 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I will ask again, does anyone have any examples of SE failing to provide accommodation for its trips, this season or last season or when ever ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rayscoops,
Yes it is fairly one sided on here but the history uncovered about the man and its compagnies in terms of clients, suppliers and employees has been remarkably consistent.
It looks like Mr Reynard/Skiing Europe have been skating some extremely thin ice for some years...paying people late, tranferring money from one pot to the other etc.. Preying on people's and businesses' generosity and/or vulnaribility to get away with dodgy, if not fraudulent, practises...
With the crisis and a tough season, some of the suppliers quite understandbly have felt they could not be quite so generous and forgiving this time round...and that extremely thin ice cracked...
A bit like the drink-driving person saying they've done it for years and haven't killed anyone... and maybe you can get away with it all you life. Doesn't make it right and, more often that not, one the day the poo-poo hits the fan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Kruisler, yes I agree and I am not supporting SE, I am simply pointing out that the schools / LAs are in some small way culpable and may have even perptuated the on-goings of SE with their lack of checks and due diligence which may or may not have been clouded by the cosy industry custom/atmosphere of free inspection trips, free places on trips, discounts for spouses etc and this 'holier than thou' sentiment that it is 100% the fault of SE and nothing to do with the actions (or lack of) of some teachers/schools/LAs - has got my back up a bit 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I will ask again, does anyone have any examples of SE failing to provide accommodation for its trips, this season or last season or when ever ?
When you contact the hotel and they tell you that there is no accomodation booked, and also ring around all the other hotels in the town to see if alternative acccomodation has been booked - I would have thought the onus should be on the operator to confirm that there is acceptable alternative accomodation in place (and to meet their legal obligation to offer a full refund and to notify the prents of under 16s) rather than send a load of kids abroad to goodness knows what. Yes there are imperfections on the other side of the argument, but in your attempt to be balanced you seem to be missing the bloody great elephant in the room.
And if you want to look up the thread you will see that Reynard is now admitting to some schools that there is no accomodation or travel booked - now why is that given that he hasn't had to pay out on previous holidays - do the maths as they say!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Stephen101, so the answer is no ? never, to your knowledge, has a school party been returned to UK because of a lack of accommodation at a resort. The problems to which your refer have occurred after (and maybe as a result of) the internet hate campaign against SE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, I dont often use the rolling eye smiley as I find it very patronising....however, today, for you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The problems to which your refer have occurred after (and maybe as a result of) the internet hate campaign against SE.
|
and, another
rather dramatic of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Shimmy Alcott, well I am truly pissed off by all these mummies and daddies and teacher types who are all involved in this by signing up with SE but are accepting absolutely no responsibility, you yourself said that you would neve let your kids go on a trip whereby they accommodation was not known yet every single parent/teacher/school/LA were happy to give their cash to SE with out the basic of checks, but now that is has all gone tits up not one person has put their hands up to say 'well yes maybe we should have been a bit more interested in whom we are trusting out kids with'. If I am being patronising then every one else is being extremely hypocritical ! rant over and I am out
It is a hate campaign !
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 14-04-11 15:36; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No the problems have occurred because Reynard took lots of money from customers for holidays and then used it for something else and with little regard to his legal obligations. Think about the business model for a normal tour operator. And when your children have their holidays cancelled on the day of departure because of this rogue's behaviour I very much doubt that he would be an object of your affections - regardless of whether the teachers are on a jolly or the school/local authority did proper due diligence. And the cowardly worm that he is won't even speak to the parents concerned directly and hides behind his (unpaid) staff.
As for your stupid question - i very much doubt any sensible or responsible parent/teacher would allow children to be involved in such an experiment given what they already knew, so it really is a complete irrelevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Stephen101, do you accept that the parents or teachers or school or LA have some culpability in this ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Stephen101, do you accept that the parents or teachers or school or LA have some cupability in this ? |
No, not at all. Sad fooking world if we have to be that paranoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Kruisler, yes I agree and I am not supporting SE, I am simply pointing out that the schools / LAs are in some small way culpable and may have even perptuated the on-goings of SE with their lack of checks and due diligence which may or may not have been clouded by the cosy industry custom/atmosphere of free inspection trips, free places on trips, discounts for spouses etc and this 'holier than thou' sentiment that it is 100% the fault of SE and nothing to do with the actions (or lack of) of some teachers/schools/LAs - has got my back up a bit |
Yes I entirely agree that councils/schools/suppliers all helped SE doing what they didi, however I don't think how you view this thread is entirely accurate. While there's no denying the thread has been mainly focused on Mr Reynard's practises, I don't recall anyone disagreeing that the company should have been vetted more thoroughly, which one reasonnably expect would have meant it not being "approved".
