Am i entitled to refund on school trip

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

e 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.

So have you ever been involved in decisions to exclude?

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

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.

So you would want the threshold set lower than a court would uphold? ie you would set the threshold below being able to make a valid argument for exclusion?

And don't you think that the guidelines on pupil teacher ratios are adequate to cover the one recalcitrant child? Because if you don't think so, then perhaps you should be arguing for better ratios.

Looksguywalker

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Perhaps the parents agreed to the clause in the contract that the school could openly communicate information regarding pupils conduct to the third party?

These trips are run as a business and have been for years. I'd be surprised if organisers haven't came across this sort of problem multiple times (and the school for that matter). The OP will I'm sure get their money back from someone and no doubt use it to compensate daughter for the 'missed' trip.

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

So have you ever been involved in decisions to exclude?

I am a Governor at a primary school and have never been involved with that kind of issue personally. However, I know that every GB would put the overall duty of care higher than a financial imperative

DVardysShadow wrote: »

So you would want the threshold set lower than a court would uphold? ie you would set the threshold below being able to make a valid argument for exclusion?

It would be a fine line, but yes, I would err on the side of caution on the basis that the parent would be unlikely to push it to that degree if the head was able to make a cogent argument for the exclusion. Ultimately, if they did push it and we lost in court we would have to take it on the chin.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And don't you think that the guidelines on pupil teacher ratios are adequate to cover the one recalcitrant child? Because if you don't think so, then perhaps you should be arguing for better ratios.

It is also about the level of experience of the trip, why should that be compromised because one child is taking up time that could be better spent. Yes, the teacher ratio can cope with it, but if it is a known issue why should they have to?

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

I am a Governor at a primary school and have never been involved with that kind of issue personally. However, I know that every GB would put the overall duty of care higher than a financial imperative



It would be a fine line, but yes, I would err on the side of caution on the basis that the parent would be unlikely to push it to that degree if the head was able to make a cogent argument for the exclusion. Ultimately, if they did push it and we lost in court we would have to take it on the chin.



It is also about the level of experience of the trip, why should that be compromised because one child is taking up time that could be better spent. Yes, the teacher ratio can cope with it, but if it is a known issue why should they have to?

What would your position be if there were a discipline policy which allowed exclusion from school trips as a sanction and a pupil was excluded from a school by a teacher after the money had been paid - and the exclusion was clearly a punishment rather than a necessary measure to protect the trip?

Would you uphold the punishment? If you did, would you refund the costs?

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

What would your position be if there were a discipline policy which allowed exclusion from school trips as a sanction and a pupil was excluded from a school by a teacher after the money had been paid - and the exclusion was clearly a punishment rather than a necessary measure to protect the trip?

Would you uphold the punishment? If you did, would you refund the costs?

I can't imagine why such a policy would exist unless the "offence" was such that the sanction was warranted. Any sanction must be proportionate, so if a "rogue" teacher had decided that forgetting your pen, homework etc was punishable by exclusion from a school trip then no, it wouldn't be upheld.

However, if the sanction was proportionate to the offence and correctly applied in line with written school policy then I would want the school to have their expenses covered. Not to profit, but to have their expenses covered. If no monies had been paid across or promised for services then I would return the money, but if that was not the case I would support retaining that portion which did cover those expenses.

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

No it doesn't. Still two separate contracts.

The pupil/school contract may be seperate to the school/holiday contract, however each are not irrelevant to the other.

If they are rescinding the contract based on the behavioral clause they would be perfectly entitled to cover their losses - therefore the latter contract would be used to substantiate their claims to the monies paid. A judge would also want them to justify their losses for which the latter contract would be essential in doing so.

Saying that I don't see how they can justify keeping 100% off the money unless there truly are mitigating circumstances preventing them from supplying the service. For example, if the pupil was subjected to a ban by the airline. Although this is not the case.

Which leads back to an earlier post....

Exactly.

What if you had 2 families.

Family 1 had paid the deposit, and was paying off £5 a week of the balance for a school trip.

Family 2 had paid the entire amount off immediately

The two children of the families get into a fight and are both banned from the trip. Each has paid a different amount.

Is it fair that they each lose different amounts of money?

Whether a deposit or balance in full has been paid, their losses will be the same so both families should be loosing the same amount of money. Whether that would mean family 1 paying some more money to cover this, family 2 receiving a partial refund of anything above their losses or a combination of both options.

I don't see this as them wanting to cancel the contract, but them wanting to enforce a term within that contract (assuming it does in fact have a behavioral clause). Whether the term would be deemed fair it would be hard to judge without more information such as when the trip is, what the child has done, the wording of the clause.

Of course it can very easily be challenged since on the face of it, it seems like a very ambiguous term that could be used in the way it was likely intended or abused by an over-zealous teacher.

*hoping op comes back and this thread hasn't all been in vain*

Proc

Six pages of bickering about bottles of vodka, court-hearings, puppy-selling and pension schemes yet nobody is any the wiser to the actual question posed by OP.

I think before this can sensibly continue we need to know:

1) What did OP's daughter do?
2) What does it state in the contract / terms?

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

I can't imagine why such a policy would exist unless the "offence" was such that the sanction was warranted. Any sanction must be proportionate, so if a "rogue" teacher had decided that forgetting your pen, homework etc was punishable by exclusion from a school trip then no, it wouldn't be upheld.

However, if the sanction was proportionate to the offence and correctly applied in line with written school policy then I would want the school to have their expenses covered. Not to profit, but to have their expenses covered. If no monies had been paid across or promised for services then I would return the money, but if that was not the case I would support retaining that portion which did cover those expenses.

OK, we are talking about an exclusion which is clearly a punishment rather than a necessary measure to protect the trip.

I am amazed that as a governor you would put the school as one party to the contract applying a financial penalty which does not even derive from the contract itself.

It suggests to me that OP should follow due process with the school and take it to the governors formally. Because the Governor's minutes could then be demanded as part of the court process and I think the justification for upholding the penalty would actually drop the school right in it.

arcon5

Proc wrote: »

Six pages of bickering about bottles of vodka, court-hearings, puppy-selling and pension schemes yet nobody is any the wiser to the actual question posed by OP.

I think before this can sensibly continue we need to know:

1) What did OP's daughter do?
2) What does it state in the contract / terms?

That's because the law isn't as simple as yes or not. Otherwise people wouldn't be paying solicitors hundreds of pounds per hour for their skills and expertise