My daughters new schools seems to be swindling me? Or is what they are doing just fine?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

k12479 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It does seem ridiculous when applied at the extremes - a pupil leaving and another joining on the first or last day of term, for example...

But if one pupil left on the first day and the new pupil started on the last day and they both payed pro-rata fees, then the school would effectively have £0 fee income for that place in that term, potentially putting their budget at risk, especially as most of their costs would be fixed costs rather than variable.

That situation would be a case where the school should seek to recover loses from the pupil (or rather the parents of the pupil) that dropped out rather than the the new pupil.

In terms of the pupil who leaves mid term the CRA would likely prohibit the school keeping the full term if they are able to find another pupil (if this is a contract covered by the CRA), not sure in the case of the new pupil. 

Current policy allows then to double dip, you can see why the school favours it. 

Would have to determine whether the school is a trader and the parent a consumer before looking at the finer details on whether the term is fair for the new pupil's parents. 

Alderbank

I don't see any breach of contract here. The OP said the school was very clear about the fee and what the school would provide for that fee.

The claim seems to be that others have paid a similar fee for a different package. Unless that was for a reason connected with illegal discrimination, that is permitted.

To me it seems no different from:

'Last week I bought a TV for £600. On Black Friday others would have bought the same TV for £500. They got a much better deal than I did. Surely this is unfair  under CRA2015. Can I claim back £100?'

The OP also says

...I agreed top pay the terms bill in full. Not sure if that was a good idea. I'like to hear the thoughts of others.

I assume the reason for paying for this place is to give the daughter benefits in life which would be denied to her if she continued at the state school. Whether it is a good idea will only become apparent in the fullness of time. Your daughter will tell you whether it was worth it.

My own secondary education was at a Public School. Class sizes were small, my Latin is excellent and I have a good knowledge of religious rites. The local state grammar school was much bigger and offered a far wider choice of modern languages as well as practical subjects like woodworking and pottery which were looked down on at my school. I'm not convinced my education was 'better' regardless of cost.

Okell

k12479 said:

First thought is that the time to have considered this and discussed it with the school or the school's solicitor was before going ahead with enrolling and paying the fees.

Quite.

Nobody is forced to pay to educate their child privately, but those parents who do should have the sense to read and understand the school's T&Cs before signing up.  I wouldn't consider the terms unfair - or immoral - either. 

And if I were the OP I'd ask the site team to delete this thread.  The OP has named the school and I suspect their child would be easily identifiable in the circumstances.

(Also - wasn't there a thread a couple of months ago involving something to do with education provision and didn't somebody point out that consumer law didn't apply?  Maybe I'm making it up...)

Aylesbury_Duck

k12479 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It does seem ridiculous when applied at the extremes - a pupil leaving and another joining on the first or last day of term, for example...

But if one pupil left on the first day and the new pupil started on the last day and they both payed pro-rata fees, then the school would effectively have £0 fee income for that place in that term, potentially putting their budget at risk, especially as most of their costs would be fixed costs rather than variable.

No, I meant that if on the first day of term, or the last day of term, one pupil left and another joined to take their place, the school would get two lots of full termly income despite only having taught child A for one day and child B for the whole term minus one day.  If that's the stated policy though, it's up to parents to decide when their child starts or leaves to ensure best value for their term's fee.

Okell

rainallday said:

... I know of someone who left part way through this same term without notice, and is refusing to pay for the term. I feel that the school is making me pay for it as I am an easy mark because I am a new parent...

I think there's a world of difference between refusing to pay the fees after your child has left the school and refusing to pay the fees while they are still attending the school...

Aylesbury_Duck

eskbanker said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It does seem ridiculous when applied at the extremes - a pupil leaving and another joining on the first or last day of term, for example

However, OP considers that a pro rata discount of about 20% would be appropriate, so by implication the child will be attending the school for 80% of the term, i.e. full payment is far from ridiculous in this case!

I agree, but presumably the child OP's child is replacing has had his or her full term's fee paid by the parents, despite only receiving 20% of the term in education.  Again, that's their lookout.  I was merely pointing out that as you get to the extremes of term, the policy seems ridiculous, but then it would be ridiculous for a parent to withdraw their child on the first day of term or to start them on the last day of term, knowing the fee policy.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

(Also - wasn't there a thread a couple of months ago involving something to do with education provision and didn't somebody point out that consumer law didn't apply?  Maybe I'm making it up...)

There was but I think that was public school. 

A quick Google suggests that the Independent Schools Council says parents are consumers and independent schools are traders with the CRA applying. 

https://www.isc.co.uk/media/2980/consumer-law-reform-isba-note-aug-2015.pdf

So in terms of leaving part way 

A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been supplied.


needs to be tested for fairness to which the CMA guidance states the ordinary position should apply (costs or loss of profits with those mitigated including finding another customer to replace lost profit).  

The problem is OP is on the other side signing a new agreement which states payment for this part term is £7k and I don't think any part of the CRA comes into play. 

The only area I can see is the CPRs if the school implied the place would go if not taken and that were found to be untruthful but I think that would be an extremely hard road to go down, presumably because places are likely to be snapped up.

Unless there is some kind of regulatory requirements of private schools I'm not sure there's a consumer rights issue here. 

Aylesbury_Duck said: I agree, but presumably the child OP's child is replacing has had his or her full term's fee paid by the parents, despite only receiving 20% of the term in education.  Again, that's their lookout.  I was merely pointing out that as you get to the extremes of term, the policy seems ridiculous, but then it would be ridiculous for a parent to withdraw their child on the first day of term or to start them on the last day of term, knowing the fee policy.


 Whilst I hate to even mention it, something unthinkable could happen. 

I don't know why the formatting isn't working on that quote. 

sheramber

DVLA can charge two people for the same month of tax.  

Has anybody challenged that as an unfair term?

Alderbank

I agree.

FWIW I think the parent who cancelled their contract might possibly have a claim in consumer rights to be charged just the school's actual losses (admin costs, interviewing prospective candidates, etc.) but that is not the concern here.

The point is that as @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head says above, the OP has agreed to a contract of £7K for part of term in full knowledge of all T&Cs. They have no rights to demand any refund now the service has commenced. The only rights to any refund in consumer law would be if the service provided is faulty, which is not claimed.

I'm not sure that their self-calculated claim of 20% based only on term length has a sound basis, either.
The school must have had to carry out additional assessment of a student joining from a different school part way through the curriculum, and will almost certainly have provided extra 'catch-up' tuition in some areas.

Measuring education 'by the pound' as in term length rather than by attainment or outcome seems a poor idea.

TELLIT01

The offer of a place is made on the basis of accepting the T&C laid down by the school.  You are, of course, at liberty not to accept those terms and not enrol your child at the school.  Nobody is being swindled as it is assumed that the T&C have actually been read before being agreed to.