Am i entitled to refund on school trip

halibut2209

goater78 wrote: »

It's not irrelevant

Yes it is. If you pay someone for something, what they do with that money is irrelevant to the contract between you and them. The school might have used that money for replacing lifhtbulbs or feeding the school rabbit or a night out for the staff. That's the reason why the only issue is between the school and the OP.

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Who else other than the school ( unless the courts are forced to adjudicate) can be the arbiter of that? How narrow a defintion of protection is allowed?

If the child in the OP is very resistant to the authority of one or more teachers who are supervising the trip that in itself poses a real issue for all those on the trip. Time spent reasoning with that child, uncertainty if they can be trusted to adhere to rules which are in place to protect them and others from harm etc etc. It is a very grey area which I would be loathe to step into as I have not supervised a school trip of young secondary age kids.....worst nightmare comes to mind.

My eldest son has though, and spent two nights taking turns with other teachers on a chair outside the dorm to ensure there were no escapees in Barcelona.....65 kids from year 7/8 :eek:

halibut2209

Please please stop arguing irrelevant issues.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT A SCHOOL CANNOT EXCLUDE A CHILD FROM A TRIP.

This is about whether a school should refund monies paid thus far. That is all.

Looksguywalker

When I worked in the local school all trips were organised not by the school but by a third party...does that change things in any way? It may be that the school has discussed the pupils conduct with the organisers and they have refused to let them go on the trip?

halibut2209

No it doesn't. Still two separate contracts.

Looksguywalker

halibut2209 wrote: »

No it doesn't. Still two separate contracts.

Are you replying to me? What do you mean?

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Please please stop arguing irrelevant issues.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT A SCHOOL CANNOT EXCLUDE A CHILD FROM A TRIP.

This is about whether a school should refund monies paid thus far. That is all.

They are not irrelevant

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

Who else other than the school ( unless the courts are forced to adjudicate) can be the arbiter of that? How narrow a defintion of protection is allowed?

If the child in the OP is very resistant to the authority of one or more teachers who are supervising the trip that in itself poses a real issue for all those on the trip. Time spent reasoning with that child, uncertainty if they can be trusted to adhere to rules which are in place to protect them and others from harm etc etc. It is a very grey area which I would be loathe to step into as I have not supervised a school trip of young secondary age kids.....worst nightmare comes to mind.

It is precisely because it is such a grey area that if the school does decide, they need jolly good grounds to do so.

As stated already, it would be an unfair term contractually for the school to put itself in the position of deciding particularly if they gave themselves the right to use this to enforce general discipline. For this reason, my own opinion is that they would do better not to have such a clause to allow them to deal more effectively with cases where the pupil represents a danger to the enjoyment or safety of others. Such a clause would be a figleaf which could all to easily be put up by a school in defence - and struck down as unfair - when they might well be able to exclude a pupil on the drunk passenger analogy and win the argument.

I would say that the threshold for exclusion without compensation should be set quite rather high and with an eye to what a court would uphold. I would say that the school should be arbiter of this - but as part of a general duty to the others on the holiday and not as beneficiary of an unfair contract clause.

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It is precisely because it is such a grey area that if the school does decide, they need jolly good grounds to do so.

As stated already, it would be an unfair term contractually for the school to put itself in the position of deciding particularly if they gave themselves the right to use this to enforce general discipline. For this reason, my own opinion is that they would do better not to have such a clause to allow them to deal more effectively with cases where the pupil represents a danger to the enjoyment or safety of others. Such a clause would be a figleaf which could all to easily be put up by a school in defence - and struck down as unfair - when they might well be able to exclude a pupil on the drunk passenger analogy and win the argument.

I would say that the threshold for exclusion without compensation should be set quite rather high and with an eye to what a court would uphold. I would say that the school should be arbiter of this - but as part of a general duty to the others on the holiday and not as beneficiary of an unfair contract clause.

If I had a child on a school trip I would rather it be set much lower. I don't want the safety of my child compromised by a teacher having to divert attention away from the main group to deal with one recalcitrant child.

I would say that in my experience as a school governor the duty of care to the overall group is always the foremost consideration and if the parent of one child suffers financially because of that so be it.

DVardysShadow

Looksguywalker wrote: »

When I worked in the local school all trips were organised not by the school but by a third party...does that change things in any way? It may be that the school has discussed the pupils conduct with the organisers and they have refused to let them go on the trip?

School opens itself to Data Protection, libel, slander issues by blabbing to the 3rd party. And that applies whether the parents contract explicitly with the 3rd party or whether the 3rd party is the agent of the school in arranging the trip.

But if the parents contract directly with the 3rd party, then the school have no authority to use exclusion as a sanction for such things as not doing homework or forgetting sports kit. And the school can really only get involved where the danger the pupil presents is one where they have a duty to declare the matter.