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

RefluentBeans

rainallday said:

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.

In the nicest way possible - you do have a choice. Your daughter was at a school prior to this, and you chose to withdraw her and put her into another private school. The time to debate the term would be prior to going into the contract. If you chose to not read the contract then that is ultimately on you. 

Consumer rights give a lot of leniency - where using legalese that an average person can’t understand could nullify the contract. But consumers should be expected to read what they sign. I’m afraid that didn’t happen here. 

The term itself is not definitively unfair - and I don’t think there’s much legal basis for your argument. Again this is different if you were leaving the school and being forced to pay the reminder of the term, as once the lost earnings are mitigated (ie another person has filled your place and paid the school) the school should refund the other party. That has a better legal basis. 

Fundamentally the consumer rights act (and other consumer protections) are the minimum a business can do. Take, for example, the 30 day returns that most shops offer in store. That is above your legal rights, and some may feel it’s unfair that some shops have a no refund policy (assuming the item is not faulty). That may be ‘unfair’ but it is completely legal. 

Arunmor

Perhaps the pupil who left was forced to do so because of unpaid fees.  So the school is just looking to recoup the fees lost.  If you wish your daughter to go to this school then you need to suck it up.

How would I feel?  A little miffed but the last thing I would do is start a public debate about, the last thing your child needs is for their parents to be seen as "difficult" parents.

Undervalued

RefluentBeans said:

rainallday said:

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.

In the nicest way possible - you do have a choice. Your daughter was at a school prior to this, and you chose to withdraw her and put her into another private school. The time to debate the term would be prior to going into the contract. If you chose to not read the contract then that is ultimately on you. 

Consumer rights give a lot of leniency - where using legalese that an average person can’t understand could nullify the contract. But consumers should be expected to read what they sign. I’m afraid that didn’t happen here. 

The term itself is not definitively unfair - and I don’t think there’s much legal basis for your argument. Again this is different if you were leaving the school and being forced to pay the reminder of the term, as once the lost earnings are mitigated (ie another person has filled your place and paid the school) the school should refund the other party. That has a better legal basis. 

Fundamentally the consumer rights act (and other consumer protections) are the minimum a business can do. Take, for example, the 30 day returns that most shops offer in store. That is above your legal rights, and some may feel it’s unfair that some shops have a no refund policy (assuming the item is not faulty). That may be ‘unfair’ but it is completely legal. 

Indeed, although I would have thought it is very rare to be able to find a pupil to fill an unexpectedly free place mid term? Given that only a small part of school fees are going to for consumables, the school will have very few savings I a pupil is withdrawn. So I can well understand why private schools have fairly tight rules about this.

RefluentBeans

Undervalued said:

RefluentBeans said:

rainallday said:

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.

In the nicest way possible - you do have a choice. Your daughter was at a school prior to this, and you chose to withdraw her and put her into another private school. The time to debate the term would be prior to going into the contract. If you chose to not read the contract then that is ultimately on you. 

Consumer rights give a lot of leniency - where using legalese that an average person can’t understand could nullify the contract. But consumers should be expected to read what they sign. I’m afraid that didn’t happen here. 

The term itself is not definitively unfair - and I don’t think there’s much legal basis for your argument. Again this is different if you were leaving the school and being forced to pay the reminder of the term, as once the lost earnings are mitigated (ie another person has filled your place and paid the school) the school should refund the other party. That has a better legal basis. 

Fundamentally the consumer rights act (and other consumer protections) are the minimum a business can do. Take, for example, the 30 day returns that most shops offer in store. That is above your legal rights, and some may feel it’s unfair that some shops have a no refund policy (assuming the item is not faulty). That may be ‘unfair’ but it is completely legal. 

Indeed, although I would have thought it is very rare to be able to find a pupil to fill an unexpectedly free place mid term? Given that only a small part of school fees are going to for consumables, the school will have very few savings I a pupil is withdrawn. So I can well understand why private schools have fairly tight rules about this.

Oh I agree - I think most places would have a clause that says they are liable for payment unless the student has their place filled. But if the students place was filled, there’s an argument to be had for the refund. 

subjecttocontract

Bradden said:

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.

Labour have a choice of options.
One might be to introduce VAT on school fees at 5% or 10%.......then gradually increase it every year. That way many parents would absorb the costs and not return to state schooling. The country is short of money. If you can afford private schooling they probably think you can afford to pay more tax.

sheramber

Many have already dropped out due to  increase in fees  because of rising costs, due increased  wages, increased fuel charges etc.

 Now rac has made things worse.

EnPointe

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.

your comment here is hilarious. 

Private schools are  treated disproporationately  well compared ot State schools when it comes to tax, charitable status and  various other things