Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all,


Apologies for an elitist topic... we accepted a place at a local private school, signed the contract, and paid a deposit.


S/he was then offered a place from the wait-list at our first choice. We withdrew them from the first school, and resigned ourselves to losing the deposit. We have now received a bill for the first term.


This happens to others. As anyone got away with not paying?


It is a very popular school, and they are very likely to fill the place, therefore not suffering any damage, and actually benefiting from our deposit. Legally, you should only pay damages that flow from the breach of contract.


Of course, it's very likely that this group of schools will support one another, and we will find ourselves under pressure from the new school too, and our name will be mud...


Any experience or anonymous legal advice very welcome,


Tercio

I've always understood that if you give notice after Easter your liable for first terms fees as well as deposit, before it's just the deposit. at least that's how I've always understood it. its to deter a lot of late movement I guess? When did you withdraw?
There is no need to apologise for sending your child to a private school although you may think there is given the tone of some of the people on this forum. You have chosen to spend your money on education, rather than expensive foreign holidays (thereby wasting valuable finite energy resources), or an expensive car, or even a second home in the country (thereby pushing up house prices and contributing to the death of the English village).....sorry for the rant- but you should not apologise. As a teacher myself, in the state sector, I am all too aware of the inverted snobbery surrounding the topic.
  • Like 1
Uncleglen, how can you possibly know that the op has chosen to pay school fees instead of foreign travel, expensive cars or a second home? Do you know something that the rest of us don't? (excuse thread derail but that just seems SO bizarre).

"It is a very popular school, and they are very likely to fill the place, therefore not suffering any damage, and actually benefiting from our deposit. Legally, you should only pay damages that flow from the breach of contract."


With the caveat that I'm not an expert, it's not quite as simple as that. Contractual terms for payments of this type are enforceable unless they are penalties i.e. intended to be a deterrent rather than pre-estimate of loss. However, that test is applied in light of the overall commercial rationale/business model, not just the particular case, so not such an obvious outcome. You can expect that the school will have a fairly well-rehearsed case as to why this is not a penalty.


If you are asking whether they are likely to pursue you if you refuse to pay, anecdotally the answer is 'yes - very likely'. Are they likely to win? Impossible to predict without seeing their evidence, and you won't get that unless you fight, and incur some fairly hefty costs.


It might be worth writing to them and pointing out that it seems more likely that deposit plus a whole term's fees is an arbitrary figure rooted in tradition and practice in the sector rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss, that you are willing to pay a lesser, reasonable amount, and make them an offer.


Edited to add - if you want to be a bit cheeky you could also say that if they do pursue you for the full amount, you will require disclosure from them of the detailed financial information that supports any supposed pre-estimate of loss calculation i.e. how many deposits are forfeited, how many sets of fees billed and received for non-attending students, the actual additional costs to them of re-allocating rejected places etc.

There is a fairly recent case on this - same situation, don't know if the terms of the contract are similar to what you signed up to, but the school won. I'll try and find the reference so you can see whether it's similar to your contract.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...