 Poster: A snowHead
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| time for the schools to stump up soon and give the parents their money back - this is simply dragging on far too long |
I was told Schools are simply not allowed to give me public funds. [Tavistock is funded in an unusual way and could give £ back] I agree with the schools if this is the case; public funds are there for the education of all 1000+ children not baling me out individually.
There is only one Rogue Trader here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Stephen101, "currently in the hands of the police" probably means case sent to the police. It may not mean that the police have accepted it. |
Does a crime reference number make it more valid? There is a current crime reference with Thames Valley Police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
sunnbuel,
| Quote: |
'anyone considering making travel/holiday arangements with either SE or CR is advised to contact XXXXX in the first instance'
|
This is almost exactly what the Kirklees LEA has had posted on its website for a long time. And one of the lessons to be learned from this is that LEAs/self administering schools need to up the lvel of due diligence with regard to all suppliers - one of the main differences with holiday companies from most suppliers is that you pay the supplier up front - so the buyer takes the credit risk not the seller, but there are other risks to be considered when purchasing and my guess is that schools/LEAs are pretty amateurish based on what we have seen here.
Re reputation risk - I don't see much of a problem in any school going to court in applying for judgement in respect of amounts owed by Reynard. I think this would be the first step - winding up/bankruptcy would only follow were Reynard not able to pay up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
sunnbuel,
There is also the school travel advisory forum - which I think tries to set some sort of quality standards for school holiday operators, and should be sensing an opportunity here to improve matters. I also noted some comment in the papers recently about the rising cost of school holiday trips which is of relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| noskitrip wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| time for the schools to stump up soon and give the parents their money back - this is simply dragging on far too long |
I was told Schools are simply not allowed to give me public funds. |
I would suggest that they would simply be returning money that you gave them, i.e. giving you your funds back and not public funds. They handed the money over to SE and not you, so why should you be losing out ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
What you don't understand is that the schools were acting as an agent when they took the money from the parents and then handed it over to Reynard - just like most travel agents do with holiday companies. Schools do have some discretionary funds that they can use but these are often pretty limited and earmarked for other purposes and have been given by PTAs and others for such purposes e.g. providing support to the children of less well off parents - they cannot just raid their other funding in the manner you suggest. In the case of Tavistock the LEA agreed to make the repayments as was reported at the time - other LEAs might not be as supportive.
There are just not simple and populistic solutions to this mess whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
outfits like SE continue to operate because there is no effective early (or late ) cascade warning system amongst the educational establishments about iffy suppliers
|
and judging by the replies so far there never will be such a system. Instead they rely on a chance sighting of another areas LEA site (how likely is that?) or reading a travel forum (ditto). Quite frankly imho its not good enough and whist the schools and parents are victims in this, its time for the schools stand up and make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again (even though it is  ) sunnbuels, earlier suggestion of a cascade system via headteachers (and presumably then staff meetings) sounds sensible and workable
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
rayscoops,
What you don't understand is that the schools were acting as an agent when they took the money from the parents and then handed it over to Reynard - just like most travel agents do with holiday companies.
...
|
I don't think I agree with this. That implies every parent has to take action against SE themselves. These were school trips and the School (one entity) took the responsibility to make the booking, not the individual parents. So it is the school that has to recoup the monies and in the mean time they should re-imburse the money that parents provided in good faith. As someone said before - its not public funds, its the parents money they are being paid back. Its up to the scholl that contracted with SE to launch the action.
Without this approach, the school has ZERO interest in running up legal costs. They would just sweep it under the carpet. And perhaps those schools who did NOT pay back monies are doing just that - nothing?
If I was a parent who didn't get my money back from the school, I would be chasing it every week and want to see what is being done about it. Then I could update everyone here 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I haven't read this whole thread and apologize if it's old news, but I've just been leafing through next week's Radio Times and noticed that in Face the Facts at 1230 on Wed 18 May, "John Waite examines why schoolchildren have been left without the skiing trips they paid for and investigates the business that was meant to provide the service." The programme is not billed as a repeat, so presumably it's new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
This sounds good, Hurtle. Do you know which programme it is on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
ccl, oh sorry, should have said - Radio 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowjoe,
I don't think schools/LEAs are walking away from this - partly because I suspect that if they did that would precipate an avalanche of complaints for negligence fro not doing proper due diligence into SE/Reynard in the first place, to say nothing of the general stink that it would create. However, if you look at the Package Holiday Regulations you will see that the agent does have an exemption from liability in respect of events which are beyond their control - and if you think about it this has some sense to it e.g. why should the travel agent be held liable if the tour operator/airline screws up. Yes of course some might try and argue that the school was acting as the tour operator as well as the agent - and I suspect the Regulations (which come from an EU Directive) are unlikely to have been interpreted by our courts in such detail (although I don't know this to be the case fro certain). I don't think that legal case against the schools is anything like as cutr and dried as some might think. And as I've said before my view is that the route that should be pursued first and formost is recovery from the insurance company as a result of Reynard being unable to honour his debts - and that fights between parents and schools will not contribute much to that course at present. If the schools/LEAs want to walk away from this and/or the money cannot be recovered from Reynard/insurer then I certainly wouldn't rule out pursuing them (difficult though that may be if they want to fight) - but I haven't seen or heard of this happening anywhere. And of course if the school/LEA are in the position of being able to pay the parents now then this should also be encouraged. I think most schools actaully want to work with the parents - because that is actually how good schools try to work all the time - and if this is happening I see no reason for starting an unnecessary conflict with those who are also responsible for educating mine and other children.
I think you may find that some schools are updating the parents regularly - but are asking them not to discuss matters which are likely to be the subject of court action fro the fear of predjucing such action, and since Reynard might be the main benficiary if that happened most are not giving out specific details. Butr parents ceratinly should talk to the schools/LEAs on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowjoe, Just a couple of points about LEA schools. State schools are not financial entities as far as I know that can be sued or pursued for money. They are run and funded by the Local Education Authority. The headteacher of the school will probably administer a devolved budget, the extent of which may well vary from a limited range of functions to near financial autonomy. But no matter how much is devolved, it is nonetheless devolved from the statutory body which is the body that would need to be pursued for debts, sued for negligence etc. The Authority should have contingeny funds and the necessary insurances to cover its legal liabilities but I would be surprised if any of these were devolved.
If the parents have a case for getting their money back, their case is against the authority not one of its individual schools. Bear in mind too that this money does not exist in the school's budget and never did: it was an in-out transaction to pay for the trip. The money passed through the school's hands and on to Skiing Europe which has not provided the service paid for. I would expect the LEA to pursue this matter, not the individual school. Which should be better since the local authority will have its own legal department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Hurtle,  thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
ccl, Don't miss out the school Governors; the Head is bound by the Governors and they are jointly responsible by law for funding and actions taken. The Head is not able to swan about and take these type of decisions without sign off. For the school trip in question an appointed governor had to sign off the trip and ensure the checks were completed and insurances in place. We now know the checks were inadequate. In our case the LEA is not responsible, a service to check over the documents was purchased from the LEA and they stamped OK. [it appears to me like going to the post office to get your passport application stamped; you do the work and they check the form is complete. Nothing more]
The funding/responsibilites of state schools has a number of different models I am learning in the UK. In our case the LEA/council legal dept are helping but have no responsiblity to act on our behalf. Legal expenses insurances will only go so far and as an insurer is paying the legal bill they will weigh the risks and ability to win the case carefully. This could be part of the reason for delays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ccl,
I posted this on the "other thread" about school ski trips when someone stated that as teacher he was employed by the Local authority and not the school.
"Maybe in you case but not if the school is a Foundation School, as at least one of the schools caught up in the Ski Europe fiasco was. The status of these schools, which are funded by the LEA but do employ their own staff, pay their own bills, place their own contracts etc. probably puts them in a more exposed position than an 'ordinary' LEA school.
Many people, even sometimes the parents of children at such schools, do not realise the difference in status because the schools operate in parallel with their local LEA controlled schools, but there is a very distinct legal difference."
noskitrip, I think this fits in with your local authority checking and "helping" but not taking responsibility.
I pity any one involved in this ski europe thing, teachers, heads, governors, parents, kids. it must be a complete nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
| Quote: |
I suspect that if they did that would precipate an avalanche of complaints for negligence fro not doing proper due diligence into SE/Reynard in the first place, to say nothing of the general stink that it would create.
|
Let's not hide people from responsibility here and the general stink may just raise the profile of the fiasco.
| Quote: |
I see no reason for starting an unnecessary conflict with those who are also responsible for educating mine and other children.
|
Why would there be a conflict in asking for your money back, the fact that in some schools 100's are out of pocket are you saying that you dont want to ask for your money back because we may start to rub some people up the wrong way.
ccl,
| Quote: |
The Authority should have contingeny funds and the necessary insurances to cover its legal liabilities
|
I think this is correct and is where the parents should be repaid from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I fear that this affair could finish school ski trips for ever.
What great a pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
jbob, do you think so? I hope you are wrong. I think lessons need to be learned and better systems put in place. Once bitten, twice shy, hopefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| jbob wrote: |
I fear that this affair could finish school ski trips for ever.
What great a pity. |
I do not think that will be the case and i would like to think that the whole fiasco has highlighted that teachers should not be left alone to make very large commercial decisions and commitments and that checks and balances should be made before embarking on such commitments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Yes indeed, the BBC radio 4 programme scheduled for next wednesday is new. I helped to bring some people together so that they could be interviewed this week about their feelings regarding losing their much awaited ski holiday. I only hope it helps towards reaching a satisfactory conclusion!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0112gv5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I've bookmarked the programme. btw - congrats - 2 great ski-boys you've got there. Good luck in 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowjoe wrote: |
Thanks, I've bookmarked the programme. btw - congrats - 2 great ski-boys you've got there. Good luck in 2011. |
+1 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
snowjoe, I think its great that SH is brave enough to keep this thread running, but I'm not to sure there are many parents that have been affected on here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
snowjoe, leedsunited, Cheers! Thanks for your wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gillian wrote: |
Hi. Yes indeed, the BBC radio 4 programme scheduled for next wednesday is new. I helped to bring some people together so that they could be interviewed this week about their feelings regarding losing their much awaited ski holiday. I only hope it helps towards reaching a satisfactory conclusion!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0112gv5 |
will someone pm me that this is on nearer the time, or I will just forget?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, I've put a note on the office whiteboard to remind you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Boredsurfing, cheers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
The Authority should have contingeny funds and the necessary insurances to cover its legal liabilities
|
I think this is correct and is where the parents should be repaid from.[/quote]
Afraid not. No one insures against taking the decision to cancel an unsafe school trip.
A good number of these schools are independent of the LEA system and there is no golden pot of insurance either at the LEA or a policy that we could buy today. Sorry but its a fanciful misconception that schools can buy insurance to pay out for taking a decision not to go on a booked trip.
The fact the trip was unsafe for children, not available, hotel was full, nothing paid for etc; is well-documented and why there is a fraud crime number against Reynards Skiing Europe. His Errors and Omissions insurance might come in to play but Reynard didn't make a mistake that insurance will pay out for - he knows very clearly how he is/was trading so there is no error of judgement that is eligible for a claim against.
Reputation - There is a significant reputation risk for schools to weigh. Each school child carries a price on their head for funding. More kids = more £ cash in = better wages, teachers, facilities, so a local bad news story gets the chattering classes gossiping. Standing up and being counted for making a mistake takes huge courage and I admire the Heads who have done it so far. A good many schools want to bury the story deep so the good name of their school is not linked to bad news and questions about leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| noskitrip wrote: |
| ...is well-documented and why there is a fraud crime number against Reynards Skiing Europe..... |
Is there? Do you know that personally? And what is a 'fraud crime number'? When I reported something missing from my property last week I was given an 'incident number', not a 'crime number' - presumably on the basis that a crime cannot be said to have been committed until a court has decided that. I have no problem, with accurate information on this thread, but posters should be make sure what they say is fact is indeed accurate, and not supposition masquerading as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
achilles, I've had crime reference numbers for theft from my property. Maybe as you reported it "missing" rather than "stolen"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I'd quite like to know the crime reference number as it contains the date of issue, would be interesting to know when this turned into a police matter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
noskitrip,
I think you are making a very valid point. But it only works if the schools repay the affected parents, otherwise those parents will be making quite a stink and causing exactly the kind of publicity the schools want to avoid. It doesn't apply to me, but if I had lost £800 or £900 and was debating whether to 'upset the school', I'd also be venting my anger with SE on a forum like this one. I am surprised that more parents do not chip in with their views on it. The internet is anonymous enough if you are not overstepping what you say.
I am looking forward to the Radio4 programme and hoping Watchdog pick up on this for TV awareness, because there are 2 things happening here: money back for those that were let down badly, and making everyone aware of the sort of problem that CAN happen when you are paying up front without some sort of escrow/warranty. The fact that one company can steam on through and continue to mislead is a sad indictment of how slow law/justice can work.
Its a con trick because SE are trading confidence for deposits and that confidence is mis-placed. Noone would hand over that money if they were made aware of public information, and that's all we are doing - spreading the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Shimmy Alcott, I reported that items had been taken from my garden shed.
I think sHs have had a lot of slack on this thread. But trial by snowheads does not mean that someone is, in fact, a criminal. It would be better to stick to facts than emotional supposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SE web site appears to be down now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| trial by snowheads does not mean that someone is, in fact, a criminal. |
I'm sure we are all in agreement with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
achilles, you are beginning to sound like me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
achilles wrote:
trial by snowheads does not mean that someone is, in fact, a criminal.
I'm sure we are all in agreement with that.
|
unless they were not actually wearing a helmet at the time of the alleged offence, in which case..hang 'em
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) cascade warning system amongst the educational establishments about iffy suppliers. I should think it perfectly ok to circulate a message along the lines of, 'anyone considering making travel/holiday arangements with either SE or CR is advised to contact XXXXX in the first instance' . Where XXXXX could be legal advisor?trading standards? dunno , but you get the idea.
