 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I was not of course referring to any DIY trip which, as you may have seen, I would advise against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Wayne, if all they do is book a trip with the likes of Skiplan, how does that make them a tour operator? |
it legally makes them (in most cases) a 'retailer' as defined and for the purposes of the Package Tour thingy Regulations - as generally agreed by everyone on this and the SE thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| as generally agreed by everyone on this and the SE thread. |
Not me 
If all schools did was to take a package offered by a TO and form a group to go on that trip, then they would be seen as the retailer (or, to coin a phrase, a travel agent - and so they require a bond to operate as such and to adhear to various regulations). But they don't. They add "stuff" to the package - any many make a profit from running these trips so they are in essence acting as un-bonded tour operators.
You can't have it all ways;
You're either a school offering education to your students or you ain't
Your can be a travel agent/travel retailer offering tours on behalf of a TO - in which case you need a bond plus to stick to the regs.
Or, you can put together your own tour, which may or may not consist of some sections that have been organised by a bond holding TO - in which case you need a bond plus to stick to the regs.
Either way (unless you’re just a school) you still need to stick to the rules - which schools never do.
The biggest problem here it that schools have acted like this for years and will continue to do so, as the teachers organising these trip just don't know what they are doing. But they are are good at passing the buck with stuff hits the fan.
Dead Simple there can be no arguments about this one, sorry, in the case of SE, the parents paid the school and it is the schools that must make the refund. If the school/LEA wants to fight with someone later to try and claw back this cash, fine, but that's not the parents problem.
Oh, I am NOT defending SE or anyone else in this matter. Apart from working for them in the distant past as an instructor, I have no connection with them. I stayed for a few days only then left as it was a shambles and the whole set up was not something I felt comfortable being associated with.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 22-04-11 7:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
If all schools did was to take a package offered by a TO and form a group to go on that trip, then they would be seen as the retailer (or, to coin a phrase, a travel agent
|
Why? Sounds like they're a customer to me.
Why are you all so keen to deny kids the chance to go skiing? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
If all schools did was to take a package offered by a TO and form a group to go on that trip, then they would be seen as the retailer (or, to coin a phrase, a travel agent - and so they require a bond to operate as such and to adhear to various regulations). |
This is intriguing. So for all these thousands of school ski trips over many years, all the ski club trips over many years, all the times someone has organised a trip for his/her friends and their families the persons who made the bookings with a TO should have had a bond ? If so, that's a hell of a lot of people getting it wrong every year without anything being said.
| Wayne wrote: |
| They add "stuff" to the package |
That's a new one to me. What sort of "stuff" is added that is not part of the contracted deal with the TO?
| Wayne wrote: |
| many make a profit from running these trips so they are in essence acting as un-bonded tour operators. |
Wow! Never heard of that. You have evidence/knowledge for sure of that?
| Wayne wrote: |
You're either a school offering education to your students or you ain't |
Yes, and outdoor and residential activities like a ski trip are part of that education
| Wayne wrote: |
| you still need to stick to the rules - which schools never do. |
That is some generalisation! Can you be specific?
| Wayne wrote: |
| The biggest problem here it that schools have acted like this for years and will continue to do so, as the teachers organising these trip just don't know what they are doing. |
That is just slanderous nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
ccl, good questions. In over 10 years of dealing with schools I've never met one which added 'stuff' to the package offered by the TO, unless you count the opportunity to hire ski clothing in Blighty before the off. They don't make a profit either - some schools subsidise less well off pupils and lots run fundraising events to help with the cost of the trip. And I've met very many extremely experienced party leaders who know exactly what they're doing and wold be singularly unimpressed with the public suggestion that they're incompetent.
I'm afraid you're wrong about the education thing though - apparently it's all about turning out good little corporate work units with 'the skills that industry needs' and not a thing which might have any intrinsic value of its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ccl, Lizzard, Come on Wayne's an expert so who are we to even quibble with his pontification? THE TOUR OPERATOR GOD has spoken do not question his judgements.
Teachers have been judged as wanting - end of! We have to all order copies of his brochure and direct all our students and colleagues to his organisation as it is correctly run with all the right insurances in place and it seems he desperately needs the business. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samerberg Sue, I think I'd stick with SkiBound/Skiplan and the like. Using his own PE/physics teacher analogy Wayne is an 'amateur' as while he's a TO, he said himself that he doesn't do schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Don’t worry, I don’t for one minute think I’ll convince anyone here, but it’s the interwebthingy so....
