Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Centurion07 said:
An inaccurate description would be this:
OP: I want out of this contract on this point.
BV: Tough, that point is watertight so pay up.
Others: Maybe there's something else in the contract that OP can use?
BV: Nope, OP should just pay up because the contract is watertight.
Others: But you've not seen the contract?
BV: Doesn't matter. I'm right and OP should just pay up. Ignore the fact I make a living out of getting people out of contracts that both parties signed in good faith and that I will at least read their contracts before advising.
I've fixed that for you. OP: I want out of this contract on this point.
BV: Tough, that point is watertight so pay up.
Others: Maybe there's something else in the contract that OP can use?
BV: Nope, OP should just pay up because the contract is watertight.
Others: But you've not seen the contract?
BV: Doesn't matter. I'm right and OP should just pay up. Ignore the fact I make a living out of getting people out of contracts that both parties signed in good faith and that I will at least read their contracts before advising.
As I see it the notice period was watertight and the school effectively paid the OP to go away as it had more productive things to do.
On page 1 R2FU said:
Hi, hoping someone suitably qualified out there can guide me. To summarise a long story - when my daughter was starting school we applied for a place at our preferred local state school but weren't sure of being in the catchment area so as a fallback applied to the local private school. The private school offered my daughter a place which we accepted and paid a deposit, in full knowledge that if we got the place we wanted at the state school we'd lose the deposit we'd paid with the private school. No argument with that, that was the price of hedging our bets. Bottom line, we got a place at the state school and I wrote off the deposit with the private school. All good.
Except it wasn't! In accepting the place at the private school I didn't pay enough attention to the many pages of detailed terms and conditions and missed letting them know in the required timescales (one term's notice) that my daughter wouldn't be attending. So they are now coming after me for the balance of a term's fees, plus interest at 1.5% per month. Which is what is stated in their Ts & Cs that without really paying proper attention I signed up to up-front.
I fully accept I'm not squeaky clean here - I did miss the date they had set and they tell me the place did not subsequently get filled that term (no reason to think they'd go to the trouble of lying about that). So I'm prepared to come to some arrangement.
But my questions are these:
Is it correct that regardless of what of what their terms and conditions say, they are only entitled to seek to recover actual costs they've incurred?
If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty, which I'm told they are not legally entitled to do?
As it stands I have been served with a claim by the school's solicitors and things are currently on track to go to small claims court unless I work something out.
Basically, I'm not blameless here, and as you can hopefully see I am looking to reach some compromise (even if it is just them waiving the several hundred pounds of interest they're claiming) and am trying to find an angle to come from.
Thanks in advance for any help or guidance anyone can offer as to how I can approach this.
Except it wasn't! In accepting the place at the private school I didn't pay enough attention to the many pages of detailed terms and conditions and missed letting them know in the required timescales (one term's notice) that my daughter wouldn't be attending. So they are now coming after me for the balance of a term's fees, plus interest at 1.5% per month. Which is what is stated in their Ts & Cs that without really paying proper attention I signed up to up-front.
I fully accept I'm not squeaky clean here - I did miss the date they had set and they tell me the place did not subsequently get filled that term (no reason to think they'd go to the trouble of lying about that). So I'm prepared to come to some arrangement.
But my questions are these:
Is it correct that regardless of what of what their terms and conditions say, they are only entitled to seek to recover actual costs they've incurred?
If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty, which I'm told they are not legally entitled to do?
As it stands I have been served with a claim by the school's solicitors and things are currently on track to go to small claims court unless I work something out.
Basically, I'm not blameless here, and as you can hopefully see I am looking to reach some compromise (even if it is just them waiving the several hundred pounds of interest they're claiming) and am trying to find an angle to come from.
Thanks in advance for any help or guidance anyone can offer as to how I can approach this.
On page 11 R2FU said:
The net result was Jason and Justin helped me to construct a robust response and make a significantly reduced (by more than £2000) offer to the school by way of settlement that was promptly accepted.
That's that then.archie456 said:
I've fixed that for you.
As I see it the notice period was watertight and the school effectively paid the OP to go away as it had more productive things to do.
The pertinent point in my post is that BV, WITHOUT READING THE CONTRACT, was adamant it would be watertight and OP should pay up on that basis. As I see it the notice period was watertight and the school effectively paid the OP to go away as it had more productive things to do.
Willhire89 said:
BV - time for an SP&L sabbatical .....
