Advice on dispute with a private school please

[archie456]

JustinP1 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Justin probably means well but he is, I suggest, acting irresponsibly by offering to give legal advice when he has no qualifications to do so, and is not insured to do so. He is possibly the worst person to take advice from as he is, according to his anecdotes here, relentlessly litigious and almost always suing everybody for something (I exaggerate, but not that much). He is the typical well meaning but unreliable amateur. Lawyers are insured and regulated. People on the internet who base their advice on something that once happened to them are not insured and not regulated.

If I do give advice on here, whilst I have some specific education in a couple of niches in law, especially if someone PMs me, the first thing I say is 'I am not a lawyer, but...' and put whoever that is in the right direction and ultimately advise that they take their own legal advice.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 17th September 22:24

But you've not done that in this thread have you?

You sound like a wannabe lawyer in most of your posts, which I think is very dangerous for folks looking for guidance.

[JustinP1]

archie456 said:

JustinP1 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Justin probably means well but he is, I suggest, acting irresponsibly by offering to give legal advice when he has no qualifications to do so, and is not insured to do so. He is possibly the worst person to take advice from as he is, according to his anecdotes here, relentlessly litigious and almost always suing everybody for something (I exaggerate, but not that much). He is the typical well meaning but unreliable amateur. Lawyers are insured and regulated. People on the internet who base their advice on something that once happened to them are not insured and not regulated.

If I do give advice on here, whilst I have some specific education in a couple of niches in law, especially if someone PMs me, the first thing I say is 'I am not a lawyer, but...' and put whoever that is in the right direction and ultimately advise that they take their own legal advice.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 17th September 22:24

But you've not done that in this thread have you?

You sound like a wannabe lawyer in most of your posts, which I think is very dangerous for folks looking for guidance.

But then I've not (unlike others) told the OP what to do have I?

I've suggested that analysis of a contractual position is only possible from viewing that contract, and I've recounted the situation of where I helped my Mum in a similar situation, where actually important parts of that contract were unenforcible.

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 18th September 00:24

[johnfm]

archie456 said:

JustinP1 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Justin probably means well but he is, I suggest, acting irresponsibly by offering to give legal advice when he has no qualifications to do so, and is not insured to do so. He is possibly the worst person to take advice from as he is, according to his anecdotes here, relentlessly litigious and almost always suing everybody for something (I exaggerate, but not that much). He is the typical well meaning but unreliable amateur. Lawyers are insured and regulated. People on the internet who base their advice on something that once happened to them are not insured and not regulated.

If I do give advice on here, whilst I have some specific education in a couple of niches in law, especially if someone PMs me, the first thing I say is 'I am not a lawyer, but...' and put whoever that is in the right direction and ultimately advise that they take their own legal advice.

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 17th September 22:24

But you've not done that in this thread have you?

You sound like a wannabe lawyer in most of your posts, which I think is very dangerous for folks looking for guidance.

Except in this case Justin is 10000% correct when he says the thing that BV almost always says (but didn't in this thread);

nobody can give any useful, specific advice without seeing the contract and knowing more about the timings of its formation.

It is pretty clear (from this and the thread about the bloke with a dodgy temporary road that he can't use) that, for whatever reason, BV got out of bed the wrong side this morning (as do we all on occasion).

In summary: you may be bang to rights. You may not. We've not seen the contract. We don't know when the agreement was made. We don't know when you gave notice.

[caziques]

Sometimes it can be very useful to get a non lawyers perspective , and I think JP1s advice about a real life situation is extremely relevant.

I'm being attacked at the present time by five, patronising arrogant aholes, who are masquerading as lawyers (in that they all have practicing certificates) - if I hadn't stood up for my myself I would be 50,000 pounds lighter - as it is it looks likely they will have to pay me about 50,000.

At present I have a pretty jaundiced view of the legal profession, and the way many lawyers will happily tell outright lies to the court, and regularly abuse their privileged position.

Hopefully I will write a book about my experiences, in the meantime the OP should query anything that emanates from a lawyer - as many of them are bullies who treat non legal persons with contempt.

[velocefica]

Private schools are run like a family business, the family business being the mafia. I went to an independent school which is quite established many years ago. Got very good GCSE results (top 10% of the year) but missed one grade to do one subject at A-Level.

Any other state, academy etc or Sixth form would have simply switched subjects but as it was an independent. They demanded a fee of £10k to change. My parents refused point blank and as it was the end of August this left no time to find another school. I went to a Sixth Form and did pretty well despite receiving little to no teaching as such, then onto Uni. Discovered few years later that many parents with sons/daughters with very poor grades had paid thousands to get their child into Sixth Form at this school. Therefore anyone existing that didn't meet the strict criteria was asked to pay up.


Would never send my child to a private or independent.

Edited by velocefica on Friday 18th September 04:42

[anonymous-user]

I think that Justin is over complicating matters. 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. The contract also stipulated for interest on late payments. The rate is high, but lower than that accepted by courts in various contexts. 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.


* I love the standard PH idea that lawyers don't know about real life. Do all our cases happen on Planet Zog?

[Vaud]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Greetings from Zog. PH is available here but the our bandwidth is limited as BT intergalactic will only give us 0.5meg.

Your thoughts on this strategy?

Vaud said:

One tack to take might be to offer a reduced amount as a charitable gift, they could then claim gift aid? Net amount would be the same to them but you would pay less.

[anonymous-user]

Might be worth a punt.

[anonymous-user]

This is BV, in my mind. Grumpy, humpy, but ultimately well meaning and knowledgeable. And maybe not quite that old. Maybe.



(No offence, BV, just your approx professional area and love for old British snotters...)

