 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
On You and Yours on Radio 4 right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Stephen101, please stop trolling - it was a simple question in relation to parents possibly getting their money back
The AM Trust insurance is not something that can be claimed against for a cancelled holiday, it is for paying out in the case of failure by a TO (as you have previously advised), therefore I fail to see how such an insurance has any relevance to making a claim for a holiday cancelled by a school. Whether an individual private policy of a parent (that has lost money) can be used to recover money in this case is of course subject to its terms and conditions, but to suggest that such a policy can not be (obviously subject to specific T&Cs) even considered because AM Trust policy is in place does not seem correct imv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
You and Yours should be available soon on Listen Again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qps9
Most of the piece was about how and why AM Trust has backed out.
One headmaster of a publicly-funded school said that the school's insurance will not cover them in this situation and, since AM Trust have pulled out, their only chance of recovering the money is through legal action against SE/CR. The school (i.e. the taxpaxer) has taken the hit for the lost money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
Stephen101, please stop trolling - it was a simple question in relation to parents possibly getting their money back
|
If you did irony I'm sure you would appreciate this.
If you read my earlier post, in response to Wayne's orginal post, you will see that parents were told to look into their family policies at the start but unfortunately it is often the case that such policies do not cover children travelling without their parents (but please look and check), you are then forced back onto the group policy which in our case excluded failure of the tour operator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Stephen101, seriously now, where do you see things going from here ? it is suggested that no individual travel insurance policy seems to be worded to allow a claim, no group policy either, your well documented stance was to rely upon bankruptcy to trigger an AiTO bonded insurance payout but even that is not now going to happen. What is left for your school (or a school in general if you do not want to be specific) and its parents ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
altis, What did AITO say on the BBC this time or did they tactically avoid commenting? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
I haven't ruled out all individual/group insurance policies - I have just said that they were looked at initially and many do not provide protection. If anyone hasn't looked yet then please do so straightaway.
More generally, I don't think AmTrust are out of the woods - remember that they took a long time deciding to void the policy, although I suspect the facts were pretty evident from the beginning, so I very much doubt that they thought the position was as clear cut as some made out. There are good arguments that they should have done some fairly obvious due diligence when taking on CR - and they may well not have met the standards expected by the FSA/ABI in this regard. It is pretty clear from ABI guidance that they are only entitled to void the policy when CR has acted improperly with regard to making disclosures to the insurance company - and I suspect that sooner or later AmTrust will have to disclose what CR actually said on proposal forms.
Clearly AiTO should be put under a lot a pressure to show that all their financial promises actually mean something and so they are not a figure of ridicule. The Advertising Standards Authority might also have something to say as to whether their claims are legal decent and honest. They also had a clear obligation to vet their members and presumably check the sort of information that CR was providing to the insurance company.
It is probably about time that some political presure is applied to the insurers and AiTO to ensure that consumers get the protection that the Package Holiday Regulations are meant to provide them with - and for which they have all paid for by multiple insurance premiums and AiTO membership fees. If the industry wants the continued light regulation that they have at present - then they need to show that they can self regulate a lot better than they do at present. Also something needs to be done to speed up the process - as usual court processes really do not work for the ordinary consumer and just demonstrate the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied.
From what I know most schools that can repay parents have done so already. Those who haven't are not legally allowed to do so and/or have LEAs which will not allow/underwrite repayments. If all else fails those LEAs which approved CR as a supplier to the schools might wish to have a look at their negligence policies - and parents might wish to have a word with their county councillors and make FOI requests to determine what due diligence the LEAs actually did before putting CR onto their supplier lists.
Re CR the police should continue with their enquiries as a matter of good public policy. That said I have never felt that it is likley that much will be recovered from him in financial terms, especially given his record to date.
As for seeking to blame the teachers/schools there are certainly lessons for them and governing bodies to learn for the future - but despite many invitations for the detractors and teacher bashers to come up with something concrete, I 'm afraid all I see is carelessness on their part rather than something that could form the basis of a civil/criminal case with any chance of success. Those who seem to be obsessed with pursuing this angle might also wish to explain how it would actually benefit parents in getting repaid or in the relationships with their children's schools - or do they see the benefit merely in terms of promoting their general muck raking and political views, which is certainly the impression that I have formed. Cue lots of stupid and possibly libellous comments.
