Cancelled school trip

harrys_dad

Apologies if I missed this before as I haven't waded through the whole thread. Is the school an Academy or Free School? If it is it is a publicly funded private school, and nothing to do with any Local Authority.

System

harrys_dad wrote: »

Apologies if I missed this before as I haven't waded through the whole thread. Is the school an Academy or Free School? If it is it is a publicly funded private school, and nothing to do with any Local Authority.

In this situation it makes no difference. The school has to refund. What back end support exists to assist the school in achieving this is not the parents' problem.

Poppy9

!!!!!! wrote: »

As has been pointed out, the onus is on the school to repay the refunds. How they actually achieve that is not the parents problem.

No matter which way you look at it they have a legal duty to refund. How this is achieved within the constraints of their financing model is their problem to sort out. There must be a method or even a contingency system within the LEA since I don't believe this is the first time that a school has pulled the plug after taking deposits.

Another point made has been that there is a minimum number needed to make a trip viable. If the numbers drop below this then the trip is cancelled. So if this happens then there MUST be a system in place to refund the parents.

I would say most LEA would not step in unless Councillors get involved.

I would hope insurance or T&C of booking would cover this as it must surely be the most common reason for cancelling trips

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

Why would I have to? It's not my problem, it is the schools problem. They took the money, they decided to cancel, they refund the money. How is entirely their problem - no-one elses.

Where they get it from is also their problem and if they have to use money that is for something else that is their problem to explain to parents. Maybe the power of forethought isn't exactly up to standard with the teachers or head involved. Why is it that so often supposedly well educated people have little or no common sense?

A problem that "the school" may not be able to resolve.

callum9999 wrote: »

Obviously I care how public money is spent in general. This school has a moral, if not legal, obligation to repay this deposit. I don't care how it specifically does that action, not how any public money is ever spent...

Yes, yes I would - which is why I've been saying that's exactly what should happen. The council shortchanged it's staff so should make it right. My issue is with the fact the council shortchanged them in the first place (ditto with this school).

If Thomas Cook did this would you defend them saying it's unfair for other Thomas Cook customers to shoulder the financial burden?

If it got into the media the council reimbursed staff I can guarantee there would be a huge outcry as everyone hates public sector workers.

I have never defended the school for their decision I have merely pointed out they have limited means of redress. Legally their hands are tied. .Morally people always lose out. When a company or a saving company like Parks (?) went bust the actual savers were low priority for paying creditors. Other's who could maybe afford to forgo the money like banks/C&I, Inland revenue etc. came first.

Going forward schools need to ensure they have appropriate insurance in place that would cover such eventualities.

Poppy9

!!!!!! wrote: »

In this situation it makes no difference. The school has to refund. What back end support exists to assist the school in achieving this is not the parents' problem.

but it is the parents problem because if the support /insurance does not exist they don't get their money.

Going forward parents need to ask the questions of what happens to deposits if trips cancelled/changed, does the school have insurance, what does it cover etc.

i.e if your child has an accident abroad on school trip are you covered to fly out to them and stay as long as needed if hospitalised.

maman

Poppy9 wrote: »

We should all care how PUBLIC money is spent.

If this was a LA and staff the employer had organised a holiday for staff who had paid a deposit and then cancelled it for similar reasons would you be happy with your council tax refunding the staff?

Dream on!! The very idea of public service workers getting any sort of perk let alone a holiday is cloud cuckoo land!:rotfl:;)


Sadly we'll probably never know the outcome of this particular case as OP has never returned. I'm still of the opinion that the school over reacted and made a decision too soon without proper communication.

missbiggles1

Poppy9 wrote: »

but it is the parents problem because if the support /insurance does not exist they don't get their money.

Going forward parents need to ask the questions of what happens to deposits if trips cancelled/changed, does the school have insurance, what does it cover etc.

i.e if your child has an accident abroad on school trip are you covered to fly out to them and stay as long as needed if hospitalised.

All school groups will have travel insurance included in their booking - most schools send out details of this to parents.

Poppy9

maman wrote: »

Dream on!! The very idea of public service workers getting any sort of perk let alone a holiday is cloud cuckoo land!:rotfl:;)


.

I know we don't even get meetings with teas and coffees. We are told bring out own cup and there's a water machine nearby or else bring your own flask of coffee!
:rotfl:

missbiggles1 wrote: »

All school groups will have travel insurance included in their booking - most schools send out details of this to parents.

I never did. I had a consent form and health questionnaire. DD went on many school trips here and abroad but we only ever had a meeting for 6th form trip to NY. The funny thing was parents were asking stupid questions etc. considering they were all 18 or there abouts when travelling. One parent wanted teachers to mind mobile phones during day time!!!

callum9999

Poppy9 wrote: »

If it got into the media the council reimbursed staff I can guarantee there would be a huge outcry as everyone hates public sector workers.

I have never defended the school for their decision I have merely pointed out they have limited means of redress. Legally their hands are tied. .Morally people always lose out. When a company or a saving company like Parks (?) went bust the actual savers were low priority for paying creditors. Other's who could maybe afford to forgo the money like banks/C&I, Inland revenue etc. came first.

Going forward schools need to ensure they have appropriate insurance in place that would cover such eventualities.

You clearly have a chip on your shoulder - virtually no one hates public sector workers... Though why you feel PR is more important than doing the right thing I don't know.

Completely irrelevant. The company went into administration and is bound by law to pay creditors first. While you keep going on about how difficult it would be for the school to repay it, it's not impossible ergo my position hasn't changed. Other schools have made sure families don't lose, so can this one.

System

Poppy9 wrote: »

but it is the parents problem because if the support /insurance does not exist they don't get their money..

They do because the parents should then resort to small claims to get their money back.

TBH I would think that that action would quickly galvanise the school/LEA/Council to pull their finger out and deal with the situation

Poppy9

!!!!!! wrote: »

They do because the parents should then resort to small claims to get their money back.

TBH I would think that that action would quickly galvanise the school/LEA/Council to pull their finger out and deal with the situation

But it won't happen. Parents may rant on FB shout at the head, complain at the school gates, go to the media but when it comes to committing more money to recover monies people are reluctant to act.

I do wish the OP would come back and up date as this may all have been resolved as I've seen nothing in the media about this issue or heard any work colleagues/friends/family complain of similar issues.

callum9999 wrote: »

You clearly have a chip on your shoulder - virtually no one hates public sector workers... Though why you feel PR is more important than doing the right thing I don't know.

No chip whatsoever and I'm proud to be a public servant but people think nothing of telling you to your face what they think about your job. Just look at all the digs at Teachers on this thread "supposedly educated people". OH was Police Officer and common event on being introduced to someone and them asking what job you did to say "oh I hate the Police................... but I don't mean you":D And my position has never been about PR just about LEGAL means for the school to reimburse parents.

callum9999 wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. The company went into administration and is bound by law to pay creditors first. While you keep going on about how difficult it would be for the school to repay it, it's not impossible ergo my position hasn't changed. Other schools have made sure families don't lose, so can this one.

So you are happy for the law to apply to a company in admin. but not happy for the law to apply when it comes to schools making discretionary payments.

I never said it was difficult for the school to pay I said it was illegal for the school to make the payment. The school being the entity not the Head who could use his personal monies!

Perhaps other schools had insurance that covered them but as I said above this is the only case I've heard about.