Unbelievable - Small Claims Court Claim

keyser666

Oh Dear, really? Discuss

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/19/boy-5-invoiced-for-16-no-show-fee-after-missing-friends-birthday-party-5027184/

A five-year-old boy has been handed an invoice for £16 after missing his friend’s birthday party.

Alex Nash, 5, found the note in his school bag a few days after pulling out of a trip to a local ski and snowboarding centre so he could go and visit his grandparents.

Alex’s father Derek said he initially thought the £15.95 invoice was a joke – until the other boy’s mother later threatened to take the family to the small claims court.

The confusion arose after the Nash family confirmed Alex would be attending, before later realising they had also arranged to go on a day trip with Alex’s grandparents.

‘We did not have a contact number, email or an address to let [the boy’s mother] know,’ Mr Nash explained.

‘So on the day of the party we asked Alex what he wanted to do – he chose to be with his grandparents.’

A week later, Alex received the invoice after one of the teachers at Torpoint Nursery and Infant School in Cornwall put it into his bag at his friend’s mother’s request.

The school has since apologised for its involvement.

‘[My partner] looked in Alex’s school bag and found a brown envelope. It was an invoice for £15.95 for a child’s party no show fee,’ Mr Nash continued.

‘I would have sympathised with her about the cost of Alex not showing up, but I just can’t believe the way she has gone about it.’

Derek’s partner, who doesn’t want to be named, has been in contact with the mum via Facebook hoping to resolve the situation.

vuvuzela

More of a 'vent forum' this one I think, I can see it getting a bit heated...

bod1467

Were the parents of the other children who actually attended asked to pay £15.95 for their child's attendance? If not then the claim has no foundation.

halibut2209

I want to know what the first 1431 invoices were for

keyser666

halibut2209 wrote: »

I want to know what the first 1431 invoices were for

:rotfl: I thought exactly the same

shaun_from_Africa

halibut2209 wrote: »

I want to know what the first 1431 invoices were for

I would hazard a guess that the parents who sent it had an old invoice laying about and simply used tipp-ex on parts then photocopied it and missed the original invoice number.


The reason I say this is that the invoice appears to have two different shades of ink on it and on the bottom left you can still see where previous account details have been erased.


It might even have been the original ski slope invoice modified for this purpose.

Trinitrotoluene

Well spotted, Shaun! You may well be right...

JethroUK

keyser666 wrote: »

Oh Dear, really? Discuss

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/19/boy-5-invoiced-for-16-no-show-fee-after-missing-friends-birthday-party-5027184/

The woman is obvious a power hungry nutcase because she sent the claim on her works company invoice (header cropped from the photo) and they are denying any involvement

She will get the sack for sure - and thats Karma :T

halibut2209 wrote: »

I want to know what the first 1431 invoices were for

The witch sent it on a company letterhead - See above

bod1467

This even made the 6pm BBC news last night.

InsideInsurance

It is funny but of course we are only hearing one side of the story. If you have ever dealt with feuding parties you quickly learn you cannot judge a case by only hearing one sides version of events.

From the sounds of it they knew where the event was and so clearly there was going to be charges and not just a bit of extra sandwiches and jelly, they knew beforehand that there was a clash but were simply a no show on the day. Obviously now they claim not to have had any contact details but the other side claimed they did and on the basis that they RSVP'ed that their kid would be attending it seems strange that they now didnt have contact details.

As has already been said, from a legal perspective there is little grounds for litigation. There is no contract for it to be a breach of contract and you'd be hard pressed to argue on the ground law of tort. From a moral perspective though its a bit low to accept then simply not show and I personally do see a difference between not being able to attend due to sickness -v- simply not turning up due to changing your mind.

bod1467

I agree with what you're saying, but the reality is that the place was paid for whether it was used or not*, and as they presumably didn't charge any of the other parents for their child's attendance then there was no liability against the non-attending child's parents.

* Unless they could have advised in advance and got that amount deducted from the total.