I admit that what I said above was wrong (now I’ve had chance to think about it). Teachers, well some of em, do know what they are doing is wrong, but they just don’t care. "I have run these trips for years, why rock the boat eh, etc, etc, etc "
Also, I understand that like a slow hand clap at a NUJ meeting to drown out anyone who dares to point that there may be a slight flaw in the methods used by any section of the teaching establishment, I will not be heard by the people who should be listening. There will be snide remarks (tour operator god ??) aimed in this direction – you know the type, they would give an excellent justification/excuse to go on extended sick leave due to stress, oh no can’t do that,coz I ain’t a ....
The difference here is that I “know” what companies are charge school and I “know” what school are charging their pupils and they aren’t the same. QED
I also understand the regulation. I live breath and work with them every single day. I fully understand that the phrase “otherwise than occasionally” does not (and simply cannot) apply to schools
This is NOT any anyway referring to the current situation with SE or any other TO.
You can start you slow hand clap now or maybe wait until someone else has the temerity to say anything else you don’t agree with.
*********************************************
| ccl wrote: |
| That is just slanderous nonsense. |
Hmmmmm.
In case you missed it – cut and paste
| Wayne - above (Page 2) wrote: |
| Sorry I may be the one to have to break this to you, but even though education was, for many years (centuries in fact), regarded as sacrosanct and it was assumed that the teaching industry (?) staff always acted in the best interest of the kids by the establishment, in public at least (however much the general public disagreed – through personal experience), those days are long gone. Now you have to explain and justify, yourself and your, seemingly, closeted workplace, just like the rest of us. Wouldn’t go down well at an NUT meeting but, hey, tell it like it is. Ain’t that what the interweb-thingy is all about. So don’t get all defensive when someone asks you to justify yourself, can’t be that hard if you really are blameless. |
As there are loads of very respectable, long established and honest companies out there – skiplan, equity, interski, etc, etc, that specialise in running school trips. You have to ask yourself why the whole SE situation came about. Who decided to use them – couldn’t have been a teacher who booked the trip could it, that would be slanderous suggestion. Nah, not me gov, must be the LEA’s fault, yeah that’s it, must be someone else’s fault, it always is.
Ooops.... is that a slow hand clap I hear.
Sorry can’t talk any more – packing my bags to go to skiing tomorrow 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, explain why a teacher booking a trip with Skiplan suddenly becomes a retailer, but I don't when I book a trip with you for six of my mates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Lizzard,
That's easy.
A school will do it every year. They will contract a trip, add various other sections of the product and then sell it on to the pupils - so the school is covered by the regs and you and your mates aren’t.
Plus, you don't (I assume) add what are known in the regulations as Touristic Services when you go with your mates
TS are (with a few exceptions) basically anything that is not transport or accommodation that forms a significant section of the trip. eg. child supervision, - ain't that what the parents are paying you for?
So..... schools "are" covered by the regulations - it's just that teachers don't understand them.
Now I'm not a lawyer but I think that just because you don't understand a law doesn't mean they you don't have to stick to it.
Mind you in some ways I feel sorry for teachers. You have to stick to rules you don’t understand and these rules may also be contradictory.
I’ll give you a real life situation that happened to me last year.
Another company I own UK Outdoor Pursuits runs many charity events (3 peaks challenge, abseiling, coast to coast to bike ride, hadrian’s wall walk, etc, etc,etc) and we take thousands of people every year on these events/trips.
As we have Commercial Participants Contracts with the charities we have to stick to the Charities Act – the bit that stipulates that charity trustees must be able to identify where their funds are coming from. So we supply the charities with the details of the participants.
We also have to stick to the data protection act which says that infor5mation can only be used for the purpose for which it has been given. In this case to facilitate the participation on an event.
So, last year I had legal letter from 2 government departments saying they were going to prosecute us. One for handing over clients details to charities and one as we weren’t handling over the client clients details to charities. Yep, ain’t the gov brill.
The way I got out of this was to call each of the legal departments and then transfer the calls to a conference facility so that I had both gov. departments on the phone at the same time. This is when they realised who stupid the whole thing was and both of them dropped the cases.
It’s the same for teachers running ski holidays.
You have to stick to various regulations but in doing so you are contravening other (TO) regulations. But just becuase you don't understand them doesn't mean the rules are not there ?
As I’ve said before the way out of this is to simply set up a body to run these trips outside of the schools
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Also, I understand that like a slow hand clap at a NUJ meeting to drown out anyone who dares to point that there may be a slight flaw in the methods used by any section of the teaching establishment, I will not be heard by the people who should be listening. There will be snide remarks (tour operator god ??) aimed in this direction – you know the type, they would give an excellent justification/excuse to go on extended sick leave due to stress, oh no can’t do that,coz I ain’t a ....
|
Wayne - May i partake in having your babies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| as generally agreed by everyone on this and the SE thread. |
Not me
If all schools did was to take a package offered by a TO and form a group to go on that trip, then they would be seen as the retailer (or, to coin a phrase, a travel agent - and so they require a bond to operate as such and to adhear to various regulations). But they don't. They add "stuff" to the package - any many make a profit from running these trips so they are in essence acting as un-bonded tour operators. |
that is quite interesting and as 'the other party' can also be 'the retailer' and/or 'the organiser' too, then it may mean that schools have a liability to mainatin a Bond etc. Btw do schools really run these trips at a profit 
The 'added items' provided by schools to the standard TO package may well be things like supervision of the children, organising evening activities, providing medical care (some one posted on here that the school nurse went on one of these trips) as examples.
Teachers are great for organising these trips and do a good job in this regard, but I think the fact that those who have arranged these trips for schools, year after year, seem oblivious to the status of the school under the 'Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992' and even when it is pointed out to them are still in denial, suggests that they are not the appropriate people to be responsible for making the bookings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Sorry if this has been covered before - but this leaflet from the DFE site seems fairly comprehensive - paras 201 onward seem particualarly relevent to recent discussion - including :Planning and preparation 206. It is good practice that an exploratory visit to the location should always be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
achilles, very interesting indeed
60. So, a skiing holiday during the school holidays would be an optional extra.
61. The head teacher should obtain the parents’ agreement to meet the costs of an optional extra visit before the visit is planned in detail.
147. Insurance policies are legal documents. They will impose conditions, limit the cover, and exclude certain people or activities. Insurance companies/travel firms can advise on particular types of insurance. However, the following are examples of cover which may be appropriate to many types of school visit:
compensation against cancellation or delay;
compensation for loss of baggage and personal effects including money;
legal assistance in the recovery of claims; and
failure or bankruptcy of the centre or travel company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
206. It is good practice (not a legal requirement) that an exploratory visit to the location should always be made. If this is not possible, ie (somebody is not funding the trip) the group leader should gather as much information as possible on the area to be visited/facilities from:
the provider;
the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s Travel Advice Unit;
How many schools fund these trips themselves, not many i suppose, how many go on a trip provided by a TO and do not book with that TO?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Thanks achilles, what a useful document. At a very quick glance there seems to be a clear distinction between a school organising its own trip abroad and booking with a TO.
198. A head teacher or group leader may decide to organise a package abroad without the help of an outside body. Package organisers have responsibilities under Directive 90/314/EEC. This is implemented in the UK by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (The Package Travel Regulations). These regulations apply to packages sold or offered for sale in the UK. They define a package as a combination of any two of: accommodation, transport, or other tourist services not ancillary to transport. Most package arrangements come within scope of the regulations unless they are ‘occasional’ or part of an educational course programme as compared with a leisure activity such as skiing. [My bold print]
So that is very clear. However, the following paragraphs (201 et seq) on booking through a tour operator make no mention of the school's booking coming within these regulations and indeed uses the word "package" specifically of the tour operator's role. That seems clear to me too - the document does not present the school which buys a product from a TO as coming under these regulations: the TO does as the seller of the package.
As to making a profit on a school ski trip - I have never heard even a rumour of it and would be appalled if it were ever true. And if we talk of a "profit" being made, to whose advantage could it be? There could properly be a surplus if, for instance, contingency funding was built in to the pricing and fortunately not needed or if an evening activity were cancelled If so, that might be returned to the pupils in kind - an extra ice cream, a snack on the way home; it might be returned to the pupils/parents as a refund after the trip; or it might, with prior agreement of pupils/parents be put into the ski club fund for the purchase of equipment or whatever.
There is a number of possibilities why participants might pay more than the basic brochure price of a ski trip- and not one of them sinister!
pre-trip lessons at a dry slope or snowdome;
hire of clothing;
hire of helmets;
hire of better quality skis for ablest skiers;
meals during travel if not included in the TO's basic package;
contingency fund;
pocket money (although maybe more usually administered separately);
activities additional to the "entertainment package" offered in the basic price - eg pizza and chips evenings, Vallée Blanche trip;
....and probably more.
Wayne thinks that adding on extras would result in the school's coming under the package holidays regs. That would presumably only apply to additional activities/services on the actual trip so stuff like clothing hire, pre-trip lessons etc would not be relevant. In the first instance I suspect these to be so minor that it would in no way change the status of the school. More pertinently, I for one would simply ask the TO to arrange and charge for any such extras which, I assume, would put them all firmly within the package being sold by the TO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ccl wrote: |
| However, the following paragraphs (201 et seq) on booking through a tour operator make no mention of the school's booking coming within these regulations and indeed uses the word "package" specifically of the tour operator's role. That seems clear to me too - the document does not present the school which buys a product from a TO as coming under these regulations: the TO does as the seller of the package. |
The guidelines clearly state that a leisure school trip falls under The Package Travel Regulations, and the fact that it does not elobarate on this and the status of a school that regularly books such ski trips does not change the regulations or exclude its compliance with it.
Notwithstanding, if schools had followed some of these guidelines then maybe the SE situation would never have happened !
201. Before using a tour operator group leaders should ensure it is reputable. Ascertaining this should form part of the risk assessment.
143. The group leader must ensure, well before the group departs, that adequate insurance arrangements are in place. Insurance may be provided by, for example, the LEA, a travel firm, a bank or the organisation to be visited as well as by an insurance company.
144. Head teachers or group leaders in county and controlled schools should clarify with their LEA what insurance provision already exists and what additional cover may need to be arranged.
146. The group leader should write to the parents to tell them which responsibilities the LEA/school accepts and the scope of any insurance cover the school is to arrange. It is advisable to make copies of the
insurance schedule available to parents as early as possible in the booking process.
147. Insurance policies are legal documents. They will impose conditions, limit the cover, and exclude certain people or activities. Insurance companies/travel firms can advise on particular types of insurance. However, the following are examples of cover which may be appropriate to many types of school visit:
compensation against cancellation or delay;
legal assistance in the recovery of claims; and
failure or bankruptcy of the centre or travel company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Notwithstanding, if schools had followed some of these guidelines then maybe the SE situation would never have happened !
201. Before using a tour operator group leaders should ensure it is reputable. Ascertaining this should form part of the risk assessment.
|
A £10 D&B report or a free google search would have sufficed in this instance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
The guidelines clearly state that a leisure school trip falls under The Package Travel Regulations, and the fact that it does not elobarate on this and the status of a school that regularly books such ski trips does not change the regulations or exclude its compliance with it. |
Read both the guidelines and my reasoning again. Para 198 quite specifically makes it clear that trips abroad organised by a school on its own come under these regulations. Paras 201 et seq deal with a school booking through a TO and clearly presents this as a different situation. There is no mention of the school coming under these regulations in this situation and in the absence of such a mention it is reasonable to infer that it does not. The construction of these paragraphs does not make 201 et seq subordinate to para 198. Additionally, any reference in 201 et seq to a "package" (ie the sort of thing that comes under these regulations) is quite specifically referring to the Tour Operator, not the school.
Perhaps we come back to the question of how a school buying a ski trip through a TO would be any different from my buying one for a group of friends and families?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ccl, Genuine question and not trying to wnd anybody up here, are you saying that you and 10 of your mates all say we want to go to X next year, you go to Thompson and book it all on your credit card and they give you the cash is the same as how the schools are operating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ccl, These are simply operating guidlines only have no legal standing, but I think you are misunderstanding them.
Clause 198 whereby the school is organising its own ski trip (outside of the curriculum etc and not through a TO) makes a school the “organiser” - the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer' which means that the school would need all the safeguards that a fully blown TO has and I suppose the school would have to be bonded etc; clause 201 etc deals with the situation whereby a TO is the 'organiser' but just becasue it does not spell out that a school is a 'retailer' does not mean that this is status does not exist. There is a distinction between the two situations and the guideline highlights this, especially the responsibility at law if a school organises the trip itself.
I think the clause would be better served if it had futher information and added the definitions of the parties with such a booking.
