying). I expect that the dispute will settle for around fifty per cent of the amount claimed. Paying my fees on the case is just daft, but both sides have deep pockets and both sides are stubborn.
I imagine the types who can afford such schools aren't the types who are used to backing down or 'losing'. Chrisgr31 said:
As a rather interesting sidenote to this thread we have just received a revised contract for extra's at my daughters school, and one of the changes is to the notice period should we wish to withdraw our daughter from any extras we pay for.
I hope that teaching your daughter about the apostrophe is not an extra!JustinP1 said:
Yes - the final date that the OP could have cancelled the agreement was actually the day before the LEA revealed which state school place was allocated. However, he would have had to search the internet for that actual term date - it wasn't even annexed to the contract, let alone on it.
The 'terms notice' is an arbitrary thing, cancellation does not really cost them nothing one day and £3000 the next. It would make perfect sense to simply make the cut off point say 1st May each year. No redrafting each year, no expecting a potential parent to search the internet to find out that year's term dates. Total clarity, and importantly allows the parent to make a free choice on which school is best, not just on the basis that they would lose £3000 by cancelling.
I got your apology before, you are a gentleman for doing so.
Thanks. The 'terms notice' is an arbitrary thing, cancellation does not really cost them nothing one day and £3000 the next. It would make perfect sense to simply make the cut off point say 1st May each year. No redrafting each year, no expecting a potential parent to search the internet to find out that year's term dates. Total clarity, and importantly allows the parent to make a free choice on which school is best, not just on the basis that they would lose £3000 by cancelling.
I got your apology before, you are a gentleman for doing so.
That is very bad form then - everyone knows that the state school place is the only reason you have to wait to confirm a place so making it the day before you find out is outrageous.
Terrible 1970s case-law aside - that is just plain wrong.
(I guess May 1 would be a good solution although a tiny minority of kids might want to join in non-September terms.)
Breadvan72 said:
Paying my fees on the case is just daft, but both sides have deep pockets and both sides are stubborn.
Reminds me of a recent case I was involved in. My client was arguing about a bill for £55,000, and was successful in court. So their barrister then asked for their costs. The judge asked how much the costs were £65,000 came the answer! Got £55,000 so not bad. Mind you those costs didn't include mine and I never received any payment for my work on the case, not that I minded as enjoyed the experience!La Liga said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am doing one of these in real life at present. The parents have taken the child out of the school half way through the child's first term there and are arguing that the school has repudiated the contract in various ways (inappropriate academic streaming, harsh discipline, nasty boarding conditions, bullying). I expect that the dispute will settle for around fifty per cent of the amount claimed. Paying my fees on the case is just daft, but both sides have deep pockets and both sides are stubborn.
I imagine the types who can afford such schools aren't the types who are used to backing down or 'losing'. The parents employed legal advice and then after that they (two doctors) decided to run the hearing themselves in person over a week where witnesses were examined to find that the claims agains the school were baseless.
It was £25k of fees due IIRC, plus of course the legal costs. Interestingly for this thread, even though the parents were being sued anyway, so it would make sense to do so, the school chose NOT to sue for fees in lieu of notice not being given.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 13th October 15:33
When I am King, all middle class pushy parents shall be killed. All private schools shall be abolished. Joking apart, private schools are socially divisive (and, yes, my daughter goes to one). It is a disgrace that a country as wealthy as ours cannot provide to all children tax funded education of the standard provided by good private schools.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff