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

k12479

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Disregarding the absolute amount involved and the relative amount doesn't seem so disproportionate. It's only the rest of the term, the notice period, being due not the whole academic year.

ThumbRemote

An electrician can charge £100 per hour or part thereof. They can therefore be paid £100 twice for the same hour. This seems a very similar scenario. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

k12479 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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. 

Disregarding the absolute amount involved and the relative amount doesn't seem so disproportionate. It's only the rest of the term, the notice period, being due not the whole academic year.

Disproportionate is essentially more than mitigated costs or losses.

sheramber said:

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

Has anybody challenged that as an unfair term?

The government are smarter than allowing all these rules to apply to them, they aren't considered a trader.

badmemory

Of course it is always possible that the place became available because the other parents were unable to pay the fees.  Teachers, caretakers etc all need paying regardless.

RefluentBeans

I guess it’s whether it’s worth the hassle of raising a fuss over what potentially is an unfair contract term. 

I don’t think it is an unfair contract term from the joining party (ie OP) as the terms should be laid out clearly. The leaving party (parents of the child who has left the school) should get a refund for the term time that the contract has now been covered for - as this would be mitigated now. To me that would be a fair claim. Normally the terms are something along the lines of ‘you’re liable for the fee unless someone takes the place’. 

Fundamentally, if the OP didn’t like the terms of the contract the time to appeal them is before signing them. Buyers remorse isn’t a valid reason to change the contract. 

Of course the OP could ask for a fee reduction for next semester as a gesture of goodwill but it is just that - goodwill. Given the relationship is ongoing, I personally wouldn’t want to push too hard and sour things. 

HampshireH

I've found this thread very interesting.  OP daughter is newly enrolled at an expensive private school after the OP signed her up fully understanding their contractual obligations to pay.

Then promptly proceeded to enter into discussions with the school solicitor to try and get out of paying.

Most people don't automatically get an invite to discuss with a companies legal team there are usually steps taken before that stage - it seems excessive and like it could cause that same very excited daughter to have issues if her parent is automatically seen as a problem parent

rainallday

I too have found the many comments made here informative. I get that most people think I should accept the T&C event though I think they are unfair and suggest the school will be paid twice. As pointed out there are other situations where pay twice is acceptable although marginally so. The plumber who charges per hour or part of, could actually charge for the same hour several times if he was lucky and did several short jobs in the same hour. No, I didn't read the T&C first, I became outraged afterwards. Of course, one should, but I knew market freedom is limited, the school does have to be nearby. In law I have a choice weather to enter into the contract or not, in practice not so much: there is little to no choice of school because of location and other parameters of the school.  I have to decide does this unfainess disqualify the school, and admit that I suppose it doesn't. I know of course that the school is a business, with many costs that are not directly related to number of days attended. But one of the most basic principles of (sucessful) business everywhere is that you pay for what you get and you get what you pay for, and the business squares that circle. So if there was a new joiner fee, I coudn't argue with that, but paying for food that there is no possibility could be eaten really does grate.

Moving forward, I suppose I'll let this slide and this discussion has helped me embrace that. But I still feel that its foolishly unfair and that there is no good reason to be like this- the school do after all decide exactly how people are billed and they could choose a fair way if they wanted, and it would need not cost them more. Its also true that I don't want my daughter to suffer any backlash from this. Personally I think thats unlikely but I also feel that when you see something thats wrong you should speak up about it. Tyranny is when good people stay silent, etc.

Thanks once again to all who have contributed.

subjecttocontract

Perhaps you should also be preparing for a Labour Gov' in the next year and VAT being added to your school fees.

rainallday

subjecttocontract said:

Perhaps you should also be preparing for a Labour Gov' in the next year and VAT being added to your school fees.

Yes I've wondered about this. But I just don't believe that Labour would actually do this if they were in power. Making private schooling more expensive by taxing it would inevitably cause some people, likely many in fact,  to leave the system and go back to the state system, which is already struggling in many ways. Adding a whole new influx of pupils that have to be accommodated by law, would dramatically increase the cost of the existing schools and/or reduce their quality. This is not something that would benefit existing pupils one bit, or come to that government coffers I am guessing.

Bradden

rainallday said:

subjecttocontract said:

Perhaps you should also be preparing for a Labour Gov' in the next year and VAT being added to your school fees.

Yes I've wondered about this. But I just don't believe that Labour would actually do this if they were in power. Making private schooling more expensive by taxing it would inevitably cause some people, likely many in fact,  to leave the system and go back to the state system, which is already struggling in many ways. Adding a whole new influx of pupils that have to be accommodated by law, would dramatically increase the cost of the existing schools and/or reduce their quality. This is not something that would benefit existing pupils one bit, or come to that government coffers I am guessing.

I completely agree with you... however I suspect Labour will still press ahead for ideological reasons.