This is of course all my own views based on the evidence that I have seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, I don't see how teachers/schools who were making their own decisions on this are admonished from the blame game. It seems to me that some of them at least must have done less due dilligence on this man and his operation then many sentient adults might do when spending their own money. As has been said from the beginning a couple of minutes on google should have been enough to send up a whole load of red flags so its a valid question as to why they stumbled blindly on (except where LEAs had given them assurances that this was a reliable supplier). It's a valid question whether the cosiness of inspection trips led them to be less guarded but not one I imagine anyone will ever give a straight answer on. For those that had past experience with hotel switcheroos, unhappy coach contractors/hire shops and reps who claimed not to be being paid even more reason to ask the question of why did they rebook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Fatbob, hindsight is a wonderful thing. When I googled Ski Europe last year there was nothing to raise any concerns, things are very different now when you search. As a parent booking with a group I didn't know the name of the Director of the company and it never occurred to me to identify and google directors of a business I was using. I checked the insurance details and checked with AiTO and their assurances that there were insurance policies in place, the promise of full financial protection etc etc were re-assuring enough to persuade me to book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
Stephen101, I don't see how teachers/schools who were making their own decisions on this are admonished from the blame game.
|
I have never said they were - but it is a matter of degree and the level of culpability, and for the moment there are much bigger targets to chase who appear to have much more serious questions to answer. If someone was able to come up with something that would even come near to the usual criteria for prosecution then I might see things differently - there was one unsupported reference to CR offering holidays in the West Indies, but apart from that I haven't seen anything that wouldn't in all likelihood be laughed out of a Police Station. Those who disagree are welcome to try if they have the courage of their convictions 
I can even blame myself for not looking into the background of CR/SE before I committed. I must say dibblette, that I was able to find quite a lot about CR/SE within 30 minutes of hearing about the problems fro the first time on the day before departure - but as with most people I just assumed that the involvement of AiTO, the LEA and legal requirement for bonding/insurance would be sufficient, and like most people I do have to trust others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
dibblette, On the day this thread started which I assume represented a world before negative Reynard publicity had bumped the negatives up the search rankings I was able to go to the "old" Skiing Europe website which looked like it had been glued together in the 80s by a blind man, I was able to scan the "about us" page and pick out the man who looked like he was the big cheese then google him by name which threw up old TES, Indepndent and Hansard links to give me background about him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Yes, but that was when things went public about it all going wrong. Back in March 2010 when I first googled Ski Europe there was nothing I found to raise any concerns. How I wish I had thought of searching for CR back then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dibblette, Did you think the website looked professional and trustworthy back then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Sorry our posts crossed fatbob. I didn't think the website was great no, but I wasn't buying a holiday from Thomson and didn't expect a great corporate website. I've been on holidays/rented apartments with amateurish websites which were very good. I'm more interested in their holiday offering that their web-building skills. I decided the fact that Insurance co's, travel bodies etc were backing the company as reputable were more important that his internet offering. As I said, I wish I'd searched for CR online, but who else thought of that before alarm bells started ringing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
fatbob, to be fair I know a fair number of good small businesses (even ones with large turnovers) which don't have great websites, often a great website simply means that someone has spent out a lot of money on looks, this may be more important to them than substance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
dibblette,
I found all the things fatbob, found and more back in February - even before the first holidays had been stopped. The trick with any company search is always to look for the owners as well and in structuring your search terms. That said if it was a holiday with an AiTO member and the LEA approved the supplier and you had had sucessful holidays with CR before I can well understand why no one would do the searches - most of us need some trigger before we start looking deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
fatbob, I am not too sure whether many parents would have done such a search, after all they were handing over £800 to their school (and at that point in time the name of the TO would probably not have even been known in many cases) which is a legal entity that they trusted to spend the money in a responsible manner; you might/would have expected schools, LA etc to do such checks and be aware of the history of CR (well known in the industry as stated by posters on here) before handing over £90,000.
