Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
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.
Given the average private school is breakeven and costs £10k+ (not even a good one, MPSIA) which is more than most families pay in income tax I don't find it that disgraceful. I quite like the NHS, police etc... that we also get along with an OK-ish level of education.(Income tax receipts 2014 were £163bn divided by 25m homes is c.£6.5k each.)
Breadvan72 said:
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.
Thank god for grammar schools then.All you need to is pass a test and your in for no extra money over the secondary-modern alternative, so long as you choose the closest one to your home that is.
Breadvan72 said:
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.
The reality has little to do with funding and a lot to do with attitudes to learning, unfortunately. You could give a fancy private school less money than an inter-city state school, and the posh school would still vastly outperform its less fancy counterpart because it would have the benefit of children whose parents are engaged in the process. The stories from friends of mine who teach in these schools are extremely sad.The idea that a parent should have to send his or her child to a bad school in the interests of social cohesion makes me gag. It would be a better idea to encourage the parents of the problem children to do some parenting. In any case, there isnt much hope for social cohesion with an aged Russell Brandesque moron leading HM Opposition
I have read this thread with amusement.
There are some general points useful to many a conflict, especially in car buying, that might be worth drawing out.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others. We have seen how belligerence, arrogance can blind an opinion into dogmatic intractability. As in many professions some of the old-guard hang onto the days of Yore in the hope they return, which they wont. Change is fast: the internet, EU and consumerism will not go away
2. The world of Consumer Law has fundamentally changed to reflect society and tortuous language, endless small print etc is being exposed for its intention to confuse members of the public. Corporate Law has been left behind to catch along with many of its practitioners.
3. Many contracts have been drawn by budding lawyers keen to tighten every loop-hole twice if not thrice over. Few of these contracts can withstand the test of openness and fairness under the new Regs and OFT guidelines.
4. "Commercial" settlements has been categorised here as not 'real' wins yet the Judiciary is urging everyone to attempt arbitration rather than filling to Court system. In the real world the overwhelming majority of civil disputes will end in a financial arrangement; what else is there?
5. The burdensome cost of litigation is well beyond the reach of a large proportion of the population. A cost driven by the profession whose members hankers after past where charging hourly fees for a phone call or inserting a comma is called advice!
6. Consumer Law is enabling intelligent lay people to understand their rights without a need to study Latin and is redressing the balance of the money provided power of confusion.
My advice is never just 'accept' as one poster has suggested- there is a wealth of information published by the Government, OFT, CAB that is aimed precisely at making sure consumers are treated fairly and not mislead by omission or confusion.
There are some general points useful to many a conflict, especially in car buying, that might be worth drawing out.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others. We have seen how belligerence, arrogance can blind an opinion into dogmatic intractability. As in many professions some of the old-guard hang onto the days of Yore in the hope they return, which they wont. Change is fast: the internet, EU and consumerism will not go away
2. The world of Consumer Law has fundamentally changed to reflect society and tortuous language, endless small print etc is being exposed for its intention to confuse members of the public. Corporate Law has been left behind to catch along with many of its practitioners.
3. Many contracts have been drawn by budding lawyers keen to tighten every loop-hole twice if not thrice over. Few of these contracts can withstand the test of openness and fairness under the new Regs and OFT guidelines.
4. "Commercial" settlements has been categorised here as not 'real' wins yet the Judiciary is urging everyone to attempt arbitration rather than filling to Court system. In the real world the overwhelming majority of civil disputes will end in a financial arrangement; what else is there?
5. The burdensome cost of litigation is well beyond the reach of a large proportion of the population. A cost driven by the profession whose members hankers after past where charging hourly fees for a phone call or inserting a comma is called advice!
6. Consumer Law is enabling intelligent lay people to understand their rights without a need to study Latin and is redressing the balance of the money provided power of confusion.
My advice is never just 'accept' as one poster has suggested- there is a wealth of information published by the Government, OFT, CAB that is aimed precisely at making sure consumers are treated fairly and not mislead by omission or confusion.
RobinOakapple said:
Hol said:
Thank god for grammar schools then.
All you need to is pass a test and your in for no extra money over the secondary-modern alternative, so long as you choose the closest one to your home that is.
Did you go to one?All you need to is pass a test and your in for no extra money over the secondary-modern alternative, so long as you choose the closest one to your home that is.
It was a secondary modern life with
s, playground fights and a few kids who just didn't want to be there (at all).Edited by Hol on Tuesday 13th October 16:44
drdel said:
I have read this thread with amusement.
There are some general points useful to many a conflict, especially in car buying, that might be worth drawing out.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others. We have seen how belligerence, arrogance can blind an opinion into dogmatic intractability. As in many professions some of the old-guard hang onto the days of Yore in the hope they return, which they wont. Change is fast: the internet, EU and consumerism will not go away
2. The world of Consumer Law has fundamentally changed to reflect society and tortuous language, endless small print etc is being exposed for its intention to confuse members of the public. Corporate Law has been left behind to catch along with many of its practitioners.
3. Many contracts have been drawn by budding lawyers keen to tighten every loop-hole twice if not thrice over. Few of these contracts can withstand the test of openness and fairness under the new Regs and OFT guidelines.
4. "Commercial" settlements has been categorised here as not 'real' wins yet the Judiciary is urging everyone to attempt arbitration rather than filling to Court system. In the real world the overwhelming majority of civil disputes will end in a financial arrangement; what else is there?
5. The burdensome cost of litigation is well beyond the reach of a large proportion of the population. A cost driven by the profession whose members hankers after past where charging hourly fees for a phone call or inserting a comma is called advice!
6. Consumer Law is enabling intelligent lay people to understand their rights without a need to study Latin and is redressing the balance of the money provided power of confusion.
My advice is never just 'accept' as one poster has suggested- there is a wealth of information published by the Government, OFT, CAB that is aimed precisely at making sure consumers are treated fairly and not mislead by omission or confusion.
For what it is worth, at least one poster on here practises in EU law, including consumer law, and thinks almost all of what you have just said is utter pish. Any tolerably good commercial lawyer (and BV is a lot more than that) can deal with consumer law without the slightest difficulty, not least where it has no meaningful application to a provision (as in this case).There are some general points useful to many a conflict, especially in car buying, that might be worth drawing out.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others. We have seen how belligerence, arrogance can blind an opinion into dogmatic intractability. As in many professions some of the old-guard hang onto the days of Yore in the hope they return, which they wont. Change is fast: the internet, EU and consumerism will not go away
2. The world of Consumer Law has fundamentally changed to reflect society and tortuous language, endless small print etc is being exposed for its intention to confuse members of the public. Corporate Law has been left behind to catch along with many of its practitioners.
3. Many contracts have been drawn by budding lawyers keen to tighten every loop-hole twice if not thrice over. Few of these contracts can withstand the test of openness and fairness under the new Regs and OFT guidelines.
4. "Commercial" settlements has been categorised here as not 'real' wins yet the Judiciary is urging everyone to attempt arbitration rather than filling to Court system. In the real world the overwhelming majority of civil disputes will end in a financial arrangement; what else is there?
5. The burdensome cost of litigation is well beyond the reach of a large proportion of the population. A cost driven by the profession whose members hankers after past where charging hourly fees for a phone call or inserting a comma is called advice!
6. Consumer Law is enabling intelligent lay people to understand their rights without a need to study Latin and is redressing the balance of the money provided power of confusion.
My advice is never just 'accept' as one poster has suggested- there is a wealth of information published by the Government, OFT, CAB that is aimed precisely at making sure consumers are treated fairly and not mislead by omission or confusion.
A lot people have a conception of the legal professions that is itself stuck in about 1980. My experience is that the decent outfits are very modern and that, although you might find this difficult to believe, young lawyers are easily the brightest people you could hope to meet. I have never once used a Latin phrase in court and would laugh at anyone who did. Your rant reads like this "Bloody doctors charge loads of money for putting leaches on people and drilling holes in their heads! Anyone can do that with the new fangled science and all that!".
I have had the misfortune to deal with LIPs on a few occasions. Despite having the money to use professionals, they have all taken the view that you put forward: "I can read the law, do it myself and enforce my rights!" Each and every one of them has ended up losing extremely badly and, in a couple of instances, going to jail.
drdel said:
I have read this thread with amusement.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others.
I only know a few barristers but among them are a Fulbright Scholar, Rhodes Scholar and a Fellow of All Souls.1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others.
In terms of sheer intellectual firepower no other profession appears to attract people of this calibre so consistently.
Solicitors seem to be from a broader church however.
ORD.
Is that an exposed nerve I sense? You have attacked with a shotgun spread as the obvious form of defence.
I am pleased you think that only "the brightest people go into law". You don't say 'many' or 'most' - it rather proves my point about thinking you are all 'superior' beings; thanks.
Irrationally, you transfer my comments to the Medical profession - a typical legal ploy of misdirection.
My post is an opinion, I never get into the discussions on Forums just to 'ping-pong' insulting childish messages; so will not comment further to you.
Insult, jump up and down, have at it the floor is entirely yours.
Is that an exposed nerve I sense? You have attacked with a shotgun spread as the obvious form of defence.
I am pleased you think that only "the brightest people go into law". You don't say 'many' or 'most' - it rather proves my point about thinking you are all 'superior' beings; thanks.
Irrationally, you transfer my comments to the Medical profession - a typical legal ploy of misdirection.
My post is an opinion, I never get into the discussions on Forums just to 'ping-pong' insulting childish messages; so will not comment further to you.
Insult, jump up and down, have at it the floor is entirely yours.
walm said:
drdel said:
I have read this thread with amusement.
1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others.
I only know a few barristers but among them are a Fulbright Scholar, Rhodes Scholar and a Fellow of All Souls.1. Despite their attempt to appear superior beings legal professionals are no more or less intelligent than others.
In terms of sheer intellectual firepower no other profession appears to attract people of this calibre so consistently.
Solicitors seem to be from a broader church however.
nano-technology, bio-technology, neurosurgery, Genetic engineering, Econometric etc. etc
drdel said:
"...no other profession.." A nice insult to all those in...
nano-technology, bio-technology, neurosurgery, Genetic engineering, Econometric etc. etc
I was really thinking of comparing across broader groups than that. You have chosen highly specialised niches WITHIN a profession.nano-technology, bio-technology, neurosurgery, Genetic engineering, Econometric etc. etc
I was thinking vs. say medical, accounting, finance, IT etc...
I am not insulting those with cutting edge PhDs in quantitative econometric financial modelling to suggest that finance as a profession in general isn't as high calibre intellectually as barristers.
Breadvan72 said:
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.
I'd say that the real problem is how 'elitist' some private schools have become in the last decade. An awful lot of grads that went to what used to be very civilised schools are absolute, vulgar cock sockets in need of a serious slapping. Ghastly little sts, indoctrinated to genuinely believe they are better than others.There is no chance in hell that my children will be going to my old school as that now seems to indoctrinate pupils to actually believe they are superior and creates a hideous social divide.
One of our local schools is a hideous farce of what some mostly Colonial arse pickers think the third world baby butchers, TV celebs and prostitutes who send their sproggs to think a public school is actually about. And judging by the number of weekends spent at birthday parties for ghastly little s
ts in central London the school is not alone.Genuine, traditional private schools seem hard to find now.
ORD said:
DrDel has a fairly enormous chip on his shoulder about the legal professions and is quite upset, so I would suggest letting him have his little strop. He doesnt want a discussion.
Chip or not, he has a point. The OP was advised by a barrister who claimed that the subject was something he was suitably qualified in. In fact, he banged on and on about how he was qualified to tell the OP that his only option was to pay up in full and everyone else who was offering to explore options wasn't. All this despite knowing almost knowing nothing in terms details.
It turned out that the barrister was wrong, despite the arrogance and belittling of people who suggested there might be another way.
In short, a triumph of arrogance over intelligence.
cashmax said:
ORD said:
DrDel has a fairly enormous chip on his shoulder about the legal professions and is quite upset, so I would suggest letting him have his little strop. He doesnt want a discussion.
Chip or not, he has a point. The OP was advised by a barrister who claimed that the subject was something he was suitably qualified in. In fact, he banged on and on about how he was qualified to tell the OP that his only option was to pay up in full and everyone else who was offering to explore options wasn't. All this despite knowing almost knowing nothing in terms details.
It turned out that the barrister was wrong, despite the arrogance and belittling of people who suggested there might be another way.
In short, a triumph of arrogance over intelligence.
"It is easy for pub experts to encourage the OP to spend time and money defending the claim, but my view, based on decades of real life cases, is that the OP should settle ASAP. If he can negotiate a bit off the claim, great, but if the school holds out for the full amount, it is not worth the OP contesting this."
Nothing I have seen has led me to believe that this was anything but good advice. In fact, the OP followed it (with the kind help of others) and got an excellent settlement.
(The only qualification to this is that there has been some new info to suggest that the school's pleading was utterly terrible. At a guess, I expect the judge would have let them get away with that and still upheld the claim, but it does introduce some uncertainty as to what would have happened had the OP pressed on with an otherwise hopeless defence.)
cashmax said:
ORD said:
DrDel has a fairly enormous chip on his shoulder about the legal professions and is quite upset, so I would suggest letting him have his little strop. He doesnt want a discussion.
