 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I believe the rules and regulations are probably sufficient, the problem comes when the likes of the CPS refuse to prosecute because they are not certain of a conviction, perhaps instead of tightening up on the rules we need instead to provide the fraud officers with better training and also perhaps make it harder for the criminals (because that's what they are) to hide away the profits they make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Today (yep today) I took a booking from a school for 80 children.
Yeah I know I don’t normally take school groups but…. As my sister kid is on this trip, I will do.
A few weeks ago all the kids went home with a letter from the school regarding next year’s ski trip.
The trip would cost “around” £800 (no specific figure was given)
They were going to the Italian resort of Folgarida
They would be staying #### hotel
They would be in the resort for 5 days
The tour operator has ATOL and is in ABTA
The tour operator has a great deal of experience in this resort
They will be using the same English speaking instructor they always use
etc
etc
etc
So my sister calls me and lets me know.
Alarm bells – I have never heard of this TO.
So I did what the school should have done in the first place
I contacted ABTA and the CAA – this TO does NOT have an ATOL and is NOT in ABTA.
I have never heard of this hotel so I called my mate who works in the tourist office (simple to get the number from google) – the hotel is NOT in Folgarida it is on the main road near Doalasa (about 15 miles away).
Neither our ski school, or the other one, has ever heard of this TO
etc
etc
etc
Now I am not saying this was going to go wrong. It may have been fine. But when a TO starts to lie about their bonding this should at least start people to questioning stuff.
Oh, I did the whole thing (as it’s kids and they will go 4 to a room) for £595 pp; fully inc. and they will be in resort for 7 days.
I'm not saying that the problems being posted about in this thread are the teachers fault, but......
When will school teachers learn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
My daughter came home with the "details" of her school ski trip a couple of days before the Easter break, around £800 for coach/5 days skiing in the Salzburg area. They wanted parents to sign up within a couple of days of the return to school. The information was totally inadequate and there was no way I would have committed to that amount of money without far more information. Luckily although she had been quite keen she decided it wasn't for her so she's going with dad again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Wayne, if the TO says they are a member of ABTA and has ATOL but it turns out that neither is true isn't that Fraud ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Colin B wrote: |
| around £800 for coach/5 days skiing in the Salzburg area. |
£800 is a stupid price to pay for a kids holiday. Even with a cop-out of teachers tagging along it still should not cost more than £650 max (and that should include "everything").
| D G Orf wrote: |
| Wayne, if the TO says they are a member of ABTA and has ATOL but it turns out that neither is true isn't that Fraud ? |
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
The point was that the school should have checked.
I'm not saying the trip would have gone wrong, but I still believe that if something doesn't look right, it probably isn't, and everything about the proposed trip simply looked wrong.
This case was, I agree, unusual, as one of the parents just happened to know an English person who lives in the resort for half of the year; and that person (  ) could tell almost immediately, that it didn’t appear to be above board – again, I’m not saying it wasn’t, but it certainly didn’t look so.
Of course this will not normally be the case, which is why most parents will assume that their child’s school will do some checking before asking them to send in their deposits.
Even with all the publicity surrounding these types of trips I’m still not convinced schools do enough to protect money the parents entrust them with.
Let’s face it, parents trust school (what else can we do). My biggest little-un went off to some horrid farm a few weeks back. Apart from having a look on the web at the farm’s site, I simply trusted the school to run the day trip correctly (and to at least try and protect the animals from my little-un). It’s the same with ski trips. Parents trust the school to run it correctly and teachers really are (in my opinion) experts at looking after the safety and welfare of the kids. Ok there are a few bad ones but out of the hundreds of thousands of teachers, you’d expect a few gits The problems comes with the fact that, as I said, teachers experts at looking after kids, they are not experts in running small businesses, sometimes with a turnover of over a hundred thousand pounds. So they should (again in my opinion) just stick to what they are good at.