[anonymous-user]

More grumpy, but not that old. More goggly eyed loony as well. Cars all rusty Brit stheaps.

[ClaphamGT3]

What neither we nor Justin can know is whether he got the result he did because of an unassailable legal argument or because the bursar took a pragmatic business decision that life was too short to get into a time consuming dispute over a trivial amount of money

[anonymous-user]

Especially when the opposing party is a serial litigant. The litigious type (as satirised by Conan Doyle in "The Hound of the Baskervilles") often gets a lot of wins, because sensible people CBA to spend time dealing with the serial litigant.

[zarjaz1991]

JustinP1 said:

BV, as much as I like you and your advice, I don't think that's fair on a number of levels:

You might want to retract the 'relentlessly litigious' comment, as I share your view that legal action is a 'final straw' when discussion fails. However, if the other party is clearly in the wrong, I am not afraid to stand up for my rights, because I am able to. Indeed, in this example, my family was on the brunt of someone litigious - not the other way around. For clarity, on average, I've taken legal action against another party once every 5 years of my adult life. I'd hardly call that 'almost always'.

You could pick put a handful of posts on PH and piece together a convincing argument about me as a person. On the other hand, I would be able to pick out some of your comments, or indeed other's responses and opinions about you and play you through with traits that do not accurately portray you as person. I don't believe either is correct, or fair.

If I do give advice on here, whilst I have some specific education in a couple of niches in law, especially if someone PMs me, the first thing I say is 'I am not a lawyer, but...' and put whoever that is in the right direction and ultimately advise that they take their own legal advice.

Indeed, as you will know personally, I am more than happy to defer to professional advice. My offer to the OP is to look over the contract to see the context of the terms. I'm more than happy to bring forward any issues back to the thread.

I'd rather help the OP that say 'pay up' because he has come here for help. If he wanted to 'pay up' he wouldn't have bothered. Call me 'community spirited' or whatever, but I do believe that it is impossible to assess the contractual situation without viewing the contract.

As I've mentioned, my sympathy to whose who don't read contracts they sign is limited, however, I don't believe that 18% per annum interest charge on a liquidated damages clause in such a contract is lawful.

If I've not brought up a legitimate point so far, than say, but I'd prefer it if rather than categorising or belittling me you'd play the ball rather than the man.

I've offered to help the OP with things that do seem unlawful, and I've offered to read the contract. Will you?

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 17th September 22:24

You can't precede legal advice by saying "I am not a lawyer" any more than you can precede open heart surgery by saying "I am not a surgeon".

[anonymous-user]

I'm not a gynaecologist...

[anonymous-user]

I'm not a real welder.

[ORD]

Breadvan72 said:

Especially when the opposing party is a serial litigant. The litigious type (as satirised by Conan Doyle in "The Hound of the Baskervilles") often gets a lot of wins, because sensible people CBA to spend time dealing with the serial litigant.

Before working out what you meant by CBA, I read that as "sensible people [carry out a] Cost Benefit Analysis [and so choose not] to spend time dealing with the serial litigant". It is as true when read in that way.

[Durzel]

JustinP1 said:

Ho, ho.

No, it doesn't bother me. If you're down for personal digs, then so be it. Personally I think your skills are better used discussing the facts. If i'm incorrect in anything Ive asserted, I'm happy to be corrected, for the good of the thread, and ultimately helping the OP.

Your advice is that the OP is 'bang to rights', presumably about the 18% interest on the damages too?

Ultimately, you are clearly more qualified than me in helping the OP, but you've made it clear you don't want to. Fair enough.

A minor gripe I guess but there is a big difference between any one of us reading a contract, saying stuff like "that seems wrong" or "I'd sue 'em if it were me", and offering professional services.

For one thing there's nothing at stake for well intentioned amateurs so that is always likely to colour viewpoints. Secondly I think BV72's point about litigious zeal is a valid one. Some times, often in fact, you can be right ethically and factually - but it could still be a bad idea, a pyrhhic victory if you will, to get litigious.

[ORD]

Durzel said:

JustinP1 said:

Ho, ho.

No, it doesn't bother me. If you're down for personal digs, then so be it. Personally I think your skills are better used discussing the facts. If i'm incorrect in anything Ive asserted, I'm happy to be corrected, for the good of the thread, and ultimately helping the OP.

Your advice is that the OP is 'bang to rights', presumably about the 18% interest on the damages too?

Ultimately, you are clearly more qualified than me in helping the OP, but you've made it clear you don't want to. Fair enough.

A minor gripe I guess but there is a big difference between any one of us reading a contract, saying stuff like "that seems wrong" or "I'd sue 'em if it were me", and offering professional services.

For one thing there's nothing at stake for well intentioned amateurs so that is always likely to colour viewpoints. Secondly I think BV72's point about litigious zeal is a valid one. Some times, often in fact, you can be right ethically and factually - but it could still be a bad idea, a pyrhhic victory if you will, to get litigious.

No victory, pyrhhic or otherwise - it is usually a very bad idea to engage in litigation unless you have a strong case or loads and loads of money.

[Jasandjules]

Durzel said:

A minor gripe I guess but there is a big difference between any one of us reading a contract, saying stuff like "that seems wrong" or "I'd sue 'em if it were me", and offering professional services.

It is practically speaking wrong for anyone to say "you will win" or "you will lose" without sight of the contract and the terms which are being relied upon in this case.

More information is needed before a reasonable view can be taken.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that Justin is over complicating matters....

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.

I don't believe that looking at the contract before advising 'complicates matters'. I think it's fundamental.

How many of those decades of real life cases did you advise a party to settle without even reading the contract they signed first?