Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

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

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
bar shaker,
Quote:

Why would the schools bother to sue when they are not actually the ones out of pocket?


But many schools/LEAs are.

You do not know that there is mass inaction - lawyers tend not to advertise what actions they are taking in cases that are likely to end up in court and most parents will understand that it doesn't make sense to give a running commentary on what is happening. If any parents are concerned I would suggest that they discuss the matter with the school first to see what action is being taken on their behalf.
snow report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
any school worth its salt would have done the right thing by now Little Angel
snow conditions
 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,

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!
snow conditions
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
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
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Stephen101 wrote:


As has been explained what feels like a million times some schools do not have the available funds


I think that is the same line that Reynard used. It worked for him, perhaps it will work for the schools too.
latest report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
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.
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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
snow conditions
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
achilles,
Quote:

Stephen101, there must be legal provision (maybe being take over by the LEA?) for schools that cannot meet their financial responsibilities



Yes there probably is - but there would have to be a legal financial responsibility to repay the parents in the first place not just the moral one that you are arguing exists (go and look at the package holidays regs).
snow conditions
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Stephen101, 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 holidays
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Stephen101 wrote:


Yes there probably is - but there would have to be a legal financial responsibility to repay the parents in the first place not just the moral one that you are arguing exists (go and look at the package holidays regs).


The schools created that liability when they cancelled the holidays.

Stephen's fragile line all along has been that the schools are travel agents.

Let's put this into perspective. Were I to have a holiday booked with Thomas Cook and just before I was due to depart, they cancelled my holiday, without reference to me, because they were not happy with some part of it (or all of what they had sold me), who would I sue for my money back?

I think I would sue Thomas Cook.

Let us take this further... Stephen says that schools are (still) preparing their legal cases. What cases do they have? They have lost no money and, if their 'travel agent' status is to be believed, would have no losses. A good barrister would argue that SE have no case to answer to a school that brought a case. He would also argue that a case brought by the parents came about because the school cancelled.

The only certain case is one where a parent sues the school who cancelled. By cancelling, the school ceased to be a travel agent. Whilst it may have felt it had a duty of care, it had no contractual involvement to get involved - if it was a travel agent. By getting involved, a school will have shown its hand and shown that it was not a travel agent at all.

The parents should sue away and recover their money.
latest report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
bar shaker,

Quote:

The only certain case is one where a parent sues the school who cancelled


Agreed

Sadly I do believe that it is the governors of the school who are liable for this and that the school will have to pay back the monies owing. This may mean the loss of members of staff for a couple of years to make up the deficit in the budgets but there is no magic money fairy in the LEA who will be able to cover these losses.

The schools may be able to recover some money as they sue SE for breach of contract based on the reasnble expectations schools should have of operators offering primarilly school trips.But it is unlikely that SE and CR will have any assests to cover the sums in question.
snow report
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
[quote="kevindonkleywood"]bar shaker,

Quote:
.But it is unlikely that SE and CR will have any assests to cover the sums in question.


The missus Iwona J Reynard nee Nowicka was a Director too at time of bookingt?


Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Mon 6-06-11 8:08; edited 1 time in total
snow conditions
 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
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
Stephen101 wrote:
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!


How does this guys attitude help anybody?
snow report
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Elston, it doesn't
latest report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
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.
snow report
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: 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.
latest report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
noskitrip wrote:


The missus Iwona J Reynard nee Nowicka was a Director too at time of booking and is named and complicit?


She 'was' a Director of SE Limited, but most(all) of the failed trips were arranged with CR trading as SE, so there is no legal connection with Iwona or her assets, afaics.
snow conditions
 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?
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.
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
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 ?
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
rayscoops, contract terms

Quote:
Where the breach is of a fundamental term (one which is critical to the contract) or where a term is stated to be 'of the essence' the innocent party can also consider the contract to be terminated as well as claiming damages.
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Quote:

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.


Given that they only became aware the day before departure that Reynard had changed the terms a number of months previously (re the hotel that they were told they were booked in) I think that the schools concerned have a pretty strong argument that it was Reynard that was not offering due process or the requirements of the regulation.

