Am i entitled to refund on school trip

halibut2209

I wouldn't consider it a hard fight. The school are cancelling the "contract", so the OP must be put in the same position as if the contract hadn't been formed.

To use your logic, a company could have a clause saying "If we are unable to fulfil your order, we will refund in full minus £15".

And so they could just take orders with no intention of fulfilling them, making £15 each time.

halibut2209

poet123 wrote: »

There is very often a behaviour clause attached to school trips. If that was on the letter you have signed giving permission, and it said non refundable in that event because the monies would have been paid across to the third party then you may not be entitled to a refund.

Again, that would be considered "unfair". The fact that the school have paid across the money is irrelevant. The OP's "contract" is with the school. The school are cancelling the contract, and so the OP is entitiled to be repaid.

poet123

halibut2209 wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it a hard fight. The school are cancelling the "contract", so the OP must be put in the same position as if the contract hadn't been formed.

To use your logic, a company could have a clause saying "If we are unable to fulfil your order, we will refund in full minus £15".

And so they could just take orders with no intention of fulfilling them, making £15 each time.

Not quite the same, as the school could argue that the pupil breached their behaviour contract which caused the issue. I don't think the school would win necessarily, but it depends on what the OP has signed along with the parental consent forms. We can't say until we know that.

halibut2209

I'm not denying that they may have breached that clause.

A clause saying "Bad behaviour will result in the pupil not being allowed to go on the trip" is fine. As what that clause is saying is "Bad behaviour will render this contract void"

But a clause saying "Bad behaviour will result in the pupil not being allowed to go on the trip AND the loss of any monies paid" is clearly unfair.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

I'm not denying that they may have breached that clause.

A clause saying "Bad behaviour will result in the pupil not being allowed to go on the trip" is fine. As what that clause is saying is "Bad behaviour will render this contract void"

But a clause saying "Bad behaviour will result in the pupil not being allowed to go on the trip AND the loss of any monies paid" is clearly unfair.

I don't think it's clearly unfair. If the bad behaviour is so outrageous that taking the child on the trip could cause serious issues then it's reasonable that the school can ban the child from the trip and not refund any money's the school has already paid out.

halibut2209

The fact that the school has paid it out is irrelevant.

If the school don't want to take the risk of taking the child, then that is the school's decision, and the school must take responsibility.

poet123

halibut2209 wrote: »

The fact that the school has paid it out is irrelevant.

If the school don't want to take the risk of taking the child, then that is the school's decision, and the school must take responsibility.

It is not irrelevant. If the parent signs a contract to say that the trip is behaviour dependent and monies are paid across on the understanding that they are non refundable in that event because the school may have paid for transport, accomodation etc, then it is not an unreasonable clause. I think it is reasonable to expect that the school should not lose out financially because of the behaviour of a pupil. Particularly when all the kids know this upfront.

halibut2209

Of course it's an unreasonable clause.

The SCHOOL has decided not to take the child on what can only be considered an arbitrary issue.

Consider this scenario.

I visit a pet store wanting a specific breed of puppy. I'm told there is a litter due so I pay £205 for my puppy when it is born.

The store then decide that I'm not responsible enough to have the puppy so they say I can't have it. Not only that, they are going to keep my £205 as well.

Would you consider that fair?

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

The fact that the school has paid it out is irrelevant.

If the school don't want to take the risk of taking the child, then that is the school's decision, and the school must take responsibility.

It's not irrelevant in the slightest.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Of course it's an unreasonable clause.

The SCHOOL has decided not to take the child on what can only be considered an arbitrary issue.

Consider this scenario.

I visit a pet store wanting a specific breed of puppy. I'm told there is a litter due so I pay £205 for my puppy when it is born.

The store then decide that I'm not responsible enough to have the puppy so they say I can't have it. Not only that, they are going to keep my £205 as well.

Would you consider that fair?

If the store had paid out £205 for the puppy to an external supplier who wouldn't refund the money. Then they saw you drowning another puppy then I believe it would be fair to keep the puppy and money. Why should the store be out of pocket?