Am i entitled to refund on school trip

poet123

halibut2209 wrote: »

What's Al-Queda got to do with it? It's much easier to have a debate/discussion without resorting to silly extremes.

The school is not "innocent" as they have made a decision to deny the child the trip based on something unconnected to the trip.

Do they have the right? Yes, they do. I am not denying that.

But the fact that it is due to an unrelated incident means that the school is not 100% innocent. They have taken a risk-assessment and decided that they no longer wish to proceed with this contract. Their choice. If that ends up costing them a few quid then that's fair enough. That's the price they have to pay to cancel the contract.

If the contact terms include the behaviour contract and the child breaches that the school have not cancelled the contract but simply enforced it.

Further, if they do not lay down explicit types of bad behaviour then it is a catch all policy, and can then be enforced at the discretion of the school as with any other discipline issue.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

What's Al-Queda got to do with it? It's much easier to have a debate/discussion without resorting to silly extremes.

The school is not "innocent" as they have made a decision to deny the child the trip based on something unconnected to the trip.

Do they have the right? Yes, they do. I am not denying that.

But the fact that it is due to an unrelated incident means that the school is not 100% innocent. They have taken a risk-assessment and decided that they no longer wish to proceed with this contract. Their choice. If that ends up costing them a few quid then that's fair enough. That's the price they have to pay to cancel the contract.

Silly extremes like bringing up puppy's?

You are also now stating its an unrelated incident . Where has that been stated? It seems you are now making things up to support your weak position.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

It was a direct answer to the question you posed. It can't get anymore relevant!

mynameistallulah

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But if the school wants the clause in a holiday contract, it would have to put it there explicitly and they would be on a very sticky wicket to argue that the behaviour policy provided a basis to cancel the pupil's place on the holiday without compensation.

Of course it would not - a school holiday is a school activity - the behaviour policy covers all school activities. Do children/ parents really need to be told that the same behaviour standards apply on a school holiday as when on school premises?

halibut2209

Where was that stated? Right from the start. This incident didn't take place on the trip so it's an unrelated incident.

halibut2209

goater78 wrote: »

It was a direct answer to the question you posed. It can't get anymore relevant!

Which question was that?

mynameistallulah

halibut2209 wrote: »

The school is not "innocent" as they have made a decision to deny the child the trip based on something unconnected to the trip.

So an employer is not innocent in deciding to dismiss an employee for gross conduct? An excellent example, yes?

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

At the school my youngest attends it is standard to have the behaviour clause in the parental consent docs. Implicit in that and actually stated is that if the clause is breached the school will not be out of pocket for any expenses already incurred due to the child's breach of that behaviour clause.

How watertight it is debatable, but it is certainly not as clear cut as you (Halibut) are stating. It is similar to being refused boarding on a plane for being drunk or other misconduct, you would not get a refund for your flight, and you would have to pay to transfer and fly later.

I suspect it would depend on the severity of the issue and what knock on effects that might have.

I think this one would be far from watertight - it would involve the court in examining the application of the school policy, which would not be a good place for the school to be in. The school would have to justify that the application of the sanction was proportionate to the offence, that due process had been followed and that the application of the policy of the school was proportionate. And in justifying that the alleged offence of the child [by your analogy] actually jeopardized the safety and enjoyment of other participants

I would expect a court would not overrule the sanction applied by the school in terms of rescinding a place, but would award a return of all monies paid.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Where was that stated? Right from the start. This incident didn't take place on the trip so it's an unrelated incident.

The disagreement could have been about the fact the student wished to take 10 bottles of vodka on the trip. We just don't know.

You are once again jumping to assumptions based on incomplete evidence.

mynameistallulah

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I would expect a court would not overrule the sanction applied by the school in terms of rescinding a place, but would award a return of all monies paid.

Based on what reasoning - any supporting precedent?