Chip or not, he has a point. The OP was advised by a barrister who claimed that the subject was something he was suitably qualified in. In fact, he banged on and on about how he was qualified to tell the OP that his only option was to pay up in full and everyone else who was offering to explore options wasn't. All this despite knowing almost knowing nothing in terms details.
It turned out that the barrister was wrong, despite the arrogance and belittling of people who suggested there might be another way.
In short, a triumph of arrogance over intelligence.
Sorry to disappoint your ORD but absolutely no chip about legal profession, (have many in my team, young and old!). Upset! don't be daft so no strop, not in my lexicon. Discussion yes, baiting & trading insults; just pointless. My original post was not directed at you in anyway but just had a few generic, You choose to personally bait but you know nothing about me so don't comment as if you do.
drdel said:
I agree cashmax, that was the simple thrust.
Sorry to disappoint your ORD but absolutely no chip about legal profession, (have many in my team, young and old!). Upset! don't be daft so no strop, not in my lexicon. Discussion yes, baiting & trading insults; just pointless. My original post was not directed at you in anyway but just had a few generic, You choose to personally bait but you know nothing about me so don't comment as if you do.
It was probably unkind of me to refer to your post as a rant. I apologise for that. Likewise the "chip" comment. I didnt mean personally to bait or insult you, and I regret it coming across that way. I meant to parody what you had said and take the piss out of your views, rather than to be personally offensive; on reflection, I overstepped that line, and I apologise.Sorry to disappoint your ORD but absolutely no chip about legal profession, (have many in my team, young and old!). Upset! don't be daft so no strop, not in my lexicon. Discussion yes, baiting & trading insults; just pointless. My original post was not directed at you in anyway but just had a few generic, You choose to personally bait but you know nothing about me so don't comment as if you do.
In any case, this thread has been a bit grumpy for no good reason. BV gave perfectly accurate and sensible advice out of the goodness of his little heart; others (Jas and Justin) thought, for good reasons or bad, that the OP's position was stronger than did BV; and they, out of the goodness of their hearts, went further and actually helped the OP to put forward at least a better case than he had done to date. The outcome of all this? The OP got a very good settlement, and everyone (including BV) has congratulated him on this.
A win for PH, in my book.
ORD said:
(The only qualification to this is that there has been some new info to suggest that the school's pleading was utterly terrible. At a guess, I expect the judge would have let them get away with that and still upheld the claim, but it does introduce some uncertainty as to what would have happened had the OP pressed on with an otherwise hopeless defence.)
ORD - for the good of anyone wishing to pick apart what actually went on, the pleading of the claim was poor. The reason why it was poor was because it could not do the normal and expected thing which would be:"The Defendant gave X notice... Clause 75 of the terms and conditions states:...... Therefore the Claimant claims damages as outlined in the genuine pre-estimate of loss..."
The reason why they couldn't do that was that Clause 75 was pretty much:
"The genuine pre-estimate of loss is between 1 and 5 years fees, but the school agrees to limit this to one term's fees payable as a debt."
As you'll know, that's not a legitimate liquidated damages clause, and if examined actually shows the drafter does not understand the principles, and in fact is misrepresenting the legal interpretation of the situation to the consumer who is supposed to trust that the contract is set out in a correct and fair way.
So, the claim failed because the contract was very poor. Breadvan is right in that 'a term's notice' in itself is not unfair at all in the situation of a private school contract as a length.
However, to obtain £3000 from a consumer for effectively cancelling an agreement too late, IMHO you need to be 'whiter than white' in your drafting. You need to state that date prominently, you need to state the figure defaulted prominently, as well as how notice must be given. The school failed to do this, and in actuality even their clause 75 was so poor they were too embarrassed to refer to it in their claim.
On the other hand, as I've stated previously, on the contract there could be the term just above where you sign which states:
"Cancellation: Should you not wish your child to take up the offer of a place, you must give notice in writing to the Headteacher no later than May 1st. Should you give later notice than this, a term's fees of £3000 will be due under this agreement."
If they'd have done that the OP would have not had a leg to stand on. However, he may not have entered into the contract, put if he did, he would have had the correct understanding of the full implications.
The fault lies entirely in the drafting of the contract. If you have a consumer contract that you can't actually rely upon in court as it's legally incoherent, then you've certainly not met the standard needed to make it clear enough for a consumer.
In terms of how a Judge may have interpreted the situation, I doubt that he would have given the solicitor the benefit of the doubt against a litigant in person and allowed them to fundamentally change their claim during the hearing. Indeed, I might suggest that he would expect the solicitors who wrote a 105 clause consumer contract to stick to it as a matter of principle - and if they can't then 'tough'.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 13th October 20:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff