 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
bar shaker, At the time of booking (which would have been probably about a year ago?) a search for Skiing Europe would not have revealed much. A search for Chris Reynard, on the other hand, would have revealed lots of interesting reading. I am sure all the parents knew which company the school had booked to travel with - they equally had the option to check this out. The fact is that (most) people wil not delve further than the company name, especially if that company is on an approved council list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| Kruisler wrote: |
| snowskisnow wrote: |
I don't see where the school has failed in its duty of care?
|
They picked a crap TO with a history. We are considering a 100k spend here. 5 minutes on Google would tell me not to give them £100.00 never mind 100k. Was it not worth 5 minutes to check them out before booking? |
|
Maybe you should read the thread properly....
The checking would have been the council's responsibility since they run the approval scheme. So the school has actually acted responsibly, as many other cases have shown, even if that doesn't suit some people' s thirst for quick blame.
I hope the money is recouped quickly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| Kruisler wrote: |
| snowskisnow wrote: |
I don't see where the school has failed in its duty of care?
|
They picked a crap TO with a history. We are considering a 100k spend here. 5 minutes on Google would tell me not to give them £100.00 never mind 100k. Was it not worth 5 minutes to check them out before booking? |
|
Maybe you should read the thread properly....
The checking would have been the council's responsibility since they run the approval scheme. So the school has actually acted responsibly, as many other cases have shown, even if that doesn't suit some people' s thirst for quick blame.
I hope the money is recouped quickly... |
We all know that any local council is basically incompetent and relies on luck more than judgement. If the school and the parents want to trust their money to blind luck, then maybe they shouldn't be expecting a quick refund
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
smithski, google the name of the bloke who runs it.
Not doing any research when you are taking a big party of people away falls well below the level of "due diligence"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
stoatsbrother,
smithski is better placed than most of us to know what dealing with Skiing Europe is like, no need to give him advice. And he said himself "check chris renard otoh..."
Nobody is trying to say the company and director shouldn't have been checked, but accusing the school is non-sense.
If there is an approval scheme and schools still have to check up for themselves then:
A) the scheme is redundant and a waste of public money
B) the school is spending time and resources, i.e. public money again, to do something that was supposedly already done...
Either way, the responsibilty lies with the council, not the school....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Does anyone know if the schools contracted with Skiiing Europe Limited or Chris Reynard trading as Skiing Europe. Per Companies House Skiing Europe has never filed accounts as it was a dormant company? The answer makes a difference as it affects who is responsible for Skiing Europe debts and possibly the bonding arraangements.
I suspect that the primary responsibility for checking the credentials of Skiing Europe/Reynard was with the local authorities who approved them as an operator - it is a bit much to ask the school to do this since schools would not claim to have competence in this area and probably don't have much experience in doing Companies House searches/credit checks etc. It may well be worth filing freedom of information requests with all the councils concerned to see what due diligence they have undertaken.
The other body that would appear to have some responsibility is AITO of which SE was a member. They should take some responsibility for ensuring SE meet their returns and have the bonding arrangements in place and if you look at their web site they claim that those booking holidays through AITO members have "peace of mind" , "rock-solid financial protection" and "complete financial protection". I'm afraid I haven't seen much evidence of those characteristics among SE customers.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 13-03-11 23:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, Welcome to snowheads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kruisler, nope - It isn't nonsense - It is an abnegation of shared responsibility on the part of the school. After all it is the teachers who will be going on the trip, and the school who will be collecting money from the parents. It isn't about lots of "time and resources" but about 30 seconds with a computer. And smithskis argument was actually that other people (the parents) could and should have checked Mr Reynard out.
I am gobsmacked that no one in an IT-rich environment like a school someone didn't look at the company's site and look a bit deeper. I have kids who go on overseas trips with state schools. I expect the hotels they go to to be pretty scrotty and score low on trip-advisor, but I wouldn't expect any school to use a company whose figurehead was linked to a disaster where 4 schoolkids died and there was a corporate manslaughter conviction, who was banned for 10 years as a director for trading whilst insolvent, etc etc etc... His name is across the internet - including articles in the TES - like a rash.
You have made the same point to others - but I think we should expect more from a school about to collect 100k from parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Kruisler, nope - It isn't nonsense - .... |
I feel like I'm talking to my 4 year old but "yes it is..."
You're obviously reading a different thread to me. I believe what smithski said is that while people would nowadays look a company name up, they would not look up the directors. In that case, prior to all this, looking up "skiing europe" would have revealed nothing untowards....
His actual words being " most people will not delve further than a company's name, especially if that company is on an approved council list"..
How far should the school push the checking up of aomeyhing it's been told has been checked already?
Everybody is very clever with hindsight....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errr. Seems he got screwed too if you read his posts. And if you look around you will see that being on an approved list doesn't mean a lot. I cannot believe you cannot see that a school collecting 100k off parents should spend at least one minute checking the company out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Errr. Seems he got screwed too if you read his posts. |
would you care to explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
smithski, Your post 1st march 1100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't get screwed by SE, not at all. Had I gone out to work for them, then not been paid, or been stuck in resort without accommodation or without a lift home, then yes, I would have been screwed. As it happens, the alarm bells rang loud enough. Nothing lost. Not screwed, not in the slightest. Wrong assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
smithski, Sounds like you exercised caution in a way the schools didn't. Hope you found alternative employment for that week and didn't lose out financially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
stoatsbrother, Yes I had the good fortune of having not committed any funds, unlike the school trips, I could pull out without any loss. Others, clearly and sadly, were not so fortunate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
So has anyone identified on what basis Se so prominently display the SCGB logo? Any SCGB members care to comment on legitimacy of this or otherwise - agreed partnership or false advertising?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
In my experience being on an approved council list means quite a lot
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
fatbob, The SCGB has already apparently - according to something I read elsewhere - sought to have its logo removed sometime ago. I e mailed the club again about this last week.
from a blog elsewhere
| Quote: |
"We are not affiliated with this company. The last time we were was for the 2008/9 season but not since.
We have previously attempted to contact them to ask them to remove the logo but have had no reply as of yet."
|
Still raises issues of the mechanism of affiliation though.
rayscoops, The same source showed that bus operators who were well known to have poor safety records - were appearing on some areas lists, and that at least one LEA had blacklisted SE, and that in some areas schools were booking with them, despite them not being on any approved list.
The fun may come when Easter Holiday School trips go out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
display the SCGB logo? Any SCGB members care to comment
|
SCGB are impotent. They bleat on about that they have asked for their logo to be removed but can't obtain any action. It falls in to the "not my problem" camp for SKGB. I have said that I am unahppy at their poor responses and would expect them to be more concerned about the wrong use of their good name and logo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The school is holding a meeting with the legal team and the Head on Tuesday. It may throw light on what process was followed.
Chris Reynard only became a Director in 2011 - his wife preceded him. So there would of been no need or idea to search his name. The trading entity has been about for decades in one form or another and when it is endorsed by 22 school testimonials, Ski Club of GB, AON, Trailfinders it all looks good, smells good BUT Hindsight tells us it is a crock and a story built on threads of truth working at the edges of contract law.
AiTO are ineffective and NOT interested - someone elses problem - the holiday was cancelled so they have declared themselves "out". No tour went ahead so nothing to do with them. [Not really bothered their name or a quality of one of their operators is dragging their name through the news] I question if there is a point to AiTO standards at all?
Last week Skiing Europe changed tack. He posted a list of hotels on his site. http://www.skiing-europe.com/hotels.htm lots of pretty pictures of hotels. That again look good, helps build a very clever story. Do you know any of those hotels? I would like to contact the owners as Advertising Standards Authority are interested! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The facts seems to be as follows:
1) The organisers at the school made no enquiries or insufficient enquiries as to the suitability of the company, when booking
2) The organisers did make enquiries closer to the departure date as vital information had not been returned. From these subsequent investigations, the school decided to pull out from the trip.
3) The school, in organising the trip and receiving payments from the parents, owes them a duty of care to ensure that the holiday they are promoting is suitable for the pupils.
4) The sums collected and sent to the company are substantial but spending a small sum to ascertain the financial status of the company and/or its directors did not seem important.
5) Unless the booking was between each parent and the company, with the parents paying the company direct, the contract is between SE and the school with further contracts between the school and the parents.
6) The school received a financial benefit from booking the trip in that it was given free places for organisers and their families.
7) By taking the decision to cancel the trip, the school recognised that it was the organiser of the trip and that it did have a duty of care.
Were I a parent, I would already have my claim in against the school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noskitrip
Given that SE was a dormant company at Companies House - I would have thought that teh councils should have been checking whoever was trading as Skiing Europe. If they were contracting with a dormant company Skiing Europe Limited they were clearly negligent - if not they should have checked whoeevr was trading as Skiing Europe - given that Chris Reynard was all over the brochure I would have thought this was pretty obvious.
The fact that AITO is effective and incapable of enforcing its own bonding/accounts filing arrangements and keeping its chairman's promises is a clear indication of negligence on their part.
And we should put the old chestnut of the schools cancelling the holidays to bed - the coach companies contacted the schools asking for extra payments as SE had not paid (some schools then made those additional payments), the schools contacted the hotels where there the children were meant to be staying and there was no accommodation as SE had not paid the bills. SE gave no details as to where the alternative accommodation had been booked that could be confirmed. You do not send children abroad if you do not know where they are staying. SE was in breach of contract well before the schools decided not to go ahead.
Devon Trading Standards said they would report last week - they are now overdue in reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bar shaker
You forget that it is the responsibility of the local authority to check the suitability of the ski company. Some local authorities did this and ruled SE unsuitable. You might say with the benefit of hindsight that schools should not have relied on the local authority checks - but do you do credit checks on everyone you do business with? When you book a holiday with someone who is an AITO member and should therefore be bonded do you do further checks. And in you spare time do you try and run a school and educate children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
The facts seems to be as follows:
1) The organisers at the school made no enquiries or insufficient enquiries as to the suitability of the company, when booking
|
That is a fact, is it?
I repeat, at the time the trip was booked, a search on the internet for Skiing Europe would not have revealed anything untoward. Don't rely on the search results of today.
| bar shaker wrote: |
The facts seems to be as follows:
3) The school, in organising the trip and receiving payments from the parents, owes them a duty of care to ensure that the holiday they are promoting is suitable for the pupils.
5) Unless the booking was between each parent and the company, with the parents paying the company direct, the contract is between SE and the school with further contracts between the school and the parents.
Were I a parent, I would already have my claim in against the school. |
If you were a parent, surely would you not have handed over your well earned £900 without carrying out full checks of the company and it's employees? No doubt your searches would be more comprehensive than the council's. Therefore you wouldn't be in this situation, if you were a parent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| noskitrip wrote: |
| The school is holding a meeting with the legal team and the Head on Tuesday. |
Hmmm. Of course they did.
| bar shaker wrote: |
| 7) By taking the decision to cancel the trip, the school recognised that it was the organiser of the trip. |
Hmmm (again)
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Devon Trading Standards said they would report last week - they are now overdue in reporting. |
Hmmm (and again)
There is one "fact" that stands out from all the guff that is, and will forever, surround this whole shambolic event. Oh and this happens a thousand times a year.
"Who" is the TO that the parents booked the holiday with. This really is all that matters, if you're looking to get your money back. Who is the (your) contract with.
The legal definition of a (the) TO is quite clear and has been tested in the courts many times. The parents did "not" book a holiday with SE, they booked with the school/education authority - I very much doubt that the "meeting with the legal team and the Head" with produce anything that will clarify this to the parents and the reasons are obvious.
The fact