 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Stephen101, Good summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
And yes of course we cannot decide on guilt - but there is rather a lot of prima facie evidence of what has happened for which Reynard needs to be held to account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| he play around with the T&Cs of his contract all he wants but he cannot override the Regulations. |
Yep you're correct in that
I know sod all about this case and the only person who really understand the whole thing is the one person who, if he has any sense, will keep quite, regardless of what the “come here and explain yourself” mob would hope
But, from what I have read, albeit from unconformable sources, eg. SH’s, it seems likely that some kid’s parents booked a ski trip with their school and it has gone pear shaped.
It's a real shame for the kids as I know that kids love to ski around with their mates. Let’s face it, sliding down a snow covered hill on a couple of planks of wood is fun, that’s why people do it. For the kids there will have also been the opportunity to get away for a while with their mates.
The next stages will be played out behind closed doors, as that’s the nature of these things. The schools will be speaking to the LEA’s (if they have one) and both will be trying to find a way to recover funds paid out and, at the same time, cover their backs. The cops will be doing what they do to see if there may have been an offence committed. The insurance Co’s (Bond holders) will be looking at everything, in great detail to see if a claim (if made) is payable. The TO will be trying to find a way out of the situation either by speaking confidentially to their clients or their lawyers, or both. The parents will be looking for answers, etc, etc.
I would suspect that this thread and other web based publications have been printed, filed, gone over in great detail, to see if this has, in part, had a bearing on the current situation and if any liability lays with the site owners, ISP’s, etc. I’m not saying it has or hasn’t but I do understand that lawyers will look at everything (in irritating detail), and let’s face it if you’re business model revolves around taking future long term deposits, then anything that interrupts the flow of income, without justification, may been seen as a contributory factor should the model fail.
I don’t know how the police act in these situations but from a civil proceedings side the next stage may be a claim against the TO and then the “put to proof”. This is lawyer speak for “gone on then, prove it”, and this is not as simplistic as some posters or, maybe, slightly quick off the mark, head teachers, would have you believe.
We (as a TO) do not run school trips but, for the sake of the kids involved and kids who may be involved in the future, I really hope that this situation does not stop school ski trips from running. This said, I’ll repeat that I think that teachers should not run these trips and each LEA should employ a professional who actually understands what they are doing when they enter into contracts to spend large amounts of other people’s money.
I honestly don’t think that, in this situation the teachers have done anything wrong.
I’ll repeat that.
I honestly don’t think that, in this situation the teachers have done anything wrong. What I think has happened (although, as I don’t know what’s really gone on, I may be totally wrong) is that the teachers / schools have organised some ski trips in the same manner that they always have. It has gone pear shaped and after the fact everyone is pointing the finger and calling for change.
Who the hell knows if the parents will ever see their money again.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Stephen101, if he is being investigated for fraud, I would assume part of that process would be him being arrested and interviewed under caution. Someone somewhere (would probably need to be a creditor or the CPS) should now look into having his bank account(s) frozen while that runs its course. I'm no expert in that but, I think, you can apply to a court to freeze someone's accounts in certain circumstances and being the victim of a suspected fraud seems to me to be a good reason to try it. If, by some miracle, he still has the funds sitting in an account, it might improve the creditor pot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Will a lengthy fraud case result in any direct financial redress for the schools/LEA/parents ? would bonds/insurances etc still be considered as having been 'effective' or would they be invalidated or unenforceable in case of a conviction for fraud ? |
No.
No.
At the moment , due to the recession some large electrical contractors are using money from future projects to fund current projects, is this fraud? They are trying to stay trading, and occasionally one goes to the wall owing lots of money. This money is never received by the creditors, as a receiver will cost what is left in the pot.
If SE had cancelled the trips, and not the schools responding to their required duty of care , the bond would pay out. Bonds are only insurance and as such will not cover any client driven cancelation regardless of thought process.
This is all very sad for the people involved but the likes of Chris Reynard , will just sell his house in Kew and move on.
IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
Wayne, again, the teacher huggers will not like this, but if the schools acted in an appropriate contractual manner (in addition to the points you raise) when booking such trips, then SE/CR would not be in business and the parents would not have lost any money.
|
Well I spent my Saturday walking 21K on one of my kids practice DofE expeditions (ouch!) and as well as other parents doing the same together with several teachers who as well as organising the whiole shebang had the further please of sleeping under canvas on Saturday night. ANd believe it or not they did it in their own free time - although I suspect that they may have not paid for the pleasure of sleeping in their tents and may have even claimed some petrol money. And in the meantime what did others do - spend time on the internet dreaming up more gratuitously offensive comments about teachers.
I just wonder if those who make such comments have any inkling of how much effort and their own time some teachers put into activities for their pupils - and given that all teachers are not experts in due diligence and rely on the LEAs and others to check suppliers perhaps so not do all the checking of the likes of Reynard and others that those with the benefit of hindsight are able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lightningdan wrote: |
| At the moment , due to the recession some large electrical contractors are using money from future projects to fund current projects, is this fraud? They are trying to stay trading, and occasionally one goes to the wall owing lots of money. This money is never received by the creditors, as a receiver will cost what is left in the pot. |
Well, not fraud, but possibly/probably trading insolvently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, i was referring to the contractual situation regarding expending £100 K on a ski trip and it is evidenced by this mess that teachers are not qualified nor do they have the required contractuall knowledge to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
Please don't assume that I agree with anyone who uses my name in one of their posts.
I know that teachers do a good job and really do spend a large amount of their free time on helping kids that would not have been able to undertake the activity they doing without the good will of the teacher involved.
My main point is that teachers should not be responsible for the organisation on booking of ski trips due to the amount of money and complex regulations involved.
Just on another point - the "worst" thing that could happen to the parent's chance of getting their money back is for SE / CR to be found guilty of fraud.
Here is a section of our Bonding document.
Underwriters shall not be liable to indemnify the Assured against any claim arising directly or indirectly from dishonest, fraudulent, malicious or illegal act or omission of the Assured, or their Employees or those of their agents or respective partners;
I don't know for sure but I assume that most TO Bonding docs will have the same type of stuff in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Just on another point - the "worst" thing that could happen to the parent's chance of getting their money back is for SE / CR to be found guilty of fraud.
Here is a section of our Bonding document.
Underwriters shall not be liable to indemnify the Assured against any claim arising directly or indirectly from dishonest, fraudulent, malicious or illegal act or omission of the Assured, or their Employees or those of their agents or respective partners;
I don't know for sure but I assume that most TO Bonding docs will have the same type of stuff in |
ouch !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller,
There is a lot of it going on, people are trying to trade through a tough period. Trading insolvently is illegal, but in construction alot of companies are closer to it then they would like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Wayne,
Apologies - I hadn't assumed that yor did.
| Quote: |
My main point is that teachers should not be responsible for the organisation on booking of ski trips due to the amount of money and complex regulations involved.
|
I agree - this is not an area where you would expect teachers to have much competence - and it doesn't make much sense for many teachers all around the country to be going off doing their own thing. Better that LEAs/bursars do the financial due diligence - helped by central sources (couldn't the Dept of Education/some other body accredit all companies doing holidays for schools?)
| Quote: |
Just on another point - the "worst" thing that could happen to the parent's chance of getting their money back is for SE / CR to be found guilty of fraud.
|
I think this is one of the reasons why the authorities often wait for civil actions/bankruptcies to occur first before they start with criminal investigations. The latter have a higher burden of proof so it also useful to see that the lower burden of proof in civil cases is cleared first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insolvent trading is not in itself necessarily a crime, but if a company continues to trade while insolvent knowing it has no means of meeting it's obligations or trading out of the situation - it would be open to charges of wrongful trading for which insolvent trading would be pretty damming evidence.
To be in a wrongful trading situation when the writing is clearly on the wall and has been for some time, but to continue to take deposits for future services would be starting to cross into the fraud territory - though some might argue there is a fine line between cash flow and a ponzi scheme! Wrongful trading can only be committed by directors of a limited company though, but fraudulent trading can apply to ltd companies or sole traders - and carries a potential maximum jail sentence of 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
As a parent, I recall that I had no idea which TO would be used to book the annual school ski trip! Details of said trip were provided after parent deposit had been collected by the school and arrangements made (and deposits paid) to SE. I think the point of using a specialist School trip TO, and one on approved LEA listings, is precisely to be seen to act responsibly. The law will make a judgement about whose fault it is, but in real life stuff happens. I'd feel a little sorry for SE as a TO if it wasn't such a case of deja vue and there weren't so many first hand accounts of horror stories.
I doubt if CR traded his way out of the hole he allowed to happen that he would pay back creditors easily (he doesn't even admit they are creditors for a start, due to small print and lack of written information). And I doubt he is about to liquidise his personal assets to do the same either. He's a fox trapped in his own hole and won't care about anyone.
Lastly, if there were any awards for refund, who would be at the top of the list? How does that get sorted. Instructors who delivered services first, coach companies next, unpaid hotels (for rooms used) and then schools/parents at the bottom? Just a guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| snowjoe wrote: |
| .....Lastly, if there were any awards for refund, who would be at the top of the list? How does that get sorted. Instructors who delivered services first, coach companies next, unpaid hotels (for rooms used) and then schools/parents at the bottom? Just a guess. |
The Insolvency Service guide for creditors
| Quote: |
When all the assets available to unsecured creditors have been realised, the trustee/liquidator will distribute the proceeds in a strict order of priority as follows:
1. The fees and charges of the liquidation/bankruptcy.
2. Debts due to preferential creditors,. These debts are set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 and include wages owed in the four months before the date of the insolvency order and contributions to occupational pension schemes.
3. In company cases, any creditor holding a floating charge over an asset, such as a debenture.
4. All unsecured creditors.
5. Any interest payable on debts.
6. In company cases, the shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
At a guess I would say if any money was found it wiil go straight to HMRCE, if he hasn't paid staff a safe bet that he hasn't paid any taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
it is highly unlikely the schools/LEA will get a penny back as an unsercured creditor from SE/CR as a failing company or an individual. We have already seen that bonds may have been invalidated by (possible) fraudulant activities so I would not hold out much hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Would CR assets be ringfenced? If he owed unsecured creditors £100k say, and those creditors got a judgement to repay that money, would he have to sell assets to settle the debt? We've seen that he was not trading as a limited company, so doesn't that make him personally liable to the debts without limit?
Tricky isn't it? LEAs/Schools need to judge whether it is worth pouring legal fees on top of the lost deposit without much idea of whether they could get anything back. Their situations are probably sufficiently different in circumstance to prevent a shared/class action to minimise costs. What a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
snowjoe, I think you will find he has very few assets 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, quite. As as parent I know where I would be directing my begging bowl
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| lightningdan wrote: |
This is all very sad for the people involved but the likes of Chris Reynard , will just sell his house in Kew and move on.
IMO |
A House in Kew - postcode? Any detail that is public information? It tallys with other sources quoting a Richmond base but Kew is much more ££ posh.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 6-06-11 9:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
FreeRider
Posts: 11373it is highly unlikely the schools/LEA will get a penny back as an unsercured creditor from SE/CR as a failing company or an individual. We have already seen that bonds may have been invalidated by (possible) fraudulant activities so I would not hold out much hope
|
Could you explain how fraud would invalidate the insurance policy in the event of the bankruptcy/liquidation of SE? Given there is a legal requirement to have such insurance/bonding in place irrespective of whether fraud has taken place. I have my doubts as to whether the fraud exemption in Wayne's bond overrides the obligation in the event of bankruptcy/liquidation given the legal requirements, and also given that AiTO have clearly looked at the matter and made the position clear in the previous Radio 4 programme.
In the case of the Howglen case it was worth noting that most of the (property) assets were charged to the banks and that Reynard only produced a list of his creditors to the liquidator after many requests and there was no eveidence of many of the unsecured creditors being paid in the liquidators statements.
As an actual parent I will continue to have a constructive dialogue with my childrens' schools on this and other matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Could you explain how fraud would invalidate the insurance policy in the event of the bankruptcy/liquidation of SE? . |
Please Mr Insurance Man will you insure my clients in the case that through normal trading I go bankrupt.
Yeah ok Mr TO course I will.
Thanks, oh and will you also insure my clients if I empty the company bank account and buy myself a small island and then find I can't supply the holidays that people have paid me for.
Hmmm, we’ll have to think about that one, but thanks for your time. Can I give you the number of one of our competitors, I’m sure they would be interested.