The disagreements started to appear when the discussion shifted to whose responsibility it should have been to carry out such vetting... and that it turn led to the whole teacher discussion, leading to IMV the usual excesses and outpouring of hindsight based moral judgement. But to repeat myself, this is just the usual internet forum behaviour, for better or worse..
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Thu 14-04-11 15:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
achilles - Basically I find it mildly annoying that teachers/relations of teachers etc are putting teachers up as these faultless saintly figures in it all and that when someone points out that perhaps teachers are somewhat culpable it get translated as 'having a go at them'.
There was an earlier suggestion that teachers could have been a bit more pro-active in assessing whether this company warranted them handing over big sums of money, however the general consensus was that because SE were on approved LA lists that they relied upon this and there was no need to carry out any further due diligence - fair enough - however in contrast it seems that 'free inspection trip' due diligence was worth the effort. Schools have accepted a free trip for a couple of the teachers, accept discounted rates for 'partners' to tag along (year after year) but do not accept any culpable responsibility when all goes tits up, I am sorry but the very same teachers who accepted the perks and signed up the deals and went on the inspection trips and talked to the staff are not completely faultless in all of this.
This may not help any one in getting their money back, but it may help other not lose it in the future.
Also had the first school not actually pulled out of their trip (who decided that ? teachers or LA ?) then maybe SE could have traded through this all (there seems to be some damn good staff employed irrespective of the main man) and the majority might have had their holiday ! |
Great Post and i still stand by the term bribe, some may call it inducement, sweetner or freebie but in my mind it is a bribe and in accepting whatever you wish to call it you put yourself and your school in a compromising positionb, who pays for it, did it come from SE profits or was it chiseled from the funds already provided by schools?
Another question still unanswered is how many schools that say it is imperative to have a "risk assesment visit" have actually funded this themselves, how many trips to other places not involving a pleasant holiday have involved the need for a "risk assesment" visit.
If these visits are so important why is it that my freinds school that is taking 30 children to South Africa on a cricket tour in the summer have not sent a single person on a "risk assesment" visit, is it because the tour operator is not offering a freebie as an inducement, if it was so neccesary and as a parent i would find a trip to SA more of a risk than a week on the slopes. This appears to be the only activity that i can see that requires a "risk assesment" As i have already said if staff had been as keen to carry out due diligence on SE as they where to jump on a plane for a weeks freebie then maybe this would not be as bad as it currently is.
If somebody who is in the know without accusing me of teacher bashing could answer my questions i would be very grateful, and before anybody accusses me of slander again, i think they should read the whole thread as people are making accusations about CR without knowing the full facts and much of what is being posted can very much be quoted as slander, as somebody has already posted there are always 2 sides to a story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Basoid wrote: |
Hmmm indeed. And 14 A (5), I know whole ski schools that would be under disciplinary proceedings!!!! |
14 A (5) - "Intoxication by reason of drink or drugs during coaching or instructing."
So they should. Indefensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Rayscoops
Read my earlier postings - I have made it clear that I do believe that the LA have some culpability as they were the ones responsible for doing the due diligence on the supplier. If the teacher/school became aware of problems during their inspection visits/elsewhere and they did not act on their findings then they would also have some culpability - as for the "jolly" well I don't thing teachers get much more than the population as a whole (e.g. there are 18000 corporate hospitality seats at Wembley) and less than their status/valuable role deserves so I wouldn't criticise them for that. And yes I wish I had checked on Reynard before booking and asked questions - but when someone the holday is booked with an AiTO member than perhaps I suspected that others may have done the check already. That said their/my culpability is of near total insignifcance in relation to the main culprit Mr Reynard - who if you care to look has a long history of blaming everyone else but himself for his obvious corporate failings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
edit: incorrectly quoted
Also had the first school not actually pulled out of their trip (who decided that ? teachers or LA ?) then maybe SE could have traded through this all (there seems to be some damn good staff employed irrespective of the main man) and the majority might have had their holiday !
should have been
Another question still unanswered is how many schools that say it is imperative to have a "risk assesment visit" have actually funded this themselves, how many trips to other places not involving a pleasant holiday have involved the need for a "risk assesment" visit.
|
suspect this will go unanswered.