The reality of the situation is that school holidays from CR seem to be priced (as suggested by some on here) at the same general level as other school ski holiday providers, and those schools that booked with such other providers do not seem to have had the continual issues that have plagued bookings with CR. The question has to be asked - why book with CR when there are comparable options available ? something would have caused the person responsible for booking the trips to decide to go with CR (a very small player in the market) rather than many of the alternative companies available, likewise some one who booked with one of the alternatives would have made that decision on some rational basis.
Tavistock School Head said that they were going to have a full investigation in to what happened with their booking with CR, any one know whether this has happened or had sight of such an investigation?
One thing for sure, any school that takes the responsibility for accepting money from parents for expensive school ski trips should, in a worst case scenario, have the financial cover to be able to repay such money out of their own finances or have the requisite insurance in place to cover the reimbursement of such sums irrespective of what bogus claims are being made by industry bodies, TOs or whomever regarding bonding etc. If a school does not have the capacity to repay its debts in such circumstances then surely it is leaving itself open to all sorts of legal and financial risks, the same as any company and the same as CR. Actually whilst we are on this, why is it ok for schools to operate as a business booking ski holidays but not be liable for its failures and be unable to repay parents, yet expect LA, AiTO, AmTrust, CR to be responsible for their failures in similar circumstances?
As all other possibilities of schools getting any money back seem to have dissolved away (except for expensive legal proceedings), if I were a parent I would simply ask the school or LA for my money back and if it was not forthcoming I would issue a claim under the small claims court or when the debt is not paid within 28 days issue a winding up order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
The question has to be asked - why book with CR when there are comparable options available ? something would have caused the person responsible for booking the trips to decide to go with CR (a very small player in the market) rather than many of the alternative companies available,
|
Is that rotor blades i can hear 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
I am not too sure whether many parents would have done such a search, after all they were handing over £800 to their school (and at that point in time the name of the TO would probably not have even been known in many cases)
|
This just not true in my case there was no attempt whatsover to hide the identity of the TO - and I have not heard that there was in any other case either. Most schools also had to have the TO approved by the LEA. Several schools had also had trouble free holidays with CR for a number of years.
Why should schools obtain additional insurance for the financial default of the insurer when it is a legal requirement for the TO to have such insurance - and as a consequence such cover is not included within the general group insurance cover that they are required to purchase. As though the holidays are not expensive enough. The real issue going forward is to make sure that the insurance required by law actually works in all circumstances - and from what I've heard the law has worked in all other cases apart from CR, including some other school ski trip operators. Perhaps a legal requirement on the insurer/AiTO or similar to check the details on the TO's insurance proposal so that the policy cannot be voided on the grounds of disclosure, plus some acceleration of the point when the insurance kicks in for TOs whoi are sole traders would be a sensible way of going forward.
Do you seriously think that all commercial travel agents provide cover in the event of the financial collapse of the TO. They do not - and they would be in revolt if they were required to do so - although I daresay they would try and get a nice fat commission from selling the extra insurance. But for some reason you appear to believe that the requirements should be higher for schools than commercial travel agents. Any move to do so would in effect stop school ski trips in many cases - which of course is your true motivation.
Issue a winding up order against a school - for a transaction where they were acting as agent for the TO when the Regs specifically says they are not responsible for events beyond their control. Perhaps this demonstrates your grasp of the legal realities. Even if a parent could wind up a school do you think that they would want to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
leedsunited,
| Quote: |
Is that rotor blades i can hear
|
No its the bats flapping around in your troll cave again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
leedsunited,
| Quote: |
Is that rotor blades i can hear
|
No its the bats flapping around in your troll cave again. |
Must be dark in ther, maybe we need to send somebody on and inducemnt trip (bribe) to make sure it is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, are you saying that you want school governors, who IME are citizens motivated for the good of their local community, to take a personal hit for all this? Really? Tell us about your personal experience as a governor. I have none, but Mrs a was one, and my DIL is a chairwoman. If they had had the misfortune to be related to one of the schools who, acting on the LEA advice, had accepted CR as a contractor, are you saying that they personally should have taken a hit? Unless you have personally held liability as a governor, that seems exceptionally vicious, and unSH-like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Where there is blame there is a claim!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratholes everywhere. Stop blaiming the schools and organisers who trusted CR/SE and the facts most available at that time, and remember that it was SE/CR that screwed up. End of.
I can see that if a parent wants to sue the School as the Organiser to recover their money, they could. And the School in turn could(should) sue Skiing Europe (the Chris Reynard Sole Trader entity) to recover their funds. But it seems they may not bother since it costs money to take him to court and there is doubt of actually recovering any funds. Coupled with the fact that not all parents will take the measure of claiming against the School either.
Looks like everyone is cutting their losses and moving on.
BUT - that should not stop the LAW progressing the investigation of Fraud or Theft on the publics behalf - and that's the only thing worth chasing AFAICS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| rayscoops, are you saying that you want school governors, who IME are citizens motivated for the good of their local community, to take a personal hit for all this? Really? Tell us about your personal experience as a governor. I have none, but Mrs a was one, and my DIL is a chairwoman. If they had had the misfortune to be related to one of the schools who, acting on the LEA advice, had accepted CR as a contractor, are you saying that they personally should have taken a hit? Unless you have personally held liability as a governor, that seems exceptionally vicious, and unSH-like. |
No, not unpaid members of the public giving up their free time to do a great job in helping with their local school and maybe the use of the word 'governors' is wrong, but i was distinguishing between a public sector employee and some one who has decided to form their own school.
There seems to be lots ways to finance a school these days - public schools. free schools, Acadamies, Trusts, Technical/Vocational schools etc. For example I seem to remember JCB sponsoring a technical type school (effectively it is their school because with out the sponsorship the school could not exist) and also that an academy may receive additional support from personal or corporate sponsors, either financially or in kind. If a corporate body or group of individuals decide they effectively want to be responsible for their own school then surely they should be responsibility for the debt too ?
I can not agree with the idea that if, for example, Reading and Tonbridge school can not get any money back from CR or AmTrust or who ever that they can put their hands up and say 'sorry parents but we are unable to pay you back because we are not allowed to' - what other sort of entity or business can get away with that - it is absurd. Of course a school should be the last resort in this sorry case, but that seems to be the way it is drifting and I am shocked that when the buck is likely to stop at the schools that there is a suggestion on here that it will be the same answer - sorry but it is not our responsibility.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7136833.ece
| Quote: |
| Peter Jones of Dragons’ Den sponsors an Enterprise Academy. Wellington Academy is sponsored by the prestigious independent school Wellington College. Microsoft is also a backer of IT academies. The United Learning Trust is England’s biggest academy sponsor. This month a third school run by the trust was rated inadequate by Ofsted. Stockport Academy was the third of ULT’s academies in less than a year to be given the lowest rating by inspectors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
....I can not agree with the idea that if, for example, Reading and Tonbridge school can not get any money back from CR or AmTrust or who ever that they can put their hands up and say 'sorry parents but we are unable to pay you back because we are not allowed to' - what other sort of entity or business can get away with that - it is absurd. Of course a school should be the last resort in this sorry case, but that seems to be the way it is drifting and I am shocked that when the buck is likely to stop at the schools that there is a suggestion on here that it will be the same answer - sorry but it is not our responsibility.....
|
OK, that I can agree with. If the Schools/Groups decide they cannot/will not attempt to recover the money from SE/CR, they are still in some way obliged (legally or morally) to return monies paid to them in good faith by parents. They don't have a magic get out clause. Whether a court would hold them liable is another matter (they can probably show reasonable care in selecting/vetting/checking SE). So then you are back to 'parents can choose to sue/claim from the schools, but with a very grey likelihood of recovery of funds for the cost it would entail'
Either way, CR still runs off with the loot if the Police/Fraud don't follow up for the public interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
what other sort of entity or business can get away with that
|
Answer: travel agents - or others acting in an agency capacity. There are plenty of other situations where agents are not held responsible for the actions of principals which are beyond their control.
