Swimming lesson provider didn't process cancellation, now chasing late fees?

GavHTFC

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

I can certainly appreciate that stance, and thank you. What would you say to my reply to that asking, specifically, "Would you need anything further from me in order to do that, or will this email suffice?" - that's the one that the auto-responder promised a reply to that never came.

[In my quest for brevity, I understand it may not have been clear that my original reply included that line.]

eskbanker

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

I can certainly appreciate that stance, and thank you. What would you say to my reply to that asking, specifically, "Would you need anything further from me in order to do that, or will this email suffice?" - that's the one that the auto-responder promised a reply to that never came.

I'd repeat that it's not unreasonable for you to anticipate a response, but that lack of one can't really be taken as acceptance of your informal cancellation request - don't get me wrong though, I can see both sides of the argument, so am just suggesting that your case may not be as 'rock-solid' as you feel it is.

GavHTFC

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

I can certainly appreciate that stance, and thank you. What would you say to my reply to that asking, specifically, "Would you need anything further from me in order to do that, or will this email suffice?" - that's the one that the auto-responder promised a reply to that never came.

I'd repeat that it's not unreasonable for you to anticipate a response, but that lack of one can't really be taken as acceptance of your informal cancellation request - don't get me wrong though, I can see both sides of the argument, so am just suggesting that your case may not be as 'rock-solid' as you feel it is.

I can see where you're coming from there, and thanks for providing that stance! It does help with deciding on what I should do next.

I won't be around now until a bit later this evening because, wouldn't you believe it, we're off to hospital again. A routine appointment thankfully, poor kid's had more blood tests than I have!

Jumblebumble

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

You are totally missing the point
Only an imbecele sends an email asking a question from an email address that they dont read.
How else would the OP communicate if they wanted the offered help for the child to return to class?
Why should the OP go off and waste time that they wont be paid for  look for T and C when the offer is
"if you want to cancel please let us know"  which is exactly what I understand the OP did

If I were the OP I would ignore any further communications  as I doubt anyone is going to a small claims court for £25.00 if they think thet the defendant is going to tell the district judge that the swimming club were told via email  that the OP wanted to cancel

eskbanker

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

You are totally missing the point
Only an imbecele sends an email asking a question from an email address that they dont read.
How else would the OP communicate if they wanted the offered help for the child to return to class?
Why should the OP go off and waste time that they wont be paid for  look for T and C when the offer is
"if you want to cancel please let us know"  which is exactly what I understand the OP did

If I were the OP I would ignore any further communications  as I doubt anyone is going to a small claims court for £25.00 if they think thet the defendant is going to tell the district judge that the swimming club were told via email  that the OP wanted to cancel

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not defending the company's conduct here, but just highlighting that two wrongs don't make a right, so just because the provider failed to respond to an email, that doesn't in itself absolve OP from responsibility to comply with documented terms, hence the comments earlier about the distinction between what might be considered a moral view versus a legal/contractual one, which is obviously what would be examined in a court.

I wouldn't disagree with your final point though about the likelihood of the provider pursuing this through court, but understand OP to be trying to reclaim money from them (the £27 already taken for September), so would still lose out if simply letting it lie.

Jumblebumble

eskbanker said:

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

You are totally missing the point
Only an imbecele sends an email asking a question from an email address that they dont read.
How else would the OP communicate if they wanted the offered help for the child to return to class?
Why should the OP go off and waste time that they wont be paid for  look for T and C when the offer is
"if you want to cancel please let us know"  which is exactly what I understand the OP did

If I were the OP I would ignore any further communications  as I doubt anyone is going to a small claims court for £25.00 if they think thet the defendant is going to tell the district judge that the swimming club were told via email  that the OP wanted to cancel

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not defending the company's conduct here, but just highlighting that two wrongs don't make a right, so just because the provider failed to respond to an email, that doesn't in itself absolve OP from responsibility to comply with documented terms, hence the comments earlier about the distinction between what might be considered a moral view versus a legal/contractual one, which is obviously what would be examined in a court.

I wouldn't disagree with your final point though about the likelihood of the provider pursuing this through court, but understand OP to be trying to reclaim money from them (the £27 already taken for September), so would still lose out if simply letting it lie.

It looks like the OP has been refunded
from the OP
As they weren't going to refund, I had my bank do it instead.

Okell

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

You are totally missing the point
Only an imbecele sends an email asking a question from an email address that they dont read.
How else would the OP communicate if they wanted the offered help for the child to return to class?
Why should the OP go off and waste time that they wont be paid for  look for T and C when the offer is
"if you want to cancel please let us know"  which is exactly what I understand the OP did

If I were the OP I would ignore any further communications  as I doubt anyone is going to a small claims court for £25.00 if they think thet the defendant is going to tell the district judge that the swimming club were told via email  that the OP wanted to cancel

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not defending the company's conduct here, but just highlighting that two wrongs don't make a right, so just because the provider failed to respond to an email, that doesn't in itself absolve OP from responsibility to comply with documented terms, hence the comments earlier about the distinction between what might be considered a moral view versus a legal/contractual one, which is obviously what would be examined in a court.

I wouldn't disagree with your final point though about the likelihood of the provider pursuing this through court, but understand OP to be trying to reclaim money from them (the £27 already taken for September), so would still lose out if simply letting it lie.

It looks like the OP has been refunded
from the OP
As they weren't going to refund, I had my bank do it instead.

But aren't they pursuing that further?

"Well, if that didn't kick off the whole "late fees and debt collection" process!"

I'd be interested to know if the original email had a "Do not reply to this email address - it isn't monitored"

While I agree it's daft to ask a consumer a question - that requires a reply - from an unmonitored email address, I'm not convinced she has as good a case as she thinks she has, if the T&Cs clearly state how the contract is meant to be cancelled.

And if I understand correctly the OP included in her reply something like "will this suffice to cancel or do I need to do anything else?".  If she got no answer to that she should have followed it up.

In my opinion

GavHTFC

Jumblebumble said:

It looks like the OP has been refunded
from the OP
As they weren't going to refund, I had my bank do it instead.

That's right, the provider refused to refund when, as far as I see it, they should have done, so I had my bank do it instead. So as far as my bank balance is concerned currently, all is well.

Okell said:

But aren't they pursuing that further?

"Well, if that didn't kick off the whole "late fees and debt collection" process!"

Correct.

I'd be interested to know if the original email had a "Do not reply to this email address - it isn't monitored"

It didn't, and in fact the auto-response to it reads, verbatim: "Thank you for your email, please expect a response from the Aquatics team in due course."

With the above in mind, I strongly disagree that it should have been on me to follow up.

Also, why's everyone using "she"? I'm dad   

saajan_12

GavHTFC said:

Jumblebumble said:

It looks like the OP has been refunded
from the OP
As they weren't going to refund, I had my bank do it instead.

That's right, the provider refused to refund when, as far as I see it, they should have done, so I had my bank do it instead. So as far as my bank balance is concerned currently, all is well. 

So to be clear regarding where the money sits, you've ended up paying upto and including Aug. Sept has been refunded and no charge for late fees / indemnity / whatever has actually been taken? 

If so, then the same way you don't think its worth pursuing for £25/£27, you're not the one that has to pursue. That would be the swimming provider - do you think they're going to go to court for the £25/£27 AND win? I'd say No and Probably No. 

Okell said:

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

Jumblebumble said:

eskbanker said:

GavHTFC said:

eskbanker said:

Did the July email state, or imply, that cancellation could be invoked simply by replying to the email, rather than requiring the standard defined process to be followed?

To give you the exact wording used: "During routine attendance checks, it has been identified that your ******* has not been attending the above sessions for some time now. Please can you let us know if you would like to continue with the lessons or not, or if we could do anything to help your child to return to the lessons?"