One further question. If risk assessments (aka previrew weeks) are really necessary, then do they really need to be a week long? Somehow I doubt it.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 14-04-11 16:15; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
These special weeks are an opportunity for teachers and their families and/or friends to be able to enjoy a week of skiing without the responsibility of looking after young people.
It is also a great opportunity for us to have the pleasure of meeting you in a relaxed and informal ski setting, and a chance for us to introduce you, perhaps, to some of the greatest ski resorts in the world.
It is also a chance to welcome back some of our old friends who have been skiing with us for many years.
We do not attempt in these weeks to take you to any unrealistic locations. We invite you to come to the same pensions or hotels where we will be welcoming the groups in other weeks
Seems fair enough?
Taken from
http://www.skiing-europe.com/teachers.htm
As stated above, where there is a party in excess of 90, the Party Leader is offered the possibility to come on one of our heli-skiing preview weeks, subject to certain conditions, which we will be happy to notify you of in this situation.
from http://www.skiing-europe.com/preview.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
leedsunited, SE have been allowed to flourish it seems because the LA, schools, teachers and to a lesser extent parents have paid them year after year hundreds of thousand of pounds ! How else have they continued to operate ? is this because of SE's exemplary record in providing a value for money service ? or because of the industry norm of a gravy train of free and cheap trips for those that make the bookings or approve SE's status? Yes he is a crook and should get clobbered, but all parties have contributed to the environment in which he has operated and without it he would have gone bust (again !) ages ago.
Stephen101, fair enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
Rayscoops
Read my earlier postings - I have made it clear that I do believe that the LA have some culpability as they were the ones responsible for doing the due diligence on the supplier. If the teacher/school became aware of problems during their inspection visits/elsewhere and they did not act on their findings then they would also have some culpability - as for the "jolly" well I don't thing teachers get much more than the population as a whole (e.g. there are 18000 corporate hospitality seats at Wembley) and less than their status/valuable role deserves so I wouldn't criticise them for that. And yes I wish I had checked on Reynard before booking and asked questions - but when someone the holday is booked with an AiTO member than perhaps I suspected that others may have done the check already. That said their/my culpability is of near total insignifcance in relation to the main culprit Mr Reynard - who if you care to look has a long history of blaming everyone else but himself for his obvious corporate failings. |
Stephen101 - Stop being so defensive, nobody is saying that freebies are not an integaral part of business however Local Goverment & LEA's have very strict policies on receiving gifts, a free ticket to a game at Wembley is one thing a week in the Alps a totaly different matter, just to put this into perspective, Leeds Unted regularly give hundreds of match day tickets free to local schools, i do not see anybody visiting the ground prior to the game to carry out a "risk assesment"
Another issue which some are ignoring is the fact that these so called "risk assesment" trips if not a legal requirement, and again nobody has shown me that it is, could be percived as a "benefit in kind" have they been declared to the taxman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| smithski wrote: |
| leedsunited wrote: |
Also had the first school not actually pulled out of their trip (who decided that ? teachers or LA ?) then maybe SE could have traded through this all (there seems to be some damn good staff employed irrespective of the main man) and the majority might have had their holiday ! |
suspect this will go unanswered.
One further question. If risk assessments (aka previrew weeks) are really necessary, then do they really need to be a week long? Somehow I doubt it. |
This should not have to be answered, Reynard should not have been in the position in the first place.
Somewhere along the line Reynard got it wrong, the money that the first school (Whether they pulled out or not) had paid should have paid for THEIR holiday, not been used to help Reynard trade out of a position that HE got HIMSELF into, whether intentionally or not.
What I am saying is that if he was to receive no further bookings, then the monies paid to him should have been sufficient to honour the holidays aready booked. If they wern't then he is in the wrong, no one else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Stephen101, do you accept that the parents or teachers or school or LA have some cupability in this ? |
No, not at all. Sad fooking world if we have to be that paranoid. |
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Buyer beware in all circumstances, when dealing with any organisation or individual. Those responsible for putting thousands of pounds of business towards a company have a responsibility to ensure that the company is an appropriate one to deal with - that can take many guises but ultimately parents considering this kind of trip must at least ask the question, teachers organising it must consider the consequences of this kind of problem, and the LA must consider their responsibility to ensure that money that schools are spending on behalf of pupils and parents is not wasted.