School governors act in a trustee capacity for their schools and as such have to act in accordance with the trust deed or other implied terms of that trust. There is a whole body of law about what trustees and trustees cannot do. School governors may have some discretionary funds available - but these are usually limited and nothing like the amounts required in these cases. It isn't a matter of will not pay - but cannot pay - and my guess is that the governors will have received legal advice to that effect.
One impact of your proposal to make agents responsible for the action of principals would of course mean that schools would not want to act in the capacity as agents for anything - given that I very much doubt that they would want to take on the responsibility of acting as TOs this would mean the end of most school trips. Where would it stop - would they need mechanics to check all the school buses for safety - since they wouldn't be allowed to rely on legislation or the bus company to perform such checks.
As for those backing academies - they are usually big boys and I'm pretty sure they will have made sure that legally they are not on the hook for every single liability that might arise from the school's operations.
Please go and read something about Trust Law before coming back and entertaining us with your ramblings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Stephen101, Mount Grace paid their parents back - are they exempt from the situation you describe 
Schools were not travel agents - there is no definition of such entities in the Package Holiday Regulations - and the placement of liability when you book with a Travel Agent is specific to what ever such companies have in their T&Cs. The schools were 'retailers' and have the obligations associated with that designation, such as maintaining insurances and the like. The have a joint and several liability as 'the other party' in many cases. The schools have breached these regulations in dealing with parents and are really in quite a precarious position if parents wanted to push this.
Do school trustees have the legal right to allow/facilitate a school operate as a 'retailer' in accordance with the Package Holiday Regulations ? I doubt it and I doubt they even knew they were doing so by organising these school trips. If the Trustees can breach their terms of reference by accepting such money and operating as a 'Retailer' then they can do it again by giving the money back if they can not get it from CR or insurers.
Of course schools can carry on orgainsing trips and all they need to do is set up the arrangements of payment in a manner that does not make them 'a retailer'. They need to come up with some contractual terms something like this ('We can act as an agent for you and process your payment direct with the service provider. Money is not therefore paid to the school but direct to the Tour Operator on your behalf and your contract is with the TO and not with the school, you will need to read and agree to their T&Cs and booking conditions') to make it clear that they are not a Retailer.
You seem to be saying that if the schools can not get their money from CR or insurers then they will wipe their hands of the situation and hang the parents out to dry in the same way CR has hung the schools out to dry ? is this right ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
Stephen101, Mount Grace paid their parents back - are they exempt from the situation you describe
|
No they are not - I made it clear that some schools do have sufficient discretionary funds and/or support from the LEA which allows repayment - some do not however and you cannot insist that they break the law and/or magic up funds in order to make repayments.
| Quote: |
Schools were not travel agents - there is no definition of such entities in the Package Holiday Regulations - and the placement of liability when you book with a Travel Agent is specific to what ever such companies have in their T&Cs. The schools were 'retailers' and have the obligations associated with that designation, such as maintaining insurances and the like. The have a joint and several liability as 'the other party' in many cases. The schools have breached these regulations in dealing with parents and are really in quite a precarious position if parents wanted to push this.
|
If travel agents are not retailers under the regulations what on earth are they? Retailers/travel agents do not have joint and several laibility under the Regulations - they are specifically exempted for liability for events beyond their control. In general law agents do not have joint and several liability either.
As for your suggestion that parents should all contract directly with the TO - do you really think that TO's would be keen on such an arrangement - e.g chasing each individual parent for payment, agreeing contracts, ensuring that each individual had insurance in place etc.etc. And of course each individual parent would be responsible for due diligence on the TO. And previously you were saying that each school should get additional insurance to cover fraudulent insurance applications. I think this is just another impractical suggestion to go with the previous proposal that the TO's contract be varied in each individual case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Stephen101, Mount Grace paid £30K of their own money as an initial payment against £90K owed to parents, I assume that they will pay the rest as and when they have the money even though it will be difficult to juggle the impact upon their school related deliverables. I see no reason why other schools such as Reading and Tonbridge can not do the same thing, even if such payments are staggered over a longer period to meet with whatever their yearly discretionary funds they have. Hiding behind some form of trustee status is not the answer, Actually aren't the Trustees personally liable for their actions ?
