Council run pool

Exile_geordie

I struggle to understand why 1 poster thinks they should be refunded for the 6 lessons they have already had from the pool - that would leave the pool out of pocket which isnt fair.

It has to work both ways when it comes to a contract and whilst the OP may feel aggreived at the fact that the teacher cannot now make these lessons the pool have done the right thing by refunding for lessons not taken and cant be taken.


Wow - 36 lessons already and the children have just taken the armbands off? How old are they if you dont mind me asking? And how long are the lessons. I only ask cos I am nosy.

patanne

The cancellation of the contract should put them back in the same position as before the contract. If they have to start a new contract they will need the money for the ten lessons.

Actually, it would seem possible that, as children of a non-swimmer, the lessons will not be restarted after the break which would be infortunate.

Hintza

At the end of the day the pool is not giving the lessons at the agreed time. If the OP wants to complete the block of 10 lessons as they are so important then OP should just fit them in with the pools timetable and get them done.

Having said that learning to swim and becoming a competent swimmer are too different things. My daughter still gets lessons from her original instructor for competitive Triathlon swimming 6 years after she learnt to swim, she has just turned 10.

By the way OP I would be raging too.

ThumbRemote

Exile_geordie wrote: »

I struggle to understand why 1 poster thinks they should be refunded for the 6 lessons they have already had from the pool - that would leave the pool out of pocket which isnt fair.

It has to work both ways when it comes to a contract and whilst the OP may feel aggreived at the fact that the teacher cannot now make these lessons the pool have done the right thing by refunding for lessons not taken and cant be taken.

Although you could argue that in this case the consumer is bound to paying for 10 lessons. If they were to breach the contract and withdraw early, they would receive no refund for the missing lessons. Therefore the consumer must pay the contract in full or not at all.

On the other hand the retailer seems to have the option to breach the contract and only refund part of the cost.

As such, in this case the contract doesn't work both ways as the consumer is at a distinct disadvantage.

laineybird2000

I've checked the other pools in the area. 12 month waiting list. This is their 4th bank of ten lessons. The imps are 4 and 5.
I'm not looking for compensation. But why sell 10 when you probably already knew you could only provide 6. All comments appreciated. I'll call them today and see if we can hammer something out.

tomwakefield

patanne wrote: »

The cancellation of the contract should put them back in the same position as before the contract.

Obviously not possible, as it would also involve the children "unlearning" what they have learned in the 6 lessons they have had. If the OP has had part benefit from the contract, it seems only fair that they pay a proportional amount.

Hintza

ThumbRemote wrote: »

As such, in this case the contract doesn't work both ways as the consumer is at a distinct disadvantage.

Crikey thumbremote I am agreeing with you again, twice in two years....lol.

It would appear a bit on sided but I suspect the others are correct. Perhaps the OP should not get all the money back but certainly more than the remaining lessons.

There must be some relevant case law somewhere on this, if only for interest if nothing else.

Hintza

OP just as an aside I have never used the local pool instructors as I strongly disagree with teaching children to swim from the side of the pool, I feel the instructor should be in the pool. So why not search out a private instructor it shouldn't be too bad with two kids?

halibut2209

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Although you could argue that in this case the consumer is bound to paying for 10 lessons. If they were to breach the contract and withdraw early, they would receive no refund for the missing lessons. Therefore the consumer must pay the contract in full or not at all.

On the other hand the retailer seems to have the option to breach the contract and only refund part of the cost.

As such, in this case the contract doesn't work both ways as the consumer is at a distinct disadvantage.

Absolute nonsense as per usual.

marliepanda

Hintza wrote: »

OP just as an aside I have never used the local pool instructors as I strongly disagree with teaching children to swim from the side of the pool, I feel the instructor should be in the pool. So why not search out a private instructor it shouldn't be too bad with two kids?

Surely that depends on the pool! I go to my local pool and they have a teaching pool where they are constantly in with the kids, and then they move to the big pool where the instructor sometimes goes in, sometimes does not.