That's actually not my view, nor the reason why I listed the quotes about me. I listed them to show the sheer number of the comments as I've mentioned this before, and I've also noted it on other threads about other posters. One of the posters actually ended up deleting their rather serious OP without getting any help.
I would like to think that down the pub that BV is a better person to have a conversation with than how he has come across here recently. That's how I see PH, a chat about stuff with like minded individuals, rather than a battle with keyboard-warriors.
My personal view is that respect is gained from how you act rather than how good you are at raising your own status by putting down others. I've enjoyed BV's participation on here for a long time, and it was a good mix of great knowledge and a sense of humour at the right times.
I know BV has the ability to be able to put forward discussion without an attempt at humiliation attached to it. I just don't know why he lowers himself to do so.
It's simply my hope that by reading the quotes back he can see what I am getting at and possibly use it in a constructive way.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 15th October 15:38
Actus Reus said:
We have no proof that the contract wasn't watertight. Neither side has had their arguments tested in court. QED.
It doesn't matter whether it turned out to be watertight or not; BV was giving out advice WITHOUT READING IT.I'm willing to bet my house on that not being how he conducts his professional dealings in the real world.
This whole forum would suffer if we stuck to the 'full disclosure or no reply' rules. Of course BV reads contracts about which he is litigating - I read stuff I'm notarising, but set the bar lower on the internet when I'm dishing out advice.
What BV did do was make a comment on the facts as the OP presented them, and that's fair enough on the internet. Other posters went the extra mile and asked to take a look and, on the strength of that, suggested a defence. The OP presented this defence and the school settled.
No arguments have ever been tested in court, no paid-for legal advice given out, and the OP is better off as a result of this thread. I like all the posters concerned, and I value their input - by and large they are 3 (BV, Justin, JandJ) of the better informed contributors here - so too ORD who has joined the battle a little later. They disagree here, and people have taken comments personally, which is a shame, but various people egging other people on, throwing mud at the legal profession for no purpose whatsoever and just generally being t
ts doesn't really help.
Anyway, not my fight, so I'm out.
What BV did do was make a comment on the facts as the OP presented them, and that's fair enough on the internet. Other posters went the extra mile and asked to take a look and, on the strength of that, suggested a defence. The OP presented this defence and the school settled.
No arguments have ever been tested in court, no paid-for legal advice given out, and the OP is better off as a result of this thread. I like all the posters concerned, and I value their input - by and large they are 3 (BV, Justin, JandJ) of the better informed contributors here - so too ORD who has joined the battle a little later. They disagree here, and people have taken comments personally, which is a shame, but various people egging other people on, throwing mud at the legal profession for no purpose whatsoever and just generally being t
ts doesn't really help.Anyway, not my fight, so I'm out.
Actus Reus said:
This whole forum would suffer if we stuck to the 'full disclosure or no reply' rules. Of course BV reads contracts about which he is litigating - I read stuff I'm notarising, but set the bar lower on the internet when I'm dishing out advice.
What BV did do was make a comment on the facts as the OP presented them, and that's fair enough on the internet. Other posters went the extra mile and asked to take a look and, on the strength of that, suggested a defence. The OP presented this defence and the school settled.
No arguments have ever been tested in court, no paid-for legal advice given out, and the OP is better off as a result of this thread. I like all the posters concerned, and I value their input - by and large they are 3 (BV, Justin, JandJ) of the better informed contributors here - so too ORD who has joined the battle a little later. They disagree here, and people have taken comments personally, which is a shame, but various people egging other people on, throwing mud at the legal profession for no purpose whatsoever and just generally being tts doesn't really help.
Anyway, not my fight, so I'm out.
An excellent and constructive post. I have nothing to add.What BV did do was make a comment on the facts as the OP presented them, and that's fair enough on the internet. Other posters went the extra mile and asked to take a look and, on the strength of that, suggested a defence. The OP presented this defence and the school settled.
No arguments have ever been tested in court, no paid-for legal advice given out, and the OP is better off as a result of this thread. I like all the posters concerned, and I value their input - by and large they are 3 (BV, Justin, JandJ) of the better informed contributors here - so too ORD who has joined the battle a little later. They disagree here, and people have taken comments personally, which is a shame, but various people egging other people on, throwing mud at the legal profession for no purpose whatsoever and just generally being t
ts doesn't really help.Anyway, not my fight, so I'm out.
RobinOakapple said:
The legal profession do have a certain amount to answer for, all the same.
They neither sow nor reap, and yet they seem to do very well.
Have you any idea of the scale of the invisible exports provided by the legal services businesses of the UK, a world centre for dispute resolution and contract formation? Have you any idea of how much tax HMRC garners from the legal profession? Have you any idea of how much taxable employment is provided for non lawyer staff by the profession, and by companies that support the profession, from stationers to publishers to couriers to storage warehouses? They neither sow nor reap, and yet they seem to do very well.
Plenty of sowing, plenty of reaping.
On that rather apt reference...
After the OP announced the outcome, as there was speculation banding around without the facts I had the thought that posters who had invested in the thread would be interested in the previously unknown pertinent facts.
I do wish now I had followed Jason's lead in not returning to the thread, and I genuinely wish I hadn't bothered. Clearly, Jason's foresight is better than my own, and as the OP pointed out, for whatever reason this thread has brought out the worst in some posters.
So, please forget any of the details I posted and the last ten pages and at this apt point I revert you all back to my original explanation of how the OP got his result here:
After the OP announced the outcome, as there was speculation banding around without the facts I had the thought that posters who had invested in the thread would be interested in the previously unknown pertinent facts.
I do wish now I had followed Jason's lead in not returning to the thread, and I genuinely wish I hadn't bothered. Clearly, Jason's foresight is better than my own, and as the OP pointed out, for whatever reason this thread has brought out the worst in some posters.
So, please forget any of the details I posted and the last ten pages and at this apt point I revert you all back to my original explanation of how the OP got his result here:
JustinP1 said:
Truth is Jas is my Jedi mentor and the mediclurions are strong with me. We sent them 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...
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...
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 16th October 01:14
Perplexing post. You did a very good job getting the OP a good settlement. Everyone, as far as I am aware, has congratulated you and the OP.
The points you ran appear to have been bad points. This is not unusual - weak cases often result in good settlements, at least when the amount of money involved is small.
If you want someone to take a look at the defence and tell you, once and for all, whether your points had a chance of success, post it up on here. I'll draft you a judgment with case-law references and everything
The points you ran appear to have been bad points. This is not unusual - weak cases often result in good settlements, at least when the amount of money involved is small.
If you want someone to take a look at the defence and tell you, once and for all, whether your points had a chance of success, post it up on here. I'll draft you a judgment with case-law references and everything
ORD said:
Perplexing post. You did a very good job getting the OP a good settlement. Everyone, as far as I am aware, has congratulated you and the OP.
I do note that you did do this, despite your original view (which is laudable), but if you remember everyone else doing the same, I'd ask you to go back to page 12 and read again:MrBarry123 said:
BV is still correct in his original point?
...BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
...BV isn't incorrect, you're just a sneaky sausage.
OpulentBob said:
Re-reading the very first post on this thread, I would agree.
Breadvan72 said:
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!
ClaphamGT3 said:
The OP has little to no chance of ever getting his children into a local independent school should the need arise in future, thanks to not taking BV72's advice.... Yoo da man Justinp1.....
Hence, the other reason I stepped in to put in the facts. Again, a mistake in hindsight. This thread isn't about the facts, the reason it's been going on for so long as it's 90% about Breadvan (and his supporters by proxy) being right despite the fact that the opinion he gave to pay up he could not possibly have accurately given without any of the facts, the claim, or the contract.So, I refer you once again to my mediclurion count - it's a lot less controversial.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 16th October 09:28
Fair enough. My point is that what seems to have annoyed you is that BV still thinks the draft Amended Defence was crap, on the basis of what you have told us. You think the new defences were good. I am asking you to put that to the test. If you won't, that suggests that you know (or suspect) that the arguments in the draft amended pleading are bad but still want to pick a fight because someone else has said they are bad.
I have had cases settle for millions when one side or the other was running bad arguments. In this case, though, had their been more money involved, the arguments you have mentioned might well have been the subject of a strike-out application.
I have had cases settle for millions when one side or the other was running bad arguments. In this case, though, had their been more money involved, the arguments you have mentioned might well have been the subject of a strike-out application.
It's pointless Justin subjecting his defence to scrutiny here, absolutely pointless. Those who support BV, and there's a surprising number of them, will reject it anyway.
All the rest of us know is that the OP got a good result due to the people who helped him, despite the barracking from the 'professionals'.
All the rest of us know is that the OP got a good result due to the people who helped him, despite the barracking from the 'professionals'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff