Am i entitled to refund on school trip

ukjoel

halibut2209 wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?

I ask because I think this is a similar situation, but in the "real world" as opposed to a school trip.

No legal expert but used to be involved with the unions and saw this happen several times.

Private sector final salary scheme. Pension was not touched nor referred to on any occasion even when other expenses were chased.

Poppy9

A school can not have a "contract" with a pupil as the pupil is a minor. Schools try and get parents to sign a contract regarding their child's behaviour during school hours but parents are not obliged to sign and it's dubious if it's enforceable as a parent is not routinely allowed on school premises to ensure their child is behaving appropriately. During school hours and on school premises the school is in charge of discipline.

So while I agree the school may be morally right to exclude the child due to bad behaviour I very much doubt they can retain the money paid by the parent towards the school trip.

poet123

Poppy9 wrote: »

A school can not have a "contract" with a pupil as the pupil is a minor. Schools try and get parents to sign a contract regarding their child's behaviour during school hours but parents are not obliged to sign and it's dubious if it's enforceable as a parent is not routinely allowed on school premises to ensure their child is behaving appropriately. During school hours and on school premises the school is in charge of discipline.

So while I agree the school may be morally right to exclude the child due to bad behaviour I very much doubt they can retain the money paid by the parent towards the school trip.

They are not obliged to sign, but if they don't the child wont be allowed on the trip at all and if they do it is enforceable. As I said the onus would be on the parent to contest it.

DVardysShadow

goater78 wrote: »

So there is literally not a single thing the child could have done which would warrant the school keeping the money?

Do you have any legal training? You seem very definite about this when pretty much everyone else on this thread believes if the pupils offense is severe enough then the school are within their rights to cover their losses.

A bit naughty to bring up the legal training red herring to throw doubt on someone who is disagreeing with the group think here - when most people here are not legally trained. And when many legal people would get it wrong anyway.

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

halibut makes a very telling point when he says

halibut2209 wrote: »

.... 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.

I think that the threshold for not refunding would be a clear and unresolvable danger to the enjoyment and safety of other participants. And if that threshold was breached, then I would expect the school only to be able to charge what it had lost at the point of withdrawing the place - but to be able to claim consequential costs such as downgrading of party size discounts.

System

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A bit naughty to bring up the legal training red herring to throw doubt on someone who is disagreeing with the group think here - when most people here are not legally trained. And when many legal people would get it wrong anyway.

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

halibut makes a very telling point when he says



I think that the threshold for not refunding would be a clear and unresolvable danger to the enjoyment and safety of other participants. And if that threshold was breached, then I would expect the school only to be able to charge what it had lost at the point of withdrawing the place - but to be able to claim consequential costs such as downgrading of party size discounts.

I don't think the daughter has done anything major at all. In fact there is no actual word on whether or not the money is being withheld at all.

I just object to statements where someone is so inflexible they believe with very little evidence that one party is 100% in the wrong and that a court will definitely find in the other sides favour.

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A bit naughty to bring up the legal training red herring to throw doubt on someone who is disagreeing with the group think here - when most people here are not legally trained. And when many legal people would get it wrong anyway.

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

halibut makes a very telling point when he says



I think that the threshold for not refunding would be a clear and unresolvable danger to the enjoyment and safety of other participants. And if that threshold was breached, then I would expect the school only to be able to charge what it had lost at the point of withdrawing the place - but to be able to claim consequential costs such as downgrading of party size discounts.

Quite something to suggest that, and to imply that you know better!!

Not really your call, how can you possibly judge, and the school also have to take account of their duty of care to other pupils.

Downgrading of party size discounts would probably not be available if their contract with the supplier excluded that, and whilst not directly relevant to the OP as her contract is with the school, it would be relevant to a court when considering that point.

timbo58

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think that the threshold for not refunding would be a clear and unresolvable danger to the enjoyment and safety of other participants. And if that threshold was breached, then I would expect the school only to be able to charge what it had lost at the point of withdrawing the place - but to be able to claim consequential costs such as downgrading of party size discounts.

This is almost EXACTLY what I would have said.
The are are several different legal arguments here, however the monetary one is the contractual argument.

The school, whatever the reason for the exclusion can only 'reasonably' (thats the legal term: it needs to be 'reasonable' or it can be overturned in court) withhold or claim those funds that they have 'lost' as a result of this child being excluded and they need to prove that with a complete breakdown of all costs involved to show and prove what this childs 'share' of the trips costs were (and the fact they could not have 'reasonably' made a claim for any discount/refund by having one less child on the trip if that now applies).

Hopefully the parent talking directly with the head will resolve this matter with either a full refund or the child allowed on the trip.

Otherwise would the school have cancelled the entire trip had they been one child short on the trip? I doubt it.

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

Quite something to suggest that, and to imply that you know better!!

Not really your call, how can you possibly judge, and the school also have to take account of their duty of care to other pupils.

Downgrading of party size discounts would probably not be available if their contract with the supplier excluded that, and whilst not directly relevant to the OP as her contract is with the school, it would be relevant to a court when considering that point.

Well put us all right then, and let me throw stones when you do. Obviously, you know best of all.

Indeed how can I possibly judge. I am, like you, commenting. But if you think that is judging, well you too can wear the judging cap and let me throw some more stones.

Poppy9

poet123 wrote: »

They are not obliged to sign, but if they don't the child wont be allowed on the trip at all and if they do it is enforceable. As I said the onus would be on the parent to contest it.

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.

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.

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.

poet123

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Well put us all right then, and let me throw stones when you do. Obviously, you know best of all.

Indeed how can I possibly judge. I am, like you, commenting. But if you think that is judging, well you too can wear the judging cap and let me throw some more stones.

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.