You have to be that paranoid to ensure that businesses do not defraud you. Otherwise why not just let anyone walk off the street to come and help out in the classroom. Oh yes, we have CRB and reference checks and interview procedures. They seem to be all for it when it comes to protecting kids, and ridiculously stringent in preventing anyone coming into the school, yet somehow when it comes to just several thousand pounds of money and kids welfare when out of the country they can go ahead and book with just about anybody. Probably because the teachers organising it went on a freebie holiday with the company concerned.
Does anyone else wonder about the free trips, and whether they could be considered an attempt to bribe a person in public office? Isn't that a rather serious crime in the UK? Oh yes it is. Not that I am alledging it, but it might be worthy of investigation. There might be some teachers that get rather nervous if the LA decided to investigate these free trips with wine flowing, people playing guitars and discounted places offered to partners and other spouses, perhaps that may be a reason why they aren't kicking up as much of a stink about it as they might with the media...
"Section 1(1) of the The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 makes it an offence for any person alone, or in conjunction with others, to corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive, for him/herself, or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatever as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of a public body, doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the public body is concerned. (Archbold 31-131).
Section 1(2) of the 1889 Act creates a similar offence to that of section 1(1) above, in respect of anyone who corruptly gives, promises or offers any gift, etc. (Archbold 31-131).
The definition of a public body is contained in section 7 of the 1889 Act (Archbold 31-134). This definition was amended and extended by section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 to apply to local and public authorities of all descriptions. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chattonmill wrote: |
| smithski wrote: |
| leedsunited wrote: |
EDIT: incorrectly quoted: Also had the first school not actually pulled out of their trip (who decided that ? teachers or LA ?) then maybe SE could have traded through this all (there seems to be some damn good staff employed irrespective of the main man) and the majority might have had their holiday !
should have quoted:
Another question still unanswered is how many schools that say it is imperative to have a "risk assesment visit" have actually funded this themselves, how many trips to other places not involving a pleasant holiday have involved the need for a "risk assesment" visit. |
suspect this will go unanswered.
One further question. If risk assessments (aka previrew weeks) are really necessary, then do they really need to be a week long? Somehow I doubt it. |
This should not have to be answered, Reynard should not have been in the position in the first place.
Somewhere along the line Reynard got it wrong, the money that the first school (Whether they pulled out or not) had paid should have paid for THEIR holiday, not been used to help Reynard trade out of a position that HE got HIMSELF into, whether intentionally or not.
What I am saying is that if he was to receive no further bookings, then the monies paid to him should have been sufficient to honour the holidays aready booked. If they wern't then he is in the wrong, no one else. |
sorry Chattonmill, my quote went tits up, corrected above ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
smithski, Hmmm that makes my reply look a bit odd, but I stand by it anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monium wrote: |
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Stephen101, do you accept that the parents or teachers or school or LA have some cupability in this ? |
No, not at all. Sad fooking world if we have to be that paranoid. |
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Buyer beware in all circumstances, when dealing with any organisation or individual. Those responsible for putting thousands of pounds of business towards a company have a responsibility to ensure that the company is an appropriate one to deal with - that can take many guises but ultimately parents considering this kind of trip must at least ask the question, teachers organising it must consider the consequences of this kind of problem, and the LA must consider their responsibility to ensure that money that schools are spending on behalf of pupils and parents is not wasted.
You have to be that paranoid to ensure that businesses do not defraud you. Otherwise why not just let anyone walk off the street to come and help out in the classroom. Oh yes, we have CRB and reference checks and interview procedures. They seem to be all for it when it comes to protecting kids, and ridiculously stringent in preventing anyone coming into the school, yet somehow when it comes to just several thousand pounds of money and kids welfare when out of the country they can go ahead and book with just about anybody. Probably because the teachers organising it went on a freebie holiday with the company concerned.
Does anyone else wonder about the free trips, and whether they could be considered an attempt to bribe a person in public office? Isn't that a rather serious crime in the UK? Oh yes it is. Not that I am alledging it, but it might be worthy of investigation. There might be some teachers that get rather nervous if the LA decided to investigate these free trips with wine flowing, people playing guitars and discounted places offered to partners and other spouses, perhaps that may be a reason why they aren't kicking up as much of a stink about it as they might with the media...