(she had a brill time at the farm by the way - lots of mud ya see  , oh well only 14 or 40 years to go and she'll be married to some spotty faced sod, then I'm free)
I actually feel sorry for the teachers who booked the trips with the TO that seems to have pinched the cash, they must feel bad about the whole affair. But I don’t think the schools should have put them in that situation in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| D G Orf wrote: |
| Wayne, if the TO says they are a member of ABTA and has ATOL but it turns out that neither is true isn't that Fraud ? |
and surely covered by the old Trades descriptions Act?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Marmot, Congrats, your business has 10 more years on the clock than mine! I too like you have had to write off some monies, it is unfortunate and indeed sad that some companies go out of business owing money. Everyone has made mistakes, those of us that are stronger will have to take a few on the chin. If a company I dealt with were dishonest then they should get everything they deserve, but as you know in most cases it is more of a problem with cash flow and not dishonesty!
Perhaps I have led a sheltered life, but I have not come accross too many con men in business! That said I was and still am at a loss to a dishonest builder. The sum is a great deal more than the school holiday crowd! Am I upset? Yes! Will this go "up the steps"? Yes! Will it help to whinge for 55 pages? No!
Mr Reynard business plan was based on greed! The greed of the organisers of the trip! After all they were the ones that pushed the trip on the chance of a freebie! Dont get me wrong, Mr. R deserves no sympathy at all but he prayed on the greed of others! This has to be remembered!
Not all freebies are value for money! After all someone has to pay for it and in this case many have! For the sake of a free holiday on the slopes or indeed in the caribean, many parents have been stung!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
O.K. Roy, we'll put you down for a NO then i.e. leave things as they are, because the current system is acceptable to you or, at least, you can't be bothered to try and change things.
There is an article in a National newspaper today about people still being owed for providing goods/services for a tour by Englebert Humperdinck some years ago. This story is obviously being reported now because of Mr Humperdink's recent return to prominence. Evidently, the money is owed by a Company called something like Englebert Humperdinck Tour 2001 Ltd. Mr Humperdink evidently resigned as a Director of this company about a month after it was formed. The newspaper reported that the company crashed owing hundreds of thousands of pounds and loads of small businesses never got paid. The newspaper reported that Mr Humperdinck is currently worth tens of millions of pounds.
The above is a summary of what I remember of the article and I accept that I may have made a few minor errors in its retelling. I also accept that the newspaper story might not be true and that Mr Humperdink may well describe the circumstances in a completely different way. However, it wouldn't surprise me if many people involved in failed businesses (and I'm not saying that this applied to Mr Humperdinck) were left with more disposable assets than the debts left by the failed businesses. Is this how our system of doing business should be allowed to operate in the UK?
I believe the current system of where people can walk away from debts of their own making and have them wiped clean in a few years is scandalous.
No-one has really agreed with me, so far. So I am beginning to accept that I am in an obviously weak minority 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Marmot,
I agree with you. Having recently been the victim of a property scam, having done what we thought were sufficient checks (but clearly weren't), and very little likelihood of getting our money back, we could take the view that we were naive and stupid, and 'deserved' to be ripped off because of this. Since it was money we could "afford" to lose (even if we thought the risk was about markets rather than con-artists), learn an (extremely) expensive lesson, and move on.
Actually, our view is, as I think has been expressed earlier in the thread, "for evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing." .
We would like these individuals off the streets, so that even if we don't get our money back, they cannot operate on others in the future. They are scum, with no consciences, so social mores whatseoever, and add nothing to the sum of human achievement. Except possibly, if we get a result, as an example to others.
Wayne is right in that it is of no personal benefit to us to pursue them. Indeed it may end up costing us even more - time, money, stress.
Where he is wrong, is that it is precisely this attitude which encourages them and their ilk to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Arctic Roll wrote: |
| Where he is wrong, is that it is precisely this attitude which encourages them and their ilk to continue. |
Yeah you’re probably right
I think I’ll turn up at the bankruptcy hearing and add my wages claim to the zillions of others.
OK I won’t get anything (other than a good dose of schadenfreude) but it will make me feel as if I’m doing something for the good of society.
Oh hang on a moment. The case is being held miles away down south somewhere, so I’ll either need to drive down or get the train, then I’ll need a hotel and some (costly) hotel meals, etc. Hmmmm. Sod the good of society: I’m already down on my dealings with this Co. and let’s face it I won’t be able to claim back my expenses (well I could claim em, but would I get em), so sod it. Put it down to experience, man-up and move on.
If society wants me to help it improve its overall lot, then I’ll wait for the train ticket and hotel confirmation to arrive and then I’ll think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Mr Marmot, hi I agree too and when the story broke aimed to inform schools of the news items. I like to think it helped keep some kids out of harms way as Snowheads subsequently found out the insurers ran for the hills for the mess that unfolded.
My contract is with the school, they were at fault - clever CR knows that. Our school process is now completely new and should stop the above case described by Wayne, which is awful.
I know Snowheads did a great job in spreading the news, improving the assimilation of the few facts we found and uncovering a long history of unchallenged behaviour. It is the only forum where the jigsaw came together and built a crowd that enough people/news/police started to take proper notice. OK the outcome is simply annoying so far but it is only at Snowheads the problems have been debated. What's the totaliser running at £600k?
Mr Marmot - keep going. Let's hope persistence brings you success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne because someone else has made the effort and paid the cost for the bankruptcy, you might benefit anyway. At least from the satisfaction that he has to attend the hearing to explain himself.
You have hit the nail on the head with your explanation of why it would be so costly for you yourself to do anything about your loss. That is why we need a new system. The Government is currently relying on us being unable to do much against those that cheat us, so we all just have let them get away with it. I just can't understand why any proper Government allows this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Mr Marmot, The corporate veil is a somewhat messy area when it comes to owner-manager businesses. What makes entire sense for a large company where directors are genuinely employees (with perhaps some shareholding as a reward mechanisam) makes much less sense where one individual and/or spouse controls all the shares and runs the business day to day. After all how many small business owners can say with a straight face that an item purchased through the company has never found it's way into their home on a "long term evaluation trial" where larger companies have all sorts of rules around company property?
It might seem unreasonable in a large company to hold a marketing director personally financially to account on liabilities incurred through reckless Treasury decisions by the finance director but in a small business where the owner/director has conveniently taken out a large salary or dividend rather than pay creditors immediately before a bank or HMRC puts them under, then the whole thing stinks. Pre-pack admininstrations have been criticised on these grounds precisley because they provide a route for the less scrupulous to wipe the slate and carry on as before. Clearly there are small businesses that make a habit of the phoenix phenomenon, they are featured on Watchdog every week and the law seems inadequate to distinquish between genuine one off events where there is a public interest in preserving significant numbers of jobs e.g. major retailers and those using it as a frequent device to make money at others' expense where their business skills are inadequate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Mr Marmot, Fairynuff! It would appear to be a NO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Good points, fatbob. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of determination as to whether the business failure was due to an obviously fraudulent cause or not, but surely that shouldn't be too difficult.
We just need to find some way that people realise that will always be responsible for their debts until they are paid, rather than be able to just wipe the slate clean after a short-period and then start accruing more debts thereafter. Once this happens we will all be able to more easily recognise those people running businesses who are either crooked or totally inept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The CAA will prosecute anyone claiming to be ATOL, who isn't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Hello all,
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but if anyone is ever worried about a school travel company then they should check out the 'School Travel Forum' - http://www.schooltravelforum.com/
This organisation was set up by School Travel operators to regulate procedures, including health and safety. Most major operators are members and if a school is travelling with an operator that is not a member, then i think it is worth asking why they're not.
The website sets out the aims of the organisation as well as listing all members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Mikitis180 been highlighted ad naseum but it's in no way clear how it provides the punter with any additional comfort and how it is in any way different from another marketing banner talking shop - you say it's set up to regulate that's a fairly powerful legal role?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Mikitis180 been highlighted ad naseum but it's in no way clear how it provides the punter with any additional comfort and how it is in any way different from another marketing banner talking shop - you say it's set up to regulate that's a fairly powerful legal role? |
It looks like I might be going over old ground here but nevertheless I'll put in my 10p worth...
As far as I'm aware the school travel forum is made up of different school tour operators, large and small. Any school travel company can apply to join it and i noted last February 2011 that Skiing Europe was not a member. It is not in the interest of any member of the STF to allow a financially unsafe company to join its ranks; had Skiing Europe been a member then this furore surrounding it would have damaged the integrity of the STF as well - however Skiing Europe was not a member.
Having looked into school ski trips myself i can see that about 3 in 4 school ski companies seem have joined up. It seems to be in the interest of a school travel company to sign up to an organisation that promotes best practice and that has its safety procedures externally regulated, so why would a company not sign up? Secondly why would a school want to risk travelling with a company that is not a member and has no regualtion?
Most people would look for an ABTA symbol when booking a holiday, it seems to me that teachers and governors should be looking for the STF symbol when they book their school trip with a school operator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
And are the 75% of schools travel operators in the STF guaranteeing or underwriting the tranaction when one of their members goes bust? I'd suggest STF is even more toothless than AITO when it comes down to it & that a school is being mugged if they believe STF symbol means anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="Mikitis180"]
| fatbob wrote: |
| It is not in the interest of any member of the STF to allow a financially unsafe company to join its ranks; had Skiing Europe been a member then this furore surrounding it would have damaged the integrity of the STF as well - however Skiing Europe was not a member. |
On the other hand, a con man can simply join up, went bankrupt, left the STF with "damaged integrity". There's not much STF can do except to expel that company after the fact. That's not much use to the victim who thought they had any "protection" from STF!
Unless STF actually investigate the company before allowing them to join, they're just relying on the words of the company owner/director like the rest of the teachers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikitis180, Perhaps for the record you can outline exactly what financial due diligence the STF carry out on any company wishing to be a member of the forum 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Arctic Roll wrote: |
Having recently been the victim of a property scam, having done what we thought were sufficient checks (but clearly weren't), and very little likelihood of getting our money back, we could take the view that we were naive and stupid, and 'deserved' to be ripped off because of this. Since it was money we could "afford" to lose (even if we thought the risk was about markets rather than con-artists), learn an (extremely) expensive lesson, and move on.
Actually, our view is, as I think has been expressed earlier in the thread, "for evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing." .
We would like these individuals off the streets, so that even if we don't get our money back, they cannot operate on others in the future. They are scum, with no consciences, so social mores whatseoever, and add nothing to the sum of human achievement. Except possibly, if we get a result, as an example to others.
Wayne is right in that it is of no personal benefit to us to pursue them. Indeed it may end up costing us even more - time, money, stress.
Where he is wrong, is that it is precisely this attitude which encourages them and their ilk to continue. |
£58,863 (I’ll say it again Fifty Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Three Pounds)
I have calmed down (slightly) in the last week …. Well let’s just say I wasn’t too happy then and I'm still not too good.
£58,863
Not going to say too much here other than “it does happen”. A firm we had dealing with a couple of years ago owed us some money (not going to write the amount again as it makes me unhappy to see it too often) and we have been going through the legal process to recover it.
They had absolutely no defense (other than not wanting to pay), so we knew we were going to win and then, if they didn’t pay up, we would send the court bailiffs into their factory to get it for us.
After innumerable letters back and forth, expert opinions, QC’s briefings, 2 times in front of a judge (an application + directions), we finally had a trial date.
Yep, you guessed it. 2 weeks ago they simply applied for voluntary liquidation and closed the company down. So there you go. A long establish firm with a large factory and shed loads of workers, just happened to have a shareholder’s meeting that decided that there was no possible way of continuing to run the business – and the meeting just happened to be called 2 days after the court issued a trial date.
