Skiing Europe/Chris Reynard - Children's ski holiday left in ruins.

A snowHead

bar shaker,

A snowHead

any school worth its salt would have done the right thing by now Little Angel

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

rayscoops,

As has been explained what feels like a million times some schools do not have the available funds - they just cannot legally pay away funds that may have been given to the school for a specific purpose. Some schools may have available funds to which no restriction apply - some don't. Remind me never to appoint you as a trustee for anything!

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Stephen101, well may be they should not go around acting like un-insured and ill-advised travel agents in the first place then should they Very Happy

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Stephen101, there must be legal provision (maybe being take over by the LEA?) for schools that cannot meet their financial responsibilities - otherwise there would be no control over reckless spending. Not that parents might would probably want to see their children's schools go under about the ski trips.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Just a thought - if a state school did use some of its 'budget' to repay out of pocket parents - it would be acting illegally? I thought the governors and head had pretty tight guidelines over the direction of spend.

eg a governor at a rochdale junior school has just been sent down for paying off his gambling debts with siphoned off 'buildings' monies. And lets face it SE is a gambling debt Laughing

After all it is free

achilles,

Stephen101, I am not arguing any specific body should have to pay parents back. It depends, I guess, on whom they had a contract with. All I am thinking is that that schools not having funds available may not be sufficient protection, in law from having to fork out if the have a legal obligation to do so - even if that means the odd school has to be taken over by some other organization as a result.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

bar shaker,

snow reports

[quote="kevindonkleywood"]bar shaker,

You know it makes sense.

Elston, it doesn't

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

You need to read the thread to get the build up Wink

We all have opinions.

A snowHead

bar shaker,

There is little point arguing with you since you patently haven't listened to what has been said before and you just chose ignore any points raised that don't fit in with your theories - you are also at a disadvantage because you are not a parent and have had no direct contact with those who have been involved with the actual specifics of the case.

One point where you are entirely wrong is that the schools cancelled the holidays without reference to the parents - they didn't in my particular case - they kept the parents fully informed although they had very little notice whatsover and the parents concurred with the schools decision not to let our children to go on a coach which was not going to arrive because the coach company was asking for extra payment to a hotel which had already said they had let the booking go several months previously, when there was no other booking at the same resort and where Reynard wouldn't confirm where the children would be saying. Some schools very clearly have a case as they have paid the parents and agents are also able to pursue cases on behalf of their customers. You also fail to appreciate the point that under the Package Holiday regulations that if Reynard changes the terms of the holiday then he was statutorily required to offer a full refund or he is in breach of the contract - the regs make it very clear that this is an implied term of the contract and that agents are able to recover repayments on behalf of their customers. Have you actually bothered to read the Regulations???

The lawyers are not still preparing their cases - they are progressing them - there is a process that needs to be gone through and it takes time. Have you heard from any parents or schools of them deciding not to pursue the case - or is this just your supposition? Do you think that parents are so disnterested that they are just not bothered? Do you really think AITO/the Police/Trading Standards/AmTrust Insurance have been doing nothing whatsoever?

You might also wish to ask yourself - why if everything is as clear as you think - then why it is parents are not taking the action you suggest, especially given that not a few of the parents are likely to be solicitors and accountants who have a deeper understanding of these matters than yourself?? As I have said before any parent should discuss what is being done with the school before leaping into legal action. And even then I would suggest discussing the matter with a solicitor first.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

snowjoe, that's where it gets complicated, if it can be shown that Mr Reynard deliberately transferred assets from his own name to hers before running up huge debts then those assets might not be safe, this is what takes time and require forensic accountants, as they will need to prove such things.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Stephen101, a lot of people are listening to you but disagree with your view.

Some schools cancelled before Reynard made offers regarding the three options for a change of essential terms, the fact that they cancelled rather than waiting for an offer of a refund and following due process means that they probably will have to try to get their money back through general legal process rather than relying upon the Regulations.

Where and under what circumstances in the Regulations does it say the Consumer (or Retailer on the instruction of the Consumer) has the right to cancel the holiday for a change in essential terms or for any other reason ?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

rayscoops, contract terms

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

rayscoops,

How long do you think it would reasonable for the schools to wait for the offer which Reynard is required to make as soon as possible after he changed the terms? It isn't as though the schools didn't delay calling off the trip until 2-3 hours before the scheduled departure, had all the kids already waiting at school with their baggage or made continual efforts to contact Reynard so that he could make his offer. I am pretty certain that these actions will convince a judge (in my view for what its worth) - but what more could a reasonable person expect in all honesty??