Quote:

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 ?



It doesn't specifically but if Reynard is already in breach of contract and the Regulations I again think you will find that contract law is pretty clear that you don't have to carry through the contract when the other party has committed a major breach - there is rather a lot of case law on this if you can be bothered to look it up. [Achilles clearly is of the same view on this legal point]


You may disagree with my view but don't expect me to change mine when you keep coming back repeatedly with the same arguments.
latest report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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??
ski holidays
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
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'.
ski holidays
 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.
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.
latest report
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
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.
latest report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
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 report
 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.
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
snow report
 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
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
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.
ski holidays
 You know it makes sense.
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.
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:

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


In my case I know they did and it is reported by others with first hand contacts with the schools in the otehr cases that they did try to contact Reyanrd in the very limited time available asking him to confirm the alternative arrangements that he said wer in place. I think you are operating under the icorrect assumption that the schools concerned did not get legal advice the moment that they became aware of the problem. I have yet to see a single report from any parent of the schools at half term complaining about the manner in whioch their schools handled the situation - and given their locations they probably have more than a few solicitors/accountants among their numbers.
ski holidays
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:

I fully understand the Regulations, and a change to an essential term is not a repudiatory breach of contract



I don't think I would have too much problem in arguing it did in the case where the TO sat on the change for several months without telling the school "as soon as possible" as required by the Regs, he didn't offer a refund, he couldn't provide deatils of the alternative accomodation and the coach operators were demanding extra payment. Clearly you think that is a weak argument - you are entitled to your view. Reynard may be looking for a defence lawyer - in the Court of Appeal case he defended himself.
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
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 ?
ski holidays
 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?
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)


Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 30-05-11 10:06; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Stephen101 wrote:
Quote:

I fully understand the Regulations, and a change to an essential term is not a repudiatory breach of contract



I don't think I would have too much problem in arguing it did in the case where the TO sat on the change for several months without telling the school "as soon as possible" as required by the Regs, he didn't offer a refund, he couldn't provide deatils of the alternative accomodation and the coach operators were demanding extra payment. Clearly you think that is a weak argument - you are entitled to your view. Reynard may be looking for a defence lawyer - in the Court of Appeal case he defended himself.


I think the posts by the coach driver were quite revealing in that SE managed to secure the coach at very short notice, likewise I seem to recall that hotels that had been requesting payment before allowing SE use of the rooms were brought back on side (even if it was the school/teacher who paid for them) by payments being made. I am not sure SE sat on anything and some of the hotels seemed to have basically withdrawn from their standing agreements (or whatever was in place) quite late in the process and payment may have re-secured the hotels or alternatives, although it seems the half term Swiss hotel rebellion would have been more difficult ot sort out.

The one situation whereby SE would have known that they had to change the significant essential terms and should have informed the consumer would be for air travel - it is much more difficult to get an extra 90 seats on a plane over half term than it would be to get an alternative coach.

In any event, not informing a school as soon as possible about a change of a significant essential term would not be easy to prove, what does 'as soon as possible' really mean in terms of days when negotiations are still on going with a hotel etc., and even then to submit such details late might mean a breach of contract has happened but such a breach is unlikely to be serious enough for one party to repudiate the contract.
ski holidays
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:

I am not sure SE sat on anything and some of the hotels seemed to have basically withdrawn from their standing agreements (or whatever was in place) quite late in the process and payment



Not what the hotel said - they said they had cancelled the booking several months previously and had already rebooked the rooms. And no booking could be found anywhere else in the town.

In the coachdriver case - the hotel was not even confirmed until the day after departure when the coach was already in Germany.


This is really just rehashing the old arguments - you clearly have a different view on what actually happened - mine is based on first hand accounts yours is based upon supposition - just leave it at that and let the lawyers/courts decide.
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
rayscoops, you are CR and I claim my £5
snow conditions
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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
latest report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
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?
ski holidays
 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.
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.


Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 30-05-11 21:09; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
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.


Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Mon 6-06-11 8:11; edited 2 times in total
ski holidays



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy