Am i entitled to refund on school trip

halibut2209

The whole issue of minors is another interesting one. By law, the contract between the school and the OP has to be school-parent.

So, can the actions of someone not legally entitled to be in the contract cause the parent to lose out?

And before you come aboard with the whole "The school may have paid that money on", again that is irrelevant. This is solely about the contract between the OP and the school.

poet123

Poppy9 wrote: »

I've never signed anything but a medical permission form for DD to go on any school trip. I read it and all it commits me to is allowing emergency medical treatment, contacting her GP and it lists her current medical needs.

The school my youngest attends send out a letter of intent for any school trip. It clearly sets out that only those with acceptable behaviour will be allowed to go. Then, when the parental consent forms are sent out they contain the behaviour clause which is accepted by us when we sign to allow the child to go. Then we get the medical forms if necessary.

Poppy9 wrote: »

To me it's a forgone conclusion that if she is in trouble at school they have the right to refuse her going on any activity, they don't need a contract for that. However they cannot hold onto the money as no contract that is dependant upon a minor's behaviour is valid and however much schools may pout/stand their ground over the issue the LEA will advise they cannot do so.

If the parent has agreed that they can retain any monies paid, that is an enforceable contract and would need to be contested in court. The LEA is not arbiter in cases involving all schools VA schools are more autonomous, but regardless, the parent would have to contest it. Few would bother.

Poppy9 wrote: »

I've refused for to sign since Y7 the "contract" in DD planner as it's impossible for me to be party to a contract of which I have no control as I'm not present to supervise etc. This doesn't mean I won't support the school in any sanctions they deem necessary due to behaviour issues in school, but I have raised my child properly to behave appropriately during school and I'm not signing any "pretend" contract.

That is your prerogative of course. I am of the opinion that because I have raised my child to respect authority I do not need to be there to supervise and can trust him to behave, so have nothing to fear from signing a formal agreement to support the school. Nor do I see it as a pretend contract but as a formalisation of expectations.

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

I said I don't know, you said you did not think she could possibly have done something which warranted that sanction. You were judging without knowing.If we knew what exactly she had done and what the school feared she may do on the trip we would both be in a position to make informed comment.

I actually said

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If we are looking at the OP, I doubt that the daughter did anything severe enough to warrant even taking her off the trip.

If that is judging, then there is nothing wrong with judging.

Just to dissect what you said

you said you did not think she could possibly have done something which warranted that sanction.

Actually, I think that the possibilities include

• handing in homework late
• forgetting to take her sports kit in
• answering the teacher back [this is what I guess is most likely]
• fighting
• on going bullying
• threatening another student with a knife

When I say that I doubt she had done anything which warranted the sanction, I did not say that it was outside the bounds of possibility.

I do feel that you have twisted my words to a construct of your own imagination.

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

If the parent has agreed that they can retain any monies paid, that is an enforceable contract and would need to be contested in court. The LEA is not arbiter in cases involving all schools VA schools are more autonomous, but regardless, the parent would have to contest it. Few would bother.

halibut has already addressed this

And even if the loss is "breach of contract terms by the child", the fact that it is the other party that is the sole decider of that is an unfair term by definition.

Indeed, the whole area becomes open to fraud if your view on this stands. The school could sell 40 places, book 30 and find 10 pupils to exclude for not handing in their homework or forgetting their sports kit.

halibut2209

Something else I've thought of seeing as the employer/employee simile isn't sinking in.

Say you have a child-minder. And you pay that child-minder 6 months in advance on the 1st of January and the 1st of July

On the 4th of July, that child gets into a fight/steals money/punches the child-minder/joins Al-Quaeda, whatever. And so the child-minder says "I can't look after this child anymore, but I'm keeping the remaining 5 months and 27 days payment"

Is that acceptable?

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

The whole issue of minors is another interesting one. By law, the contract between the school and the OP has to be school-parent.

So, can the actions of someone not legally entitled to be in the contract cause the parent to lose out?

And before you come aboard with the whole "The school may have paid that money on", again that is irrelevant. This is solely about the contract between the OP and the school.

It's not irrelevant

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

halibut has already addressed this



Indeed, the whole area becomes open to fraud if your view on this stands. The school could sell 40 places, book 30 and find 10 pupils to exclude for not handing in their homework or forgetting their sports kit.

Surely, if we trust a school with our child on a daily basis we should trust them to behave honourably in other situations. In any case it is ridiculous to suggest they would bother to do that why would they? Yes, theoretically they could, but do you really think they would.

The truth of the matter is schools act in Loco Parentis every day and we allow them to do that, why suddenly would they choose one student to unfairly exclude. Not even the OP alluded to it being unfair or unwarranted so who are we to conclude differently?

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Something else I've thought of seeing as the employer/employee simile isn't sinking in.

Say you have a child-minder. And you pay that child-minder 6 months in advance on the 1st of January and the 1st of July

On the 4th of July, that child gets into a fight/steals money/punches the child-minder/joins Al-Quaeda, whatever. And so the child-minder says "I can't look after this child anymore, but I'm keeping the remaining 5 months and 27 days payment"

Is that acceptable?

Completely different situation. Your examples are getting weaker.

You are going on about the child minder penalising the parents for the child's actions. The issue with the OPs problem is who should be liable for the lost costs of the childs exclusion. The school or the parents. You think the school should be. Alot of people think it depends on the severity of the reason why the child was excluded

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

Surely, if we trust a school with our child on a daily basis we should trust them to behave honourably in other situations. In any case it is ridiculous to suggest they would bother to do that why would they? Yes, theoretically they could, but do you really think they would.

The truth of the matter is schools act in Loco Parentis every day and we allow them to do that, why suddenly would they choose one student to unfairly exclude. Not even the OP alluded to it being unfair or unwarranted so who are we to conclude differently?

Let's keep the 2 issues separated.

The OP is not saying that the exclusion is unfair or unwarranted, but the very fact that they have posted indicates they are feeling that the possible retention of the money would be unfair.

And how I feel about this is that you may trust a school to the point of accepting exclusion of a pupil from a school holiday. But unless the exclusion was for presenting a clear danger to the enjoyment or safety of others, hanging on to the money would represent a clear breach of trust.

Put another way, if exclusion from a trip is used as a punishment, it is entirely optional on the part of the school to punish in that way rather than in some other way - and the school should bear the cost. If the exclusion is made to protect others, then it is a necessity and not an option, so the parent should stand any loss.

Looksguywalker

Having worked in a school I strongly suspect the pupil has done something seriously wrong or something of a lesser nature that they had been warned would lead to exclusion from the trip if repeated and they have repeat offended. In my opinion neither the school or the parent should be out of pocket, but the pupil should be.