If you booked a trip for 20 people every year and made it 'open' for any of your mates to sign up to you may well start to fall under 'The Package Travel Regulations'
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
LEA's also have their own policies which schools abide by. We as party leaders have to have our paperwork signed off by LEA's before running the trip.
The LEA are our employers NOT schools, schools are our base to which we can be moved to teach in another school as part of 'terms & conditions'
Whom is now responsible for ski trip (in your opinion), Party Leader, Schools, LEA's or TO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1969jma wrote: |
The LEA are our employers NOT schools, schools are our base to which we can be moved to teach in another school as part of 'terms & conditions'
|
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, Mount Grace, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
| ccl, Genuine question and not trying to wnd anybody up here, are you saying that you and 10 of your mates all say we want to go to X next year, you go to Thompson and book it all on your credit card and they give you the cash is the same as how the schools are operating |
In essence, yes. The school books with the TO; you take money in from the participants; you pay the TO; the TO makes all the trip arrangements like travel, accommodation, lift passes, instruction, evening activities, insurance etc.
It's more complicated and time-consuming than booking a trip for you and your mates what with getting parental permission forms signed, getting LEA approval (with all the risk assessment stuff), parents' evenings, taking in and accounting for the kids' money in instalments, fund-raising events, pre-trip ski lessons maybe, and so on. But in terms of the relationship between the client and the TO I see no difference whether it is me and my mates or a school and its pupils. As I see it, neither the school nor the person booking for him and his mates is putting together and selling a package: on the contrary, they are buying a package put together by the TO.
And that last point remains how I read the distinction made in these guidelines between a DIY trip put together by a school and a trip booked with a TO. Agreed rayscoops, that guidelines are not laws but one might hope that a pamphlet issued by a government department would be founded in the law. Other than that, I am afraid I don't follow your reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
1969jma, ite seems that parents contract with the schools, schools contract with the TO so the school is responsible for the financial issues. LEA employ (in some cases) teachers so are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees for the safety issues etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ccl wrote: |
| ccl, Agreed rayscoops, that guidelines are not laws but one might hope that a pamphlet issued by a government department would be founded in the law. |
the guidelines are not founded in law in this case, which is the basis for my reasoning.
... but, booking a holiday on behalf of your mates for the convenience of payment is different to a school (not a private individual) offering holidays for sale to the general public (in this case school children) on a first come first served basis every year and providing supervision, health and safety checks, medical responsibility etc.
If you did what the schools do I think I will book with you then dob you in to the authorities
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
the guidelines are not founded in law in this case, which is the basis for my reasoning.
|
I am afraid I do not share the same legal expertise or confidence as rayscoops professes. No doubt he will be advising the appropriate Minister that his Department is issuing ill-founded advice.
It would need a lawyer to argue whether the matters like health and safety checks, supervision and all the other things to do with looking after the participants and making it possible for them to take part in the trip being sold by the TO in any sense form a commercial package being sold by the school. They don't seem to be so to me, but I am not a lawyer and can only go by a careful reading and interpretation of words such as in these guidelines and there is no point in repeating that.
There are other things which could give lawyers something to argue about, principally whether offering pupils of a school (a narrowly defined group belonging to a specific organisation) as part of their wider educational experience (and residential sporting/leisure activities are very much that) an out-of school activity provided a TO which they have to pay for constitutes selling something to the" general public". On a DIY basis however, the guidelines are clear. But I have no expertise in law to offer a view.
There has been a line of argument in these two threads which seems to be directed at finding fault with schools and putting them in the wrong in the matter of organising ski trips. Setting aside what the motivation for this might be, if they have been getting it wrong according to the regulations mentioned, it is surprising nothing has apparently been said of it before now - particularly one might think in a set of government guidleines. But now that it has been exposed in this mighty organ of the internet, no doubt government advice and directives will be flying out to LEAs and the governing bodies of independent schools And to churches and youth organisations. And to the committees of amateur orchestras which organise foreign concert tours through TOs and sell places to the general public (their players) . And to ......
I am becoming facetious now and must stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Does anyone think that the school cancelling (rather than the parents) affects its ability to call itself a retailer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
ccl, rubbish being a kid these days, people don't want to let you do any bloody thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Mind you, the older I get, the more I would quite like to be a kid again and have another go at life. I'd do it differently, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
ccl, ha, I'd put more effort into my skiing, that's for sure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
ccl, Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
ccl, it is quite simple really, there are a set of regulations that form the legal basis for this, an “organiser” means the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer and 'retailer” means the person who sells or offers for sale the package put together by the organiser. It is up to you if you think this does not include a school or does not include you booking a trip for you mates, and it is up to you if you think the guidelines have been incorporated in to thses regulations and are therefore founded in law.
Lizzard, no one is saying schools or kids should not have ski trips, just that those that make the bookings might want to do so without putting the parents money and the kids holiday at risk by not having a scooby doo about what their liability and legal status is.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 23-04-11 19:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
bar shaker, this is a package trip so the school is either a consumer or a retailer or the organiser, but it can not really be the consumer because there are a load of kids who take up that position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School trips are brill and should keep going. Like life itself they have inherent risks and I can't abide the Health and Safety Police.
WHO should manage the risks? A coach trip to the theatre in Bristol any adult can ask the driver to park so the kids don't disembark in to the oncoming traffic but on to the pavement. Its not too tough...
Who should manage skiing trips? I would like to see a clearer roles and parameters to help all concerned. I really needed my 13 year old to learn manners and speed control from a ski instructor on a school trip. As this Dad moaning-on does not work when Im 200m behind him watching near-misses and scrapes. It was like a You've been framed episode.
Teachers - crowd control? They are good a that. Preventing open access to alcohol, opposite sex and chaperone to the medical centre seem to be in this job spec.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any one like to comment on this ? :-
To attempt to avoid the possibility of the school incurring financial liabilities from, effectively, trading in out of school trips I suggest the following for all trips where the cost is more than £100 to the child / parents.
The school does the initial necessary research and checking for suitability, price etc.
Full details of the trip are supplied to the parents / pupils and for those that wish to participate, and with their written permission, their details are passed on to the tour operator who subsequently sends them an individual contract and invoice. The school should advise the parents/ pupil that payment by a credit card gives the most protection against any form of failure to supply by the tour operator as they are "jointly and severally liable" with the tour operator. Some debit cards, but not all, also give this level of protection.
I believe this would change the role of the school from being an agent, with all the attendant responsibilities, to merely being an introducer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Don’t worry, I don’t for one minute think I’ll convince anyone here, but it’s the interwebthingy so....
The difference here is that I “know” what companies are charge school and I “know” what school are charging their pupils and they aren’t the same. QED
I also understand the regulation. I live breath and work with them every single day. I fully understand that the phrase “otherwise than occasionally” does not (and simply cannot) apply to schools
This is NOT any anyway referring to the current situation with SE or any other TO.
You can start you slow hand clap now or maybe wait until someone else has the temerity to say anything else you don’t agree with.
*********************************************
|
Wayne, i must disagree with you on this point. As someone who actually runs a school ski trip i can assure you this is not the case. In the case of the trip i run, i must provide for receipts for all costs associated with the trip, and this is audited each year. We are bill an amount per pupil for the trip. we are then quoted for activities, which we add on. We are billed for the trip, and billed for activities. The 2 amounts end match, and my end balance must be zero. We are not allowed to 'make' any money from the trip, and we dont. Frankly, its insulting. Trust me, this 'free' trip is far from it. I am actually logging the man hours spent on this this year (just because im curious more than anything) but i know it will be well in excess of 150. I would much rather just pay for my own trip, (which i do) i, and im sure many more do it because it is a great sport and a great experience for students who otherwise may never get such an opportunity. I am sure many peoples first experience of skiing was on a school trip, it would be a sad day when they can no longer take place. Education is full enough of people who dont view students as people, rather a piece of data that needs to be moved from point A to point B - I think its about giving people a real education, of which experiences like this are a key part of pupils development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skitow wrote: |
Any one like to comment on this ? :-
Full details of the trip are supplied to the parents / pupils and for those that wish to participate, and with their written permission, their details are passed on to the tour operator who subsequently sends them an individual contract and invoice. The school should advise the parents/ pupil that payment by a credit card gives the most protection against any form of failure to supply by the tour operator as they are "jointly and severally liable" with the tour operator. Some debit cards, but not all, also give this level of protection.
I believe this would change the role of the school from being an agent, with all the attendant responsibilities, to merely being an introducer. |
I think this is similar to how most university ski trips are now run. The uni books the trip and then individual students are responsible for their own bill through a special web-site. Would make organizing a school trip much less of a head ache. Chasing parents to pay up is never a pleasant job. I'd be keen to use such a system if a TO offered it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
