Council run pool

powerful_Rogue

laineybird2000 wrote: »

But the point is I can make the lessons I've paid for. We, the other parents and I feel that the pool should provide the remaining 4 lessons under the terms and conditions that we paid for them under. That being, tue night, 6pm. I appreciate that they no longer feel able to provide a tue 6pm slot. But they could cancel the slot on completion of this cycle.

Perhaps you are unaware that your email tone is patronising and somewhat aggressive? I'm asking a question via the site that I don't yet know the answer to. When I answer questions for others on this site, which I often do and are thanked for, I always try to be helpful and considerate.

For whatever reason, they can no longer do that slot. It dosent matter what your or the other parents want, if they are no longer doing it, they are no longer doing it.

They have offered you alternative dates and they have offered you a refund.

What does your contract say? Im guessing its along the lines that in certain situations they may have to alter the times and dates of lessons or issue a refund etc etc.

laineybird2000

iammumtoone wrote: »

i understand how frustrated you must feel but the point i was trying to make was why waste your time arguing over 4 weeks of lessons they wont suddenly learn to swim in those 4 weeks, much better in my opinion to be understanding about it and get the children at the top of the waiting list again.

It's a fair enough point and I'll take the advice, thank you. Most of the frustration comes from them being so close to actually swimming. They've just taken off their armbands and are swimming with floats. I can't swim at all and I'm worried that any break in their lessons will have a negative impact on their ability. Its taken 3 lots of 10 lessons, lots of money that is isn't available, to get to this (amazing) point in time. If the pool complete the 4 outstanding lessons maybe a mutually suitable slot will become available. Maybe the children will be properly swimming in 4 weeks.

tomwakefield

laineybird2000 wrote: »

It's a fair enough point and I'll take the advice, thank you. Most of the frustration comes from them being so close to actually swimming. They've just taken off their armbands and are swimming with floats. I can't swim at all and I'm worried that any break in their lessons will have a negative impact on their ability. Its taken 3 lots of 10 lessons, lots of money that is isn't available, to get to this (amazing) point in time. If the pool complete the 4 outstanding lessons maybe a mutually suitable slot will become available. Maybe the children will be properly swimming in 4 weeks.

Could you take them to open swimming sessions to make sure their ability doesn't decline?

halibut2209

laineybird2000 wrote: »

Many thanks for your post. Not that it was helpful but thanks for your input.

It was perfectly helpful and completely correct. They cannot complete the contract. They have offered alternative times which are inconvenient to you and so have offered a full refund of the remaining lessons.

It's actually refreshing to read about a company fulfilling their obligations rather than trying to get out of them.

patanne

surely fulfilling their obligations would be completing the course which has been paid for? Not just giving a refund as it is no longer convenient for them to fulfill those obligations.

halibut2209

But that's not always possible.

This forum is "Consumer rights", not "Consumer wants".

The question was "Can they do that or do they have to honour the agreement of the remaining paid lessons?".

The answer is "Yes, they can"

patanne

Yes I am sure you are right that their ability to squirm out of their obligations will be (in the smallest print possible) in the terms and conditions of the contract implied by the up front payment for 10 lessons. Pity it would not have worked the other way too, as we all know that if the OP had decided to remove her children from the classes before the end of the 10 weeks there would have been no refund available.

halibut2209

Nothing to do with squirming. The law works both ways. If one person breaks a contract, then the other needs to be recompensed.

So to address your statement, if the OP had decided to remove her children from the classes before the end of the 10 weeks, how would you suggest the OP recompense the pool?

patanne

They are not recompensing the OP, they are merely refunding for the lessons THEY have cancelled. Recompense would be refunding all ten lessons. 10 weeks is not a long time so why set up a 10 week session when only 6 can be completed? Bad organisation at least.

halibut2209

So you are saying that if the pool breaches the contract and refunds the out of pocket monies to the OP, that's not enough. But should the OP breach the contract, the pool should then be out of money by refunding?

That hardly seems fair. Why should the OP be able to withdraw and get a refund for missing lessons?

As I said, the law works both ways, and the law is quite clear. If you breach a contract, then you need to recompense. Repaying all 10 lessons is not doing that, as 6 lessons have been completed. Therefore a refund of the remaining 4 lessons is completely acceptable.

Had the OP wanted to breach the contract by withdrawing the children, then it's quite possible that they would have been liable for paying the last 4 lessons.

It's really not rocket science, and it's the law. Feel free to disagree all you like, but this is not the forum for that. This is about consumer rights, and the law.

Recompense is not the same as compensation. And in this case, there will be no claim for compensation. It's as simple a contractual agreement as you could want.

Blimey, it's sad when a company does the right thing and is slated for it.