I suggest you read the Package Holiday Regulations again for the liability of the Retailer and its respective joint liability as 'the Other Party' with the CR/SE
I have not suggested each each parent deal direct with he TO, I have suggested the school deal with the TO but it is made clear that they do so on behalf of each individual parent, that the contract is directly between the TO and the parent and that the school is simply passing on the money on behalf of the parent rather than being a 'retailer'. As it stand schools have been re-selling packages as a retailer rather than contractually linking the parent to the TO in the way an agent or middle-man would do - there is s subtle but crucial difference especially as schools also add some of their own services to the package. Effectively schools have taken the CR/SE package, added services such as supervision/medical support/adminstrative assistance and re-packaged it and sold this on to the parents.
So are you saying your school will not be (because they legally can not) reimbursing parents if they can not get the money from CR or the insurers ?
Is your school allowed to be a 'retaler' under its trust deed or whatever its terms of reference are ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
I suggest you read the Package Holiday Regulations again for the liability of the Retailer and its respective joint liability as 'the Other Party' with the CR/SE
|
No I suggest you read the regulations and in particular Regulation 15 which makes it clear that the "other party" does not have "joint and several liability" for events beyond its control.
As for the your alternative arrangements - they would still make the school the retailer under the Regulations.
retailer” means the person who sells or offers for sale the package put together by the organiser.
| Quote: |
So are you saying your school will not be (because they legally can not) reimbursing parents if they can not get the money from CR or the insurers ?
|
Some have been advised by their legal advisers that is the case - now thay may wish to take alternative legal advice from rayscoops, but I wouldn't advise it.
| Quote: |
Is your school allowed to be a 'retaler' under its trust deed or whatever its terms of reference are ?
|
I don't know for certain - but I would expect that most schools have the power to arrange school excusions for the benefit of their children - much as you may dislike them having the power to do so (you could of course go out and seek a legal injunction against all schools organising ski trips/other excursions if you are so sure of your legal footing on this matter). Any trustees/Governors would have the usual requirement to ensure that a school is acting within its powers and applies appropriate due diligence in the exercise of those powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
So are you saying your school will not be (because they legally can not) reimbursing parents if they can not get the money from CR or the insurers ?
|
Correct. The school cannot under its articles of association just go handing out cash to parents. I guess that is therefore the legal postion. The governors would have to sanction a cash handout and their job is to govern the school and the children; not look after my interests in a ski trip.
Does anyone know any news on Mr Chris Reynard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
noskitrip, new web site which was up is down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| noskitrip, new web site which was up is up. |
fixed it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rayscoops, Hmm. Default (index) pages are usually index.htm (or various other suffices) or default.aspx etc (on Windows servers). www.skiing-europe.com/ should therefore get you to the site's home page - since not calling up a specific page means you should go to the default. Having home.htm must result in a lot of missed hits - since the link that results in typing in the domain is what I highlighted. Though as you saw, an index page, unlinked to the rest of the site, exists. All very odd - and a bit amateurish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, .... seems to work the same as it ever did though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, well, it um, doesn't work really - or not well anyway. Perhaps sums up the organization (or is that a one-word oxymoron in this case )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
achilles, yes, it does not go through to the .com but all the pages work from the home page. It is, though, obvious to me that repeat orders were unlikely to have been largely generated by vurtue of this specific organisational tool in comparison to other marketing and business techniques 
Surprised it is still up and running though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We all know companies can collapse,but I don't believe that's the case here? As far as I can see,the TO failed in its financial obligations to its suppliers(or so its alleged)and that led ultimately to the cancellation.The school clearly displayed poor judgement in its choice of TO...as is obvious from a simple Google uploadcity search!
No,its time to 'man up',accept their share of responsibility,and sort it double quick.
The kids will be devastated.They will have waited the best part of 12mths for this trip...they should be there now!! Don't make the parents suffer as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