OK I will send my accountant down to the creditors meeting and we will fill in all the forms we’re meant to. But let’s face it, they have had 18 months to hide their cash, so there is sod all chance of getting back anything much.
I do not run a large multi-national that can afford to simply write off almost 60 grand. But, that’s what I’m going to have to do. Whether I can afford to or not, what else can I do.
Like I said, I really understand that it’s not good when these sort of things happen, but they do.
PS.
Still not happy.
Time to move on.
I normally go to Sainburys on Saturday for my weekly shop; does anyone know if there in an Aldi round here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne, That is a bitch and as somebody who has had one go south on me for about half that i really feel for you, what is worse is that it is quite apparent that the people involved never had any intention of paying you, but will you be starting a 55 page blog on the issue, i very much doubt it. As you say you just have to "suck it up & jog on"
PS - Good luck with the liquidators
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
| will you be starting a 55 page blog on the issue, |
No, not about the 58K.
BUT
I may do about another case I am involved with (save the Wigan One Dot Com or something like that)
With the multi-track case for 58k, luckily Mrs_W (who is a lawyer) did all the legal stuff, so that was OK (you have never seen so many bits of paper in one lever arch file).
But I am being personally sued at the moment for £120 (yep, one hundred and twenty)
Yes, shocking, I know.
Oh and Mrs_W has basically told me to sod off and do it myself (as she doesn't have time - what sort of lame exscuse is that I may ask).
So, as Google is my good friend, I have mounted a sterling defense against this scurrilous claim.
The basics are:
I bought something (a contract).
I kept pay each month £7.38 (yep seven pounds and thirty eight pence, not an insignificant sum, I’m sure you will agree) for over 2 years.
I then wrote to the company and told them I didn’t need the contract any more so I was cancelling it.
That was the end of it – or so I thought.
A few months later they sent me an invoice for £120 (for administration fees and cancellation charges).
What the f****
They said that between my taking out the initial contract and my cancelling it, they had moved all customers onto a new contract and that by my paying the £7.38 that signified an agreement to the transfer. The new contract had different T&C's that included the £120.
Yeah, right.
Not paying Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
So I have studied hard (well, looked at Google anyway) as Mrs_W is being a sod and just thinks it’s funny, and have learned lots of weird stuff – never heard of a Tort before, would have through it’s a miss-spelled jam thing.
Anyway sod em, it’s a scam, I have watched Judge John Deed in action and I know a thing or two.
I’m not sure if (in a Dell Boy Trotter style) I should rent a wig and gown yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Wayne, Go get em big boy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stan the man wrote: |
AT LAST......
Bankruptcy hearing against C.R. has been listed for the 21st June 2012... |
Well, did it go ahead? Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Is Slippery finally in the net?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| leedsunited wrote: |
| will you be starting a 55 page blog on the issue, |
No, not about the 58K.
|
Yeah, just suck it up and jog on. It's only 58K. You'll know better next time and so avoid getting caught again, won't you?. The current system of dealing with debt in this country is OK, so why worry? Just suck it up and jog on! We don't want a 55 page blog on the subject because plenty of innocent people get stuffed for 58K or more every day in this country. Just suck it up and jog on!
And I hope that when the liquidators have used all recoverable assets on their own fees and the fees to their various mates providing supposedly important services to the liquidation and you still have not seen a penny of your 58K, you still continue to suck it up and jog on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Mr Marmot, that's a lot of sucking and jogging there.
Yep, getting caught for £58k can only be blamed on one person. If the money side of a deal isn't safely tied up then don't supply. Simples.
And, of course, it isn't usually a £58k loss is it? A chunk of that is presumably the profit margin and that's not hard cash, and, if the £58k includes VAT, that VAT can be reclaimed too. Also, if a profit-making company, the loss will reduce the corporation tax. So, in real cold hard cash terms, when someone says they've lost £58k, it is probably half that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Bode Swiller, True, but it is fun to hear the whingers going on and on and on! There has to be be at least another few wasteful pages! It still is amusing that those out of pocket from the origional post still have not mentioned the greed factor of those that were point man/woman in the school! After all free ski and sun holidays were dangled!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Mr Marmot,
I think you may be slightly missing the point here.