Unless there's anything expressed elsewhere in that email, I wouldn't have thought that the above wording can be equated to 'you can cancel by replying to this email, rather than using the process defined in the Ts & Cs', so am unconvinced about the strength of your case.  Not unreasonable to expect them to read, and respond to, a reply sent to that email, but that still wouldn't make them liable to accept a cancellation request via that channel IMHO....

You are totally missing the point
Only an imbecele sends an email asking a question from an email address that they dont read.
How else would the OP communicate if they wanted the offered help for the child to return to class?
Why should the OP go off and waste time that they wont be paid for  look for T and C when the offer is
"if you want to cancel please let us know"  which is exactly what I understand the OP did

If I were the OP I would ignore any further communications  as I doubt anyone is going to a small claims court for £25.00 if they think thet the defendant is going to tell the district judge that the swimming club were told via email  that the OP wanted to cancel

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm not defending the company's conduct here, but just highlighting that two wrongs don't make a right, so just because the provider failed to respond to an email, that doesn't in itself absolve OP from responsibility to comply with documented terms, hence the comments earlier about the distinction between what might be considered a moral view versus a legal/contractual one, which is obviously what would be examined in a court.

I wouldn't disagree with your final point though about the likelihood of the provider pursuing this through court, but understand OP to be trying to reclaim money from them (the £27 already taken for September), so would still lose out if simply letting it lie.

It looks like the OP has been refunded
from the OP
As they weren't going to refund, I had my bank do it instead.

But aren't they pursuing that further?

"Well, if that didn't kick off the whole "late fees and debt collection" process!"

I'd be interested to know if the original email had a "Do not reply to this email address - it isn't monitored"

While I agree it's daft to ask a consumer a question - that requires a reply - from an unmonitored email address, I'm not convinced she has as good a case as she thinks she has, if the T&Cs clearly state how the contract is meant to be cancelled.

And if I understand correctly the OP included in her reply something like "will this suffice to cancel or do I need to do anything else?".  If she got no answer to that she should have followed it up.

In my opinion

In my opinion, two reasons why I think OP would win
(a) Arguably the email invited a cancellation route outside the T&Cs by asking OP to "Let us know" which OP then did. The auto reply, which the company is still responsible for, didn't suggest that email address was unmonitored. 

(a) Courts interpret contracts fairly and minor breaches can be cured, not tear up the entire clause. Eg if the teacher arrived 1 minute late in breach of the T&Cs which stated lesson to be provided from 2:00-3:00pm, the OP couldn't refuse to pay for the entire lesson. Similarly if a different email address was used but one reasonably expected to reach the intended recipient, that doesn't mean the OP didn't cancel at all. There's no reasonable expectation of a loss since the email asked about cancellation and auto reply suggested it was monitored. 

GavHTFC

So just to provide an update on this one, I went back to them saying that I couldn't accept liability for the £25, as the indemnity claim wouldn't have been necessary had they refunded me in the first place.

In that case, I cannot accept. I remind you that *****'s own actions brought about the indemnity claim, as it became the only feasible way to recover what was owed to me.

I also note that the terms and conditions that I have repeatedly been referred to, make no mention of an indemnity claim fee.

Please confirm once the charge has been zeroed off and the matter is closed on your end, as it is on mine.

And, precisely 2 minutes and 1 second later (I checked the headers) I got a response that I can only interpret as "we've given up".

Hello ******

Regrettably, the indemnity debt cannot be waivered. 

Kind regards

Not even an attempt to respond to anything I put!

saajan_12 said:

So to be clear regarding where the money sits, you've ended up paying upto and including Aug. Sept has been refunded and no charge for late fees / indemnity / whatever has actually been taken? 

If so, then the same way you don't think its worth pursuing for £25/£27, you're not the one that has to pursue. That would be the swimming provider - do you think they're going to go to court for the £25/£27 AND win? I'd say No and Probably No.

You are correct, and, equally, I sincerely doubt that they'll be trying this one on in court. The amount of money is far too small to make it worth it, even with a strong case, which theirs most certainly is not!