Refunds & NDA

Louise34

Hi

i I recently paid for a years training course with a reputable charity. There’s been loads of issues for all the cohort in terms of quality & delivering what was supposed to be & was advertised. 

Many people have asked for a full refund at the end as they are still working through what ‘qualification & award ‘ people get & it’s not watching over to what was advertised.
However they are making people sign a NDA to get a refund. I don’t want to do this. Any advise welcome 
thanks 

Undervalued

Louise34 said:

Hi

i I recently paid for a years training course with a reputable charity. There’s been loads of issues for all the cohort in terms of quality & delivering what was supposed to be & was advertised. 

Many people have asked for a full refund at the end as they are still working through what ‘qualification & award ‘ people get & it’s not watching over to what was advertised.
However they are making people sign a NDA to get a refund. I don’t want to do this. Any advise welcome 
thanks 

Then, if they won't change their mind and give a refund without, your only option is to sue them.

If you win in court then you can tell the whole world. If you lose you may end up paying costs. 

eskbanker

Louise34 said:

Hi

i I recently paid for a years training course with a reputable charity. There’s been loads of issues for all the cohort in terms of quality & delivering what was supposed to be & was advertised. 

Many people have asked for a full refund at the end as they are still working through what ‘qualification & award ‘ people get & it’s not watching over to what was advertised.
However they are making people sign a NDA to get a refund. I don’t want to do this. Any advise welcome 
thanks 

I don't understand the bolded wording but much will depend on the strength of any case there is for a full refund at the end.

RefluentBeans

In reality you probable won’t be entitled to a full refund. A full refund means nothing of tangible value has been delivered. Whilst colloquially we say things are ‘useless’ etc, some tangible value would have been delivered. 

If you do go to court, and the charity is litigious (and it sounds like they may well be if they’re being NDA’s) then you may need to prepare for a fight for a partial refund. 

In terms of training, it is really dependent on the type of training offered; and how it was purchased. If this was purchased where you’re considered a business rather than a consumer then you will inevitably have less protections (and B2B contracts do tend to use NDA’s more routinely). 

Personally, I would weigh up the cost of wanting to be able to publicly slate a charity (realistically, where are you going to do this?), the amount of effort it’ll take to sue someone in small claims, your protections if your consumer vs business, and the amount of money being offered. 

marcia_

Louise34 said:

Hi

i I recently paid for a years training course with a reputable charity. There’s been loads of issues for all the cohort in terms of quality & delivering what was supposed to be & was advertised. 

Many people have asked for a full refund at the end as they are still working through what ‘qualification & award ‘ people get & it’s not watching over to what was advertised.
However they are making people sign a NDA to get a refund. I don’t want to do this. Any advise welcome 
thanks 

 Why not? Do you plan on slating them all over? 

GDB2222

IvanOpinion said:

Personally, I think NDA agreements to mask incompetence should be illegal.

The OP and others have waited far too long to demand a full refund. They have received a course, albeit not a very good one. 

Nevertheless, the charity is being extremely decent about it, and offering a full refund. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to expect an NDA in return. Assuming that they deal as responsibly with the problems with the course as they are doing with the refunds, they should be able to provide a good course to future participants. 

Louise34

Thanks all. I’m not wanting to bad mouth them but I myself live with the condition they champion & it’s more about them wanting to silence peoples experiences of working with them,  with this condition - if that makes sense. 

outtatune

Without seeing the proposed NDA, would an anonymous tipoff to Private Eye magazine before signing the NDA be an option?

Okell

I agree with @IvanOpinion.

I don't have a problem with NDAs in a business setting where it's a commercial decision and both parties are free to choose whether to enter into one or not - often with legal advice.

But I'm very unhappy with NDAs between businesses (including charities) and individuals (including employees and consumers).

If businesses act unlawfully (whether deliberately or through sheer incompetence or ignorance of their legal responsibilities) in their dealings with individuals I see no reason why they should be able to hide that wrongdoing behind some artificial legal shield.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of charities and their holier than thou attitudes at the best of times (eg Oxfam in Chad and Haiti and their JK Rowling cartoon) and from the threads I've read on various employment rights boards many of them seem to be poor employers and unaware of employee rights.

Insofar as charities are funded from public donations it is entirely wrong that they can hide payouts resulting from mismanagement/ignorance/incompetence/malice from the public gaze.  And insofar as they benefit from tax breaks at public expense it's doubly wrong.

Unfortunately my and Ivan's opinion aren't much practical use to the OP


(Perhaps they should pay for the OP to receive independent legal advice on the merits of her claim before settling and signing a NDA - as I believe is the practice in employment rights settlements?)

saajan_12

Okell said:

I agree with @IvanOpinion.

I don't have a problem with NDAs in a business setting where it's a commercial decision and both parties are free to choose whether to enter into one or not - often with legal advice.

But I'm very unhappy with NDAs between businesses (including charities) and individuals (including employees and consumers).

If businesses act unlawfully (whether deliberately or through sheer incompetence or ignorance of their legal responsibilities) in their dealings with individuals I see no reason why they should be able to hide that wrongdoing behind some artificial legal shield.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of charities and their holier than thou attitudes at the best of times (eg Oxfam in Chad and Haiti and their JK Rowling cartoon) and from the threads I've read on various employment rights boards many of them seem to be poor employers and unaware of employee rights.

Insofar as charities are funded from public donations it is entirely wrong that they can hide payouts resulting from mismanagement/ignorance/incompetence/malice from the public gaze.  And insofar as they benefit from tax breaks at public expense it's doubly wrong.

Unfortunately my and Ivan's opinion aren't much practical use to the OP


(Perhaps they should pay for the OP to receive independent legal advice on the merits of her claim before settling and signing a NDA - as I believe is the practice in employment rights settlements?)

I don't really see why it matters who the NDA is between - eg a company v individual employee may well have an NDA to protect proprietary work product or methods they have developed. The employee blabbing that xyz company is exploring opportunities in a certain untapped sector / region may lse a competitive advantage they previously had. 

IMO its understandable to have an NDA to protect trade secrets and plans. Its less fair & transparent to have NDAs covering past performance, treatment of people and generalised experience. I'm not sure how tricky that would be to define legally, let alone if there's sufficient consensus on this. 

Alderbank

Back in 2019 the (then) government said that while NDAs are valuable for protecting legitimate corporate interests they were aware that they were increasingly being abused by businesses to unreasonably silence individuals and hide errors and poor practice.
Penny Mordant promised that they would introduce New legislation to tackle the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), also known as confidentiality clauses, in the workplace.

Nothing happened.