"Section 1(1) of the The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 makes it an offence for any person alone, or in conjunction with others, to corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive, for him/herself, or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatever as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of a public body, doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the public body is concerned. (Archbold 31-131).
Section 1(2) of the 1889 Act creates a similar offence to that of section 1(1) above, in respect of anyone who corruptly gives, promises or offers any gift, etc. (Archbold 31-131).
The definition of a public body is contained in section 7 of the 1889 Act (Archbold 31-134). This definition was amended and extended by section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 to apply to local and public authorities of all descriptions. " |
Absolutely correct however i feel you will be accussed of teacher bashing as it does not fit the hand wringing, cant possibly be anything thing ive done attitude that some are taking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Leedsunited
Given that so many school holiday companies offer inspection trips I very much doubt that it is against LEA policies. I still think you are wrong to call these trips "bribes" as that indicates something that has connotations of illegality or that is beyond our normal cultural norms (and yes these do vary over time and from country to country). As for what are now the cultural norms in the UK - I'm not sure that the cost of Wembley tickest is that different from a ski trip for some games - and then if you want to look at the cost of a box you might be suprised. It doesn't claim to be the corporate hospitality industry for nothing. Given that I (and you) do not wish to bash teachers and see them respected for the difficult job that they do - I'm afraid I don't see see the inspection trip as an undue level of perk in this day and age - especially since the teacher is usually then required to voluntarily give up their holiday to accompany the trip - and I'm not aware that they receive many other perks.
As for who pays for the inspection trips - it is the parent as I'm sure the TO inflates their prices to cover the cost - and perhaps we don't begrudge the perk to the teacher.
The risks with watching Leeds United are all too well known I'm afraid to warrant a risk assessment.
As for the taxman there are guidelines - but from what I've seen they are more honoured in the breach in the corporate world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Monium, I worked in HK as a construction consultant and there was a very strong anti-corruption sentiment there (ICAC had stronger powers than the police) and a local authority employee was only allowed to accept a gift (meal say) of a value that he/she would be willing to pay for in return themselves. For some reason this simple bench-mark does not seem to have been applied in UK and an all expenses paid holiday under the shroud of an 'inspection' trip as described and put forward by SE above, is quite worrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
Actually there seems to be a breach of privvy of contract by SE's suppliers/subcontractors in contacting SE's clients that resulted in the first school pulling out !
|
I will repeat, as I understand things the school contacted the bus company (or possibly vice versa) and it was discovered that the bus company was unwilling to provide transportation as they'd not been paid, or at least there was money outstanding and they were unwilling to proceed. The school then contacted the hotel direct as obviously at this point they were concerned, the hotel informed them that there were no places booked for the school, even more concerned the school then contacted SE and were told that alternative arrangements had been made for accommodation, however details of these alternative arrangements were apparently not forthcoming from SE and therefore the school really did have no choice but to cancel as per rules regarding under 16s being overseas and needing to know before they travel where they were going, so technically yes the school cancelled the trip, however SE failed to inform them of changes (which would have entitled them to cancel and receive a full refund) SE knew in advance that they'd not booked the hotel in Switzerland thus it was no surprise, however they failed to inform the school themselves.
Primary breach of contract appears to be by SE by not booking specified accommodation, then failing to inform school of a change in that accommodation, failing to offer a full refund because of those changes as per standard tour op law, failing to inform school of new accommodation.
Chris Reynard did apparently call and inform them that alternative arrangements had been made however he failed to convince the school that these were actually in place, mainly as I understand it, because the school made the effort to actually contact every alternate hotel in the area, finding none had been booked you really can't blame them for cancelling.
Now as for the various freebies etc that SE offered I can't comment, we have no idea how many staff if any from the schools affected by these events may have gone on such trips, likewise these pre trip trips for teachers should have been factored into SE's finances, if not more fool them however that is a separate issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I would prefer for a teacher to go to a resort/hotel before taking a party of school kids there, I'm not bothered if the company offers it for free. I trust the teachers at my daughters school and thus I trust their judgement. If I thought they were the type to choose an inferior ski trip for my child just because they get a free trip, then I would soon remove my child from that school.