Every day in the UK someone goes bust, many haven’t got themselves into that situation on purpose, but of course a few have. I would imagine that some people see it as a legitimate business practice. Is there anything you can do about this? No, and it doesn’t matter what new law they bring in it will change nothing. Not a dam thing.
I honestly can’t afford to lose this type of cash but it was spent a couple of years ago now, so that’s it, it gone. You could say the same of the parents who lost some cash for a ski holiday that never materialised, it was spent a few years ago, and it’s gone. Get over it and move on.
No I don’t think the system works. Anyone who really wants to play it will continue to rip people of. But, regardless of what the newspapers may tell you about the recent moral decline, nothing changes, it’s always been like that and it always will.
But I really do believe that life’s too short to worry about things you have sod all chance of changing. So apart from a good dose of Schadenfreude what else does the baying crowd think they will get if they attend the bankruptcy hearing. Will they get a refund – nope, will the holidays be re-instated – nope, in fact will they get absolutely anything from the experience (other than a feeling of satisfaction) – nope. But I’m told it can be appealing to see yourself as a victim and hey, even better, if you’re not alone, you can form a lynch-mob with all the other victims, OK it will not change your status but you can always justify it as “ensuring that it doesn’t happen to someone else”.
Stuff happens, accept it and move on.
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| And, of course, it isn't usually a £58k loss is it? A chunk of that is presumably the profit margin and that's not hard cash. |
No, this was cash.
And yes I am an idiot for letting it happen.
My fault, no one else to blame (except the git who has my cash),
But - every cloud and all that - lesson learnt
But, from the recent discussions I had had with a few school teachers trying to sort out a school trip for next year, it seems that most schools "still" haven't got a clue what they are doing when organising school ski trips. Many years experience does NOT count for anything when you have been cocking it up for so many years.
I'll wait to read about the next school trip that goes pear shaped (and of course it won't be the organiser’s fault - never is)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
Yep, getting caught for £58k can only be blamed on one person.
|
Does the same apply to all those organisers of trips that did not do due diligence on their supplier or who's buying decision was clouded by inducements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| ...it seems that most schools "still" haven't got a clue what they are doing when organising school ski trips. |
Yep, a month or so ago my son came home clutching the piece of A4 outlining next year's school ski trip. It had virtually no detail - no mention of exact dates (just "Easter"), no mention of which operator, no mention of financial protection, no hotel name, no room arrangements, nothing about travel other than "by air". It did mention a resort though but I wondered if that was a moveable feast. Based on this sketchy info we parents are asked to make a decision involving circa £1250+. I had to make a call to find out all the missing info and then I set about pricing it up - hard as I tried I couldn't get it north of £700. Ok, I didn't include teacher places, "free" inspection trips and I do understand that tour ops need to make a profit but, from where I sit, it's a rip off. Luckily my son isn't too fussed because he gets his regular fix of snow and happy to go en famille at that time instead. He even thinks it's a rip off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, Those inducements do not come cheap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy Hockley, well, you do wonder. It's big business; a school trip of say 80 kids means that around £100k is changing hands. Plenty of room in there to grease the wheels of industry. It must go on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, Fairly similar to the "organisation" for my daughters trip next February, except is was about £800. Similarly she wasn't bothered and we're off to AdH instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Perhaps we should set up a web site full of free information and advice for teachers. You never know, that sort of thing might be a bit of a Money Spinning Event?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I would have assumed free teacher places were included, if my experience with uni ski trips is anything to go by. Typically on the ones I went on it was roughly half a place free per 10 full bookings as far as I can remember, and uni trips were generally ~£500 for everything except booze, so significantly less than the £800-£1250 being discussed here. I don't really understand where they're getting such big prices from...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