Think about car insurance.
If you have your car pinched you'll get a payout but if you are found guilty of faking it (stealing you own car and selling it) then try and claim on the insurance for the loss you have suffered, would the insurance Co. pay out ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
or if you insure your skis and do not lock them up and they get pinched - by a stranger or your mate  - no payout when the insured has acted stupidly or fraudulantly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
Think about car insurance.
If you have your car pinched you'll get a payout but if you are found guilty of faking it (stealing you own car and selling it) then try and claim on the insurance for the loss you have suffered, would the insurance Co. pay out ? |
I don't think that is a good analogy. Surely the AiTO bond pays out to the 3rd parties, not SE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| snowjoe wrote: |
| Tricky isn't it? LEAs/Schools need to judge whether it is worth pouring legal fees on top of the lost deposit without much idea of whether they could get anything back. Their situations are probably sufficiently different in circumstance to prevent a shared/class action to minimise costs. What a mess. |
An estimate of legal costs is £45,000 so you are right it is might not be worth chasing the average amount of loss reported in this thread. The maths don't work and there is risk in taking action that the school will lose [has to be considered]. It gets more hopeless, perhaps some kind hearted solicitor wants some Pro Bono work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Wayne,
| Quote: |
Think about car insurance.
If you have your car pinched you'll get a payout but if you are found guilty of faking it (stealing you own car and selling it) then try and claim on the insurance for the loss you have suffered, would the insurance Co. pay out ?
|
Rather difficult to fake bankruptcy or insolvency I would say - since they are both defined legal states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Wayne,
| Quote: |
Hmmm, we’ll have to think about that one, but thanks for your time. Can I give you the number of one of our competitors, I’m sure they would be interested.
|
This of course may now well be the reaction to the insurance companies to providing cover for SE/Reynard/Westward Holidays in the future - and without AiTO to check that cover is in place as they previously did - then who knows whether or not the legal cover required in the event of liquidation/bankruptcy is in place. So please check whether this is the case in the future - especially if the entity concerned is not a member of AiTO/ATOL etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
snowjoe, noskitrip,
I agree that it is messy - and that is why AiTO, of which SE was a member until recently, and which is meant to check their members compliance with all the requirements and promises no financial risk and peace of mind, should really take an active role in helping sort things out. Fortunately, after some initial reluctance and having their hands held to the flame AiTO appears to be recognising its responsibilities. Hopefully, this will be further borne out on Radio 4 on Wednesday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
From the Plymouth Herald article mentioned above:
The skiing europe website "has been shut down".
Chris Reynard/skiing europe's financial affairs are being investigated by Tavistock CID, following an allegation of fraud.
They are liaising with police forces "throughout the country" and with trading standards.
At least 11 schools are thought to have cancelled their trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
daveyladboy, that is good news. Being self employed ourselves we realise how hard it is running your own business in these tough financial times, but there is no excuse for what Chris Reynard and skiing europe have done
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Wayne, kids might have lost a lot more than one week of fun away. My family would never have been able to affor a ski hol while I was growing up. Indeed, we never went abroad at all. I am so grateful for my school ski hol which introduced me to such an amazing experience...so much so that 18 years later we decided to have out first ski holiday as a married couple with a young child. It has led to many further ski holidays and I really feel honoured to be able to experience such an amazing holiday, it does us all the world of good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| As said before on the who cancelled point - some are nearer to the facts than others as we have first hand accounts of what happened. The Package Holiday Regulations are absolutley clear that if Reynard changed the location of the holiday, the hotel, the means of transport, asked for additional payments - then he has to offer a full refund - and he play around with the T&Cs of his contract all he wants but he cannot override the Regulations. If he is in breach of the Regulations the schools/patents would be perfectly within their rights not to go ahead with the holidays and then go to courts to seek full refunds. |
This may be dragging things up but I could not let this one go, I do not think it is as clear cut as you describe. Your statement that the Organiser (SE/CR) must offer a refund for the changes you mention is incorrect, the obligations of the Organiser is to the Consumer (Parent) and is to offer a substitute package of equivalent or superior quality … or of a lower quality and (for the Consumer) to recover from the Organiser the difference in price between the price of the package purchased and that of the substitute package; or repay to the Consumer (parent) as soon as possible all the monies paid by him under the contract. I believe that SE/CR has already offered to repay to the Consumer (parent) as soon as possible all the monies paid by under the contracts, and as the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 does not stipulate a time scale I do not even believe that SE/CR is even in default at this point in time. Unless schools waited for alternative options to be fully discussed in writing then cancellation by them may have been a bit too early, but their right to cancel is not even a clear contractual option imv (Mount Grace never actually did cancel btw)
maybe you are talking specifically about your school, but each schools is a distinct and separate scenario, Tonbridge for example had kids aged 16 to 18, and btw the requirements for children under 16 is for the Retailer/Organiser to provide 'on the [i]day when the journey or stay is due to start, information enabling direct contact to be made with the child or the person responsible at the place where he is to stay'[/i]. Note this is to be provide at the latest on the day of travel !!
Under The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 there is a specific requirement for the Contract to be in writing, to be provided to the Consumer (parent) and to include all that is referred to under Schedule 2, the main important terms being - 1 The travel destination(s) and, where periods of stay are involved, the relevant periods, with dates. 2 The means, characteristics and categories of transport to be used and the dates, times and points of departure and return. 3. Where the package includes accommodation, its location, its tourist category or degree of comfort, its main features. So it is acceptable for the TO to simply say that we are taking you by coach to Resort X and you will staying in an 3 star accommodation, and that the TO only needs to provide the contact details in the case of under 16 year olds literally on the day of departure. If the details are not specified in writing in the first place, and a change has not been formally notified in writing either, then nothing has legally changed. The TO may not be able to provide what it intended but unless this has been communicated in the manner prescribed under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 then the Consumer has no cahnges to consider and the Organiser has no obligation to offer a refund. i.e. the contractual need to offer an alternative does not legally arise, and the option to reject it and cancel does not kick in.
Where we differ in our interpretation on this is unless a Contract was produced in the first place or as a minimum these details had been provided to the Consumer in writing - by either the Retailer (School) and/or the Organiser (SE/CR), then how can it be judged that anything has been changed ? to change it needed to have been notified in writing in the first place and then varied in writing to something else – all this tittle tattle from coach companies and hotels has no legal bearing on the actions the Consumer (parent), Retailer (School) and Organiser (SE/CR). Unless this procedure has taken place the resultant courses of action simply do not flow. Some schools maybe able to argue their points whereby CR had personally said that the country and means of transport would change, but others might not. Each school has a unique circumstance and sweeping statements like the one you made above can not be justified.
It is interesting to note that the consequence of not providing, for example, details of where under 16s will stay is not the repudiation of the Contract but a potential liability for (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; and (b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine... . This breach of Contract is not a repudiation or rescission of the Contract upon which the Consumer (Parent) can put their hands up and walk away from the holiday.
What is even more interesting is that under Clause 12 significant alterations to essential terms is only referenced to Price as a decision for the Consumer - Parent to withdraw and not the Retailer. Likewise Clause 13 relates to the ‘Consumer’ (Parent) withdrawing and not the Retailer (School) and this could be crucial, and this specifically relates to a breach under Clause 12a – under which only a change of price referenced. I am not even sure the School as a Retailer has the right to cancel tghe trip on behalf of the Consumer (Parent) in accordance with the Regulations.
And finally under Clause 9 - Contract, under Scottish law if the Contract is not provided in writing to the Consumer then that is enough for the agreement to be considered as rescinded but it is not the case for agreements executed under English law. If only the schools had included this simple term in their agreement with SE/CR ... 
I do not think the above could be considered as 'absolutely clear' in the circumstances and this will all be deliberated in the courts, but the only ones who have not breached the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 is the Consumer - i.e. the parents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
the obligations of the Organiser is to the Consumer (Parent) and is to offer a substitute package of equivalent or superior quality … or of a lower quality and (for the Consumer) to recover from the Organiser the difference in price between the price of the package purchased and that of the substitute package; or repay to the Consumer (parent) as soon as possible all the monies paid by him under the contract.
|
It is not a case of the Organiser having to offer one of the alternatives that you detail - he also has to offer the option of a full refund. The choice has to be with the Consumer - see Regulation 12
| Quote: |
the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 does not stipulate a time scale
|
Again not the case - Regulation 13(2) says as "soon as possible" - the regulations do not define what is meant by as "soon as possible" but most courts would be capable of doing so, since it is something that they do so quite often and there is a lot of precedent.
| Quote: |
Tonbridge for example had kids aged 16 to 18, and btw the requirements for children under 16 is for the Retailer/Organiser to provide 'on the day when the journey or stay is due to start, information enabling direct contact to be made with the child or the person responsible at the place where he is to stay'. Note this is to be provide at the latest on the day of travel !!
|
I never claimed that the position on this was the same for all schools - most schools had pupils below the 6th form unlike Tonbridge - and do you know whether or not they may have had some younger 6th formers, which is not uncommon (or are you relying on 2nd hand accounts). In the case of the random coach driver's account - they had children who were under 16 (confirmed by the driver here) and the details of the hotel were not given until they were driving through Germany on the day after departure.
| Quote: |
So it is acceptable for the TO to simply say that we are taking you by coach to Resort X and you will staying in an 3 star accommodation, and that the TO only needs to provide the contact details in the case of under 16 year olds literally on the day of departure. If the details are not specified in writing in the first place, and a change has not been formally notified in writing either, then nothing has legally changed.
|
Yes - but in the cases of which I am aware the hotel and the resort were named specifically.
| Quote: |
What is even more interesting is that under Clause 12 significant alterations to essential terms is only referenced to Price as a decision for the Consumer - Parent to withdraw and not the Retailer.
|
Again not true - the actual wordings are "an essential term of the contract, such as the price (so far as regulation 11 permits him to do so)," there can be essential terms other than price.
| Quote: |
And finally under Clause 9 - Contract, under Scottish law if the Contract is not provided in writing to the Consumer then that is enough for the agreement to be considered as rescinded but it is not the case for agreements executed under English law. If only the schools had included this simple term in their agreement with SE/CR ...
|
Apart from Girvan and otehr Scottish schools this is a particularly silly recommendation - so English schools should have modify their contracts to be written in a legal framework in which they don't usually work (which they would have to do in writing) so that they cannot the protection of not having entered into an unwritten contract.
| Quote: |
I do not think the above could be considered as 'absolutely clear' in the circumstances and this will all be deliberated in the courts, but the only ones who have not breached the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 is the Consumer - i.e. the parents
|
"absolutely clear" is your misquotation - I have never said that it was - in fact I said that it was new EU Legislation that has has not yet been fully interpreted by the courts. Yes these matetrs have to be deliberated in the courts - but I do know that lawyers feel that it is worth taking the matter to court (and I have every reason to believe that they have better legal minds that your own. You of course then come up with a definitive statement that the schools and Reynard have breached the Regulations - which somewhat contradicts your previous sentence doesn't it.
In future might I suggest that you avoid providing misleading interpretations of the law as you are clearly not very good at it. And if you do you should make it clear that anyone should discuss the matters and specific circumstances with a qualified lawyer who is trained to do so - which would always be my advice, even if you think you have a strong case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My goodness what a lot of time you must be spending on this rayscoops.
For what it is worth, and Stephen101 clearly thinks that's not a lot, that bizarre point about Scots law is probably irrelevant. Isn't it perhaps usual that legal redress would have to be sought by a customer in the law of the country in which the firm is registered? I have seen plenty of clauses to that effect in agreements of one kind or another. So as a Scot buying goods or services from an English firm I would expect to have to go to an English court if a dispute went to that length. Not that it is of any great relevance in this issue, but I am curious to know if that is generally the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
On a small scale, this illustrates a lot of the problems with law in general. Given some knowledge, one lawyer/solicitor/barrister can use 'words' to make black = white. Its why crooks get off on technicalities, and why rogue traders get away with what they do. Its why victims think twice before running up legal costs on 'dead cert' cases, because there is no such thing.
It also shows some good things, like that we can debate it here, say more or less what opinions we each have, and get advice and experience along the way.
I am surprised there hasn't been a flurry of newly concerned 'customers' on this thread. If SE were actually taking new deposits, and the website disappeared, I'd be searching the web for why, and by now this thread is visible. Why aren't we seeing more inputs apart from the same names. I was new once, not so long ago, in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