After all it is free

achilles, not the 'Regulations' under discussion.

Stephen101, Thank you for confirming that under the Regulations the consumer has no entitlement as such to cancel

As I have said to you on many occassions I would never have cancelled any of the trips at all formally with SE because the Regulations upon which you rely upon does not provide for a cancellation in such circumatances, but I would have told the parents that the school was not going to take up a trip that was not clearly defined. Mount Grace have done it correctly and on the BBC interviews the head clearly states that they cancelled nothing.

I have no issue with the schools telling the parents that the trip will not be taking place (and rightly so - you can not send kids off without the certainty of knowing where they are going etc) if that is what you mean by schools cancelling and I would have done the same. especially the half term trips, but lots cancelled their easter trips too; I take issue with the schools cancelling with SE because that just might have given CR a 'get out of jail card'.

rayscoops, oh, I do appreciate that. Nevertheless, somebody formed a contract with someone. and therefore contract law applies. So, notwithstanding what the Regulations may not say, depending on what the terms of the contract are, termination is possible.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

rayscoops,

I think you fail to understand how the Regulations work - although the regulations always take precedence over contract law, they do not overrride contract law in areas where the regulations are silent. This is how regulations and contract law interact - and if you look at the Regulations you will see that in some areas they state that certain requirements are to be considered as implied terms of any contract. What Achilles says about breach of fundamental terms of the contract is not disapplied by the Regulations (you may wish to confirm that there is no such statement in the Regs) - and so continues to applies. I have always said that the Regulations take precedence over the terms of the contract/contract law - that is not the same as saying that they replace it (this is pretty basic corporate law btw). The difference between Mount Grace and the schools at half term is that Mount Grace had time and Reynard responded with a proposal which the school could then reject. What the schools told the parents at half term is in the public domain - what they told Reynard in formal legal correspondence is not, apart from what Reynard has said in his all too brief utterances.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Interesting...

Just because CR and SE refused to admit that arrangements were in place, doesn't mean they had not breached their contract (too many double negatives there, sorry!). Provided Schools can show they made checks, or received information about, material details of the holiday being missing, then they had no option but to 'call off' the holiday. If SE can claim nothing matters unless it is in writing, then so can the schools... I don't think they wrote letters cancelling, just demanding proof, action or refunds, and I've not heard of SE putting supposed proof into writing.

In other words: I don't think the schools 'cancelling' can be blamed, unless SE can produce evidence of written confirmations of all original details being in place for each trip. So the sooner they press the case to have monies repaid the better.

I am troubled that the schools themselves may not be able to afford the action, and one by one drop by the wayside. Especially ifweighing up whether to recover parents money, rather than their own.

Lastly - I take the point that interested parties should 'keep their powder dry' and not disclose status updates on this forum in full view - BUT I am still surprised not to hear something more from anonymous parents somewhere along the line.

There is a ray of optimisim that Police interviews proceed, but no sign yet of anything getting to court. And its a Court that needs to decide on SE guilt (or not) so that AiTo can trigger what they think they are obliged to settle. If SE are made bankrupt, then how far back does that extend for Aito to make repayments?

Oh dear - what happened to the principle of stealing money - SE were given money and did not use it to provide the services they said they would. Maybe they had some costs in failing to deliver, but that should be at their cost for failing. Why does it take so long for the law to get to the point.

All this conjecture is just that. We need to wait and see what plod is going to do and if any legal action makes it to court. I don't have a vested interest either way, so I don't want to keep going in circles. I simply want to hear real news. I am trying not to sound pompous or a smartalec - just surprised how long this is taking to be resolved. I hope CR gets what he deserves in the end.

snow reports

snowjoe, this is why Fraud cases so rarely make it to court and when they do rarely get convictions it's very hard to prove even when everyone can see dodgy stuff was going on proving it in a court of law is something else, for instance here you would thing that schools forced to pay twice for the holiday once to SE and again direct to the hotel would have a good case, but the schools will have to prove that they paid the hotel for the same things the hotel was supposed to provide through SE, that means getting the hotel outside the UK to at the very least submit a statement and more likely be called as a witness .... Whilst SE will be blaming the schools, their accountants, the banks or even the hotel owner, all SE has to do is muddy the waters for their to be reasonable doubt Sad

achilles, Stephen101, of course a consumer can cancel a holiday, but if that consumer had not given the Organiser the opportunity to mitigate the changes to the significant essential terms then I am not sure whether the consumer had acted within the Regulations, and to then rely upon them with respect to a payout from insurers in the case of bankruptcy by SE is fanciful. The Regulations have been set out to anticipate certain circumstances and scenarios and those that cancelled at half term had less time before the trip was due to take place then maybe they can argue their case at law (rather than under the Regulations), but for others at Easter for example there was still plenty of time for (finance permitting) SE to pull a rabbit out of the hat; infact it could be argued that some of the Easter cancellations were done so vexatiously because of the press and internet campaigns against SE.

In the simplest of terms, the schools had the right to withdraw from the holiday if the offer of alternatives had been refused by them, and the TO is obliged to give a refund within a reasonable period. One thing the schools did not have the right to do under the Regulations is to cancel the agreement prior to the TO offering alternatives etc. and expect recompense.

I fully understand the Regulations, and a change to an essential term is not a repudiatory breach of contract - infact it is not even a breach - because it is an anticipated scenario that has actually been included and written in to the Regulations to deal with such circumstances, i.e. the offer of alternatives and/or price reductions or the offer of a refund if the alternatives are refused by the consumer, and with this regard some schools cancelled before SE were given the opportunity to fullfill its obligations under the Regulations.

You know it makes sense.

snowjoe, D G Orf,

I think your analyses are correct. Given the burden of proof is so much higher in criminal/fraud cases it is quite usual for the authorities to wait for the lower threshold of civil case for recovery of debts to be met first. That process however takes time - and my guess is that Reynard is stringing the process along as much as possible. Such delays are not uncommon I'm afraid - although I share your frustration.

Remember that Reynard's disqualification as a director can a long time after his company was declared insolvent - and even then he strung that process along by not providing statements to the Liquidator until very late in the process (this is on the public record if anyone wishes to check). But Howglen was liquidated and Reynard was disqualified eventually.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

A snowHead

Stephen101, perhaps when you post your views you should mention that they relate to the unique circumstance of your individual school rather than making statements about the situation in general. it can be quite confusing and even AiTO has said that the circumstances of each school is unique

I am sure that if the schools are telling the parents that they have a strong case and it is just a matter of time before they get their money back that the parents are happy not to rock the boat, and as you imply, some of these schools seem to be in affluent areas and the parents maybe would rather that they lose their £900 than financially disrupt the school. The reports of schools paying back parents (such as Tavistock) seem to be for schools with perhaps less wealthy parents.

btw a change to a significant essential term for me would be flight changed to coach, change of country destination, change of resort destination whereby the resort is significantly different in km of piste (e.g. VT to another small unlinked French resort), change of hotel category (not change of hotel itself), and even then the initial obligation is for the TO to offer a discount in relation to the change.

Where and how do you think SE were in breach of contract in your case ? or other cases if you wish ?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

CR's ban as a director will have expired last year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/10year-ban-for-ski-instructor-who-risked-childrens-lives-706746.html

and, indeed, he is no longer on the Disqualified Director register:

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/ddir/

Idly wonders if CR has taken this opportunity to quietly set up again under the cover of another limited company and do a final runner.

Indeed, look up the details of registered company 04138384 here:

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/webcheck/

..and then click on "Order information on this company".

Also: 07388132, 04138373(D)

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

rayscoops, you are CR and I claim my £5

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

rayscoops,

The inaccuracies and false assumptions in your position have been pointed out so many times and you still continue to ignore the points raised - I really don't intend to waste my time any further. You are playing the oldest troll game in the book of assuming that unless something is specifically and explicitly stated by yourself in writing that is perfectly acceptable to insert your own suppositions - on such a basis others are able to claim that it was America that brought down the Twin Towers and other similar whacky consipracies.

Hope you enjoy the Roast Groundhog and it doesn't repeat on you too much Very Happy

After all it is free

I have organised two successful holidays with Skiing Europe in 2008 and 2010. I have another booked for the same scout group in 2012. Obviously I am very concerned, especially as I have to give an informed opinion to parents. We have paid £1500 in deposit. If we cancel now I fully accept that we have no right to a refund. I have spoken to CR a number of times over the last 10 days and I am not going to hide the fact that I like him!! It seems quite clear that SE is a company that has got cash flow problems which were made considerably worse by people cancelling without any reason other than fear (which we are considering doing).

I have read all sorts on here about CR and SE, however I own a number of business's myself and employ several people and therefore understand the realities of business life. It is not unusual for companies to have cash flow problems, to be wound up, form new ones or move around assets. The simple question to ask is what the intent was. Everyone must make up their minds on that.
My summary of available facts are:
1. Skiing Europe is badly organised.
2. Skiing Europe relied on positive cash flow continuing year on year (as many businesses’s do)
3. Cash flow got "indigestion" due to economic situation, stronger Euro and poor snow.
4. 'Something' happened with some schools requiring extra payment to be made
5. Word got around and many other schools decided to cancel for whatever reason.
6. Cash flow became critical and the vicious circle began (classic insolvency situation)
7. Conspiracy theory starts doing the rounds on the internet.
8. Ill informed BBC radio programme fuels the fire.
9. People like me with booking left between a rock and a hard place.

It is very disingenuous for people to turn on CR and SE in the way they have. I have NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe that he is a fraud. He has been organising holidays for decades!

Is it really a surprise that he wants to continue if he believes that most of the holidays were cancelled without justification?

The big question now is...... what do I do now?

outofpocket,

Just ask yourself why so little was delivered on c£700k of holidays (see the figures provided) which were paid for in advance. Where did that £700k go? Was it really all "indigestion"? One can understand the profit margin being squeezed - but is it really possible to eat into all the rest? Do your businesses operate with a business model where the customers pay for everything in advance and where some of the creditors are paid in arrears? Were schools really requiring extra payments to be made? Where is the evidence for this or do you mean that the schools were required to make extra payments?

Why if the BBC radio programme was so ill informed did Reynard not take the opportunity to put his side of the story?

Perhaps you could ask your friend Chris since he seems to totally ignore questions from those such as myself whose childrens' holidays were ruined (and perhaps you could explain why this is a disingenuous reason for not asking Reynard where the money has gone?)

I would contact AITO (assuming that SE was still a member when you paid the deposit) and AmTrust Insurance for advice - and in particular you should confirm that the insurance/bonding (the arrangements are still incorrectly described as bonding on the SE website) arrangements continue to be in place. I would also get Reynard to confirm every specific detail and then check those details with the coach companies/hotels etc. I would also demand a full refund the moment that Reynard changes any of the major components of the hoiliday or he asks for extra payments. Reynard is required to do this under the Package Holiday Regulations but there is no harm in demanding your legal entitlements should Reynard forget them.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

outofpocket,
hi, welcome to snowheads thread. You ask what you should do now? Being a scout & business leader you should understand that past performance is only an indication of future ability. RBS, AIG went bust recently! I don't doubt that you had a nice time and have been duped by a skilful man who has £900 of my money and circa 600,000 REASONS TO DOUBT THIS OPERATION COMPLETELY. The trip was unsafe and the school cancelled not out of spite just simple decision of could they keep the children safe? The answer was no.

As you asked a civil question I would press you to request simple answers and start with a few that you will be familiar with for Scouting.

- Ask who in the SE "business" is CRB checked.
- Ask if the temporary ski reps he buys in for £200+board and lodging are CRB checked.
- Ask if he can justify the testimonials in his brochure?
- Ask AiTo if he can meet their quality of membership standards.
- Who processes the personal information and records of scouts details in terms of data protection? Who manages the process for onward transaction to persons unknown in Europe - ski shop, hotel, ski mgr in resort etc. - Data Protection law and Information Commissioners Office

If you are satisfied with these answers you will of made a decision of sorts.
When you are ready issue an email to the parents and ask them what they think with a link to this forum. it may have a £600k bias but there are lots of facts, advice and information for them to consider. It is after all the parents money!
Good luck.

Help!!

Skiing Europe/Chris Reynard - Children's ski holiday left in ruins.

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste