 Poster: A snowHead
|
Ok, enough is enough.
I really can’t continue sitting here reading all this stuff without making any comment.
Whereas I don’t know exactly what’s happening at the moment, I am one of just a few people who knows about Chris Reynard’s past, and I know that his ‘history’ is almost entirely a ‘creation’ of the media.
For example he did have absolutely nothing to do with Lyme Regis. It was not his company that had the accident, they were his biggest competitors, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the company.
What was so unfair of the media, was just because he had a shareholding of 0.93%, i.e. less than 1%, and these shares he was given – he didn’t buy them, that this was then variously presented as a “major” or “main” shareholding, with the obvious intention of trying to implcate him in some way in something he had nothing to do with.
Take the director’s issue, over which incidentally no one lost any money. Merely reading what was written by a journalist who makes his living pedalling scandal, lies, half-truths and deceptions gives a completely false picture. There was an expert’s report that said “there was no case to answer”, and the same expert subsequently said that the judge was wrong. The judiciary subsequently simply closed ranks and Blackburn for example made 17 errors of fact and then based his judgement on his own errors! There was a subsequent appeal which Chris won, and given everything that went before it is not surprising that he is now pursuing this matter in the European Court.
A simple example of how outrageous these journalists can be is on the matter of Chris ski instructor qualifications. To try to say he isn’t qualified and has mislead anyone is simply stupid, because it is so easy to check.
Sorry if I have spoiled anyone’s fun, but I am aware of the legal aspects of what has gone on previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
daveyladboy,
| Quote: |
If a group of families, a club, snowheads EOSB, a bunch of mates, a community church group etc book a trip - is there a difference in the legal/contractual aspects from a school group, if it all goes tits up?
|
There is an exemption in the regulations for those who organise packages on an occaisonal basis i.e "organiser” means the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/regulation/2/made . But as to how the boundary between occaisonal and regular is defined - and what is meant by selling - you would probably need to discuss with a solicitor for any cases other than those that are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
skiinglegals,
So would you please explain this extracts from the Court of Appeal judgement which are on the record
The original allegations for which Reynard was disqualified for 10 years.
"Mr Reynard faced allegations of misconduct in the proceedings instituted against him by the Secretary of State under the 1986 Act on 14 January 1998: trading from April 1995 whilst insolvent at the risk of creditors; failing to provide holidays paid for in advance; misusing the company’s money in payment of personal expenses and personal tax liabilities; misappropriating a company car (a Citroen); acting in breach of fiduciary duty to Howglen in paying salary to his estranged wife, in arranging for the company to make an interest free unsecured loan to a charitable company (Adventures for Life Limited) of which he was sole director and to another associated company (Multi-Activity Training Unit Limited) and in agreeing for the company to pay 15 % interest on a secured loan of £300,000 by him to the company; drawing excessive remuneration before the administrative receivership; failing to make deductions for PAYE and NIC; failing to keep adequate accounting records; breaching the trading standards legislation regarding the contents of the holiday brochure; breaching health and safety requirements regarding fire precautions; failing to co-operate with the administrative receivers with respect to the statement of affairs and the recovery of the Citroen car; and late filing of accounts and returns of two other companies.
What the judge found on appeal by Reynard
"On the appeal from the decision of the Registrar Blackburne J held that the Registrar was correct to find that unfitness was established, saying that there were ample grounds for that conclusion. He held, however, that the Registrar’s exercise of discretion in fixing the period of disqualification at ten years was open to review, as he had taken into account as misconduct matters which should either have not been considered at all or which did not amount to misconduct. He was therefore entitled to exercise the discretion afresh and, in doing so, he stated that he had no doubt that the period of ten years was altogether excessive. He substituted the period of 5 ½ years as the appropriate period. In fixing that period he did not take into account the Registrar’s finding that Mr Reynard was “a most unsatisfactory witness"
This was written by the Court of Appeal judges and not a journalist - I'm sure Chris has a copy that he check if he wishes - otehers with access can look it up on Lexis Nexis. Both the judges in the original appeal and yhe Court of Appeal - upheld the original decision by Blackbrurn and only reduced the period of disqualification because Blackburne took Reynards behaviour as witness into account when detrmingthe disqualification period - which he clearly shouldn't have done. The original grounds for disqulifcation were not overuled by two sets of judges - and now almost 9 years later where is the appeal to the European Court. The Court of Appeal did not give leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Stephen101, you have made a statement that Mount Grace School cancelled their trip 3/4 days before it was due to depart. This is in fact incorrect. Mount Grace School did not cancel the trip and have not cancelled the trip. Chris Reynard visited the school ten days before the departure date and confirmed that he could not afford to finance the trip. He offered to provide an alternative trip if they were prepared to pay an additional sum of approximately £25,000, this option was rejected. Mount Grace School gave Chris Reynard the option of providing them with an alternative ski trip next year which remains in place. In the meantime I understand that the LEA solicitors have issued formal demands on Chris Reynard for the return of the monies paid due to his failure to provide the trip in accordance with the contract.
The school confirmed that they are making arrangements to refund the parents money but should they be unable to recover the monies through either their insurance or legal means then, unfortunately, cutbacks will be necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
snowbunnie333, Many thanks for the correction. The school quite rightly did not let things go right to the line - which is the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skiinglegals, In the light of the information which is already in the public domain, which has been referred to previously in this thread and of which we have been fully reminded by Stephen101, you can no more expect to be believed than Mr Reynard could seriously have expected a school to cough up an additional £25,000 to finance a trip it had already paid for. To walk into that school with that proposal demonstrates either outrageous nerve or incredible naivety. It takes the same outrageous nerve or incredible stupidity to post such a pathetic denial of what is known. There may of course be a common factor here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| ccl wrote: |
| skiinglegals, There may of course be a common factor here. |
Hmmmm, I think you may have something there!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Colin B wrote: |
| SE was run by a serial fraudulent crook, it's not the schools who are to blame it's the system which allowed this. |
if you exchange the word school with parents I would agree, ... edited for the greater good ...
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Tue 19-04-11 10:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ccl wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
Just another illustration of how you do not understand the management of a school and the needs of its students and parents. Which would not be any more of an issue than the fact that I would not know much about the management of your business if you didn't keep making pronouncements like this. |
actually snowbunnie33 has explained what Mount Grace has done which is exactly what I have desribed above. Obviously the kids/parents would have been made aware that a trip was highly unlikely to go ahead but for technical legal reasons it would be foolish to cancel the trip
I think Mount Grace have played it as best they could have after being let down by SE.
| snowbunnie333 wrote: |
| Mount Grace School did not cancel the trip and have not cancelled the trip. ... Mount Grace School gave Chris Reynard the option of providing them with an alternative ski trip next year which remains in place. In the meantime I understand that the LEA solicitors have issued formal demands on Chris Reynard for the return of the monies paid due to his failure to provide the trip in accordance with the contract. The school confirmed that they are making arrangements to refund the parents money but should they be unable to recover the monies through either their insurance or legal means then, unfortunately, cutbacks will be necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I've heard (a rumour) that Edgbarrow School in Bracknell Forest was due to go skiing to St Anton, Austria on 15th April with skiing europe/Chris Reynard, but the ski trip was cancelled at the last minute. Anybody know any details of how many pupils/sum of money involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| daveyladboy wrote: |
| I've heard (a rumour) that Edgbarrow School in Bracknell Forest was due to go skiing to St Anton, Austria on 15th April with skiing europe/Chris Reynard, but the ski trip was cancelled at the last minute. Anybody know any details of how many pupils/sum of money involved? |
There is a lad on the Facebook page that is from that school but he has given no details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Quote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
I think those parents who had to rearrange their affairs and also handle the natural disappointment from their children, to say nothing of reducing unnecessary expenditure, would prefer rather more than the one days notice that those affected at half term received. ... In the case of Tavistock it was the LEA who coughed up not the school.- big difference I'm afraid. |
I agree but I am talking about protecting ones legal position and strength. If SE verbally informs a school that nothing is organised of course tell the parents that the trip is not going to take place and let them make alternative arrangements for the holiday period, but do not formally cancel anything until the proper procedure is correctly in place otherwise you may provide SE with a way of twisting the situation.
Tha package Tour regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/regulation/12/made are shambolic in that they do not set any timescales for SE to inform a school of a change of circumstance and only mention such phrases like 'as soon as possible' etc., so at any time SE could say that they were trying to agree alternative arrangements with its suppliers to offer the school an alternative but the school cancelled before (SE) could fully explore the possibilities. You have to be very careful in making sure that by cancelling one is not handing the legal initiative to SE.
As I posted above, Mount Grace imv, have done the right thing by not formally cancelling the holiday (it seems) and leaving SE default with out any abiguity at all. If Bonds are in place etc I have no doubt they will recover their money and perhaps that is why (in part) they feel it right to begin reimbursing parents.
I am not sure other schools have played the game as well as Mount Grace seem to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rayscoops,
What you constantly fail to understand is that the schools that did not go on their trips at half term only had a day or so to react from when they first knew their were difficulties - Mount Grace had more time because they had been made aware of what had happened at half term. At half term the schools were faced with a position where the coach companies were asking for extra payments, the hotels that they had been told were booked said they had cancelled the bookings many month previously and had no space available nor did other hotels in the towns concerned, AND REYNARD/SE WAS NOT CONFIRMING WHAT SPECIFIC ACCOMODATION ARRANGEMENTS WERE IN PLACE. Only a complete idiot would have travelled to the the resorts on such a basis and not called off the trips (to say nothing about the legal requirement to tell under 16s where they were going). And given you know little of what the schools actaully did/communicated and/or the legal advice they received at the time - other than what has been reported I fail to see how you are in a position to issue such judgements. But I suppose you must be right given that your superior IQ tells you that your prejudice about teachers is always right.
The regulations are not shambolic - I suspect that a court and most sensible people are able to determine what is meant by "as soon as possible". Laws and regulations in the UK do not offer definitions of every single phrase in common usage in the English language - and the courts are quite happy to rule out pervers interpretations even though it allows barrack room lawyers to pretend that such terms can be given idiotic meanings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Has anyone got any of their money back from Chris Reynard yet?
Not the community school or the LEA but hard cash from the Millionaire built on my and your money!? I am seriously bothered this drags on while Chris Reynard flies about Europe and has plenty of time to move your and my assets to who knows where.
skiinglegals - you say you know Chris Reynard. Explain to us this man?
SE web site and promotional material was found to be far short of any professional standard, including quotes from his own staff said to be customers! Questioning some of the links SE made the firms all pulled away. He may of had some standing 15 or 20 years ago but I see no basis in 2011? Please explain and let us hear another side of this sorry tale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
[quote="Stephen101"]rayscoops,
| Quote: |
I fail to see how you are in a position to issue such judgements. But I suppose you must be right given that your superior IQ tells you that your prejudice about teachers is always right.
|
There you go again, why must you continue to put people down just because their opinion is not the same as yours.
All i get from your posts are that you do not want to upset your own school by asking for your money back directly from those who you gave it to in good faith.
Just get the schools to repay the money to the parents and let the schools / LEA's have the battle in court with SE, CR or the insurance companies. Really cannot see what the issue is with this route of reimbursement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
so at any time SE could say that they were trying to agree alternative arrangements with its suppliers to offer the school an alternative but the school cancelled before (SE) could fully explore the possibilities.
|
Ah but as soon as they know that they will not be getting what they asked (and paid for) the customer is entitled to a full refund without penalty.
I think the biggest issue is that SE certainly in some cases never actually even attempted to book transport and accommodation for some schools, Chris Reynard actually told the Head of the Purbek school this was the case less than 2 weeks before they were due to depart, this despite the fact that these schools had apparently already paid in full for their trips.
Elsewhere SE failed to pay balances due for ski hire, lift passes, accommodation and transportation leaving various schools having to pay bills or come home early, in one resort outstanding bills apparently caused one SE rep to be arrested, which must have been particularly annoying for the rep as I gather they've not been paid either
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| rayscoops, The regulations are not shambolic - I suspect that a court and most sensible people are able to determine what is meant by "as soon as possible". Laws and regulations in the UK do not offer definitions of every single phrase in common usage in the English language - and the courts are quite happy to rule out pervers interpretations even though it allows barrack room lawyers to pretend that such terms can be given idiotic meanings. |
I would refer you to any constuction industry standard form of contract - JCT, IFC etc, that sets time scales for most procedural actions be it providing a bond, making a payment etc., but especially the determination of a contract. Any thing removes an interpretation of a term and replaces it with a defined period also removes ambiguity and this is the basis of a good contract
This is a typical commentary on it here that sets out two 14 day notice periods (in writing by recorded delivery) and a futher 10 day 'continued default' for an action for such a determination. In comparison Package Tours Regulations is like a copy of the Beano and shambolic, imv of course 
I agree the Tavistock school has a stronger case because even on the last day nothing had been confirmed by SE, but of course nothing had been 'unconfirmed' (for want of a better word) in writing either before Tavistock formally cancelled. It is my opinion that they should have allowed SE to default without the school cancelling themselves, but of course informed the parents that the trip was not going ahead because Tavistock knew full well that nothing was in place. If there were some specific time scales for SE to abide by then all of this might have come to head much earlier and the default be a lot clearer.
D G Orf, how can any one know they are not getting some thing unless the person that is supplying the service formally puts it in writing ? one cheque from SE could have put all the Interlaken hotels back on side, likewise the bus companies, and that is all SE need to argue - that they were resolving things and had not formally changed any terms. If they had written to the schools in question that would be a different matter altogether !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rayscoops,
I doubt there are enough trees in the world to allow statute to be written in the same detail as commercial contracts - you know as well as I do that such contracts can run into several volumes - I don't think any definition of as soon as possible would allow anyone to wait until several months after the hotel cancelled its bookings before they told the schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
In my particular case all the kids were ready, waiting and packed at the school on the day to go on the skiing trip - If Reynard had got the coach there and confirmed the hotel booking (and the school had been able to check with the hotel that the booking was in place) then I suspect they would have gone. If you really believe that the school gone have reasonbly gone any closer to the line you really are not living in the realms of reality - parents have to be around to collect children and their baggage to take them home - remember teachers are loco parentis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
one cheque from SE could have put all the Interlaken hotels back on side, likewise the bus companies, and that is all SE need to argue
|
Even if this were true SE would have to demonstrate that they had the funds to pay the cheque - everything I have seen suggests that this is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Look, in the original post it clearly states "say no more!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, I respectfully suggest that you are confusing the practical situation (and I agree with you on that) and the contractual situation, which need not be the same. It seems that to this day Mount Grace have not formally cancelled anything but have likewise not travelled with SE either and it is clear that SE are firmly in default by the lack of their due performance of their obligations, and that puts Mount Grace in a stronger position to chase what is owed them than a school that felt the need to write to SE and tell them they were / have cancelled without having first received a written notice from SE that the terms were being changed, even if at the 11th hour nothing had been confirmed by SE.
I sympathise with your situation but it is not imv as clear cut as you may think, which is why I worry for the parents (like you) waiting for the outcome of their school's respective and individual legal deliberations. Things may work out well but it is not an certainty at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Just kidding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
rayscoops,
I doubt there are enough trees in the world to allow statute to be written in the same detail as commercial contracts - you know as well as I do that such contracts can run into several volumes - I don't think any definition of as soon as possible would allow anyone to wait until several months after the hotel cancelled its bookings before they told the schools. |
I am amazed the the travel industry in this case relies upon statute rather than perhaps having a standard form of contract to clarify/agree procedures bearing in mind the vast sums of money that is changing hands
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Stephen101, we are both in agreement that SE should stump up, which ever way it works out, so maybe we should leave it at that ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rayscoops,
Respectfully I think you are dancing on the head of a pin - the statutory requirements take precedence over the contractual ones. And even if the contractual terms were in areas beyond statute - i suspect any lawyer would be able to attack them using the Unfair Contract Terms Act (which doesn't in general apply to commercial contracts) . I very much dount Reynard would get very far in arguing that it was in substance the school that breached the contract first. I don't think the lawyers have experienced many problems in making their claims against SE - have any parents anywhere been told that there is legal problem with making the claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Stephen101, we are both in agreement that SE should stump up, which ever way it works out, so maybe we should leave it at that ?
|
Agreed - my last post was before i saw your previous one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Stephen101, edited for the love vibe 
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 19-04-11 14:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Stephen101, oops, agreed too !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
hooray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I can feel the love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| daveyladboy wrote: |
| I can feel the love. |
I can feel the relief 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Chattonmill wrote: |
| I can feel the relief |
I need a pi$$ as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daveyladboy,
| Quote: |
I can feel the love.
|
Well perhaps not for SE and Mr Reynard, but definitely for everyone else 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