Before this thread then I would not have thought to investigate the Company that was supplying my childs ski trip. My daughter has been on a residential trip with Brownies - I didnt investigate that company. She should have gone on another to Llandudno with school last week (didnt as she was ill) - I didnt investigate that either. In future, I might, who knows, we will see when that time comes.
I think the schools here have acted very responsibly when suspicion arose.
As to the LEAs - if they had Chris Reynard and Skiing Europe on an approved list then they really need to be questioning the vetting process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
D G Orf, so you do not know if it was the bus company that contacted the school in the first instance, if it was they had no right to do so ? why would the school initiate contact with the bus company ? would the bus company have fullfilled its obligations had the school not cancelled? was the bus company pulling a fast one to get out of its obligations because it was not making a profit or underpriced the job ? also was the hotel correct in telling the school they had no booking, or was the hotel trying to apply pressure to get SE to pay them some outstanding invoice etc ? was that statement to the school that there was no booking even true ? should a school be acting upon hearsay evidence from a disgruntled supplier that may have an vested interest or a more lucrative alternative booking lined up and were stirring things up ? had SE an arrangement with the hotel that did not allow it to cancel a booking ? or was it that they were pulling the plug on SE to induce a payment ? Did the school quote the 'under 16s' rule when the cancelled, were they even aware of it at the time? was there a particular hotel specified or was there a 'one of these hotels' type stipulation? Were there any changes for SE to notify the school about if all it might have taken was a T/T of cash to get the hotel back on side whilst the kids were on their merry way and no one the wiser ? Is the school telling the full facts or are they embellishing things ? There are so many questions that non one will know the details.
I have been in a very similar position where a subcontractor of a company I was working for had spoken directly to our client claiming we had not paid them (the subby) so would they would not do some work, but the reality was that we had a dispute with them which was following legal process and they were obliged to expedite their work irrespective of the disputed payment, but were trying to wriggle out of their obligations.
You really can not accept third hand statements from companies that have a vested interest and you certainly can not go around cancelling agreements on the back of them. edit - sorry - you can go around cancelling agreements in the circumstances if you are concerned, but you might find that it is not as clear cut as it initially appears and when some lawyer gets their mitts on it the water can get very muddy indeed
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 14-04-11 18:13; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rayscoops, in these circumstances, if you were organising the trip, would you have been comfortable going ahead?
as for "breach of privvy of contract"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
In answer to the point raised above about failure to supply...
There were at LEAST two schools at feb half term 2011 whom upon arriving in resort had to pay the hotel bill directly as SE did not have the funds and the hotel refused to take them otherwise. (The schools in question had already paid SE for the accommodation) in one case a teacher put it on his personal credit card...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rayscoops
Tavistock College, the first we were aware of to cancel
| Quote: |
| She said staff had tried "all morning" on Friday to rescue the trip, by calling Colyton-based Skiing Europe and representatives in the resort of Interlaken. She said she made the final decision after continued uncertainty from the company, and Mr Reynard, about where travellers would stay. |
the Friday she is talking of is THE day of supposed travel!!
Yeah, definately the schools fault - I blame them 100% for ruining Chris Reynards business 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
I would prefer for a teacher to go to a resort/hotel before taking a party of school kids there, I'm not bothered if the company offers it for free. I trust the teachers at my daughters school and thus I trust their judgement. If I thought they were the type to choose an inferior ski trip for my child just because they get a free trip, then I would soon remove my child from that school.
|
Presumably therefore, you would be happy to contribute to this cost. "We, XYZ school, would like your daughter to join our skiing trip, this will cost you only £900 p/p, of which itro £100 p/p will fund a selection of our teaching staff to visit the resort and accommodation which has been recommended by our chosen supplier of school skiing holiday specialists, just to make sure. Further, this information gathering trip will take place during the ski season so our teaching staff can familiarise themselves with the skiing area, just to make sure ; of course your children will be supervised and guided at all times on the slopes by qualified instructors. ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
skiinst81, are you a ski instructor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, no way, I would have jumped ship and squealed like pig same as the rest of them and looked some else to blame !! it will all come out in the wash but it doesn't mean I would have been legally correct to do so at the time !
edit - or I might have done some checks up front 
skiinst81, excellent ammo ! but the hotel was available and it was purely a financial transaction that had gone wrong, not a complete cancellation and resheduling of the rooms, and the kids had their holiday and I presume the schools in question can simply sue SE ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smithski, not a selection, just one. Probably about £30 a person. I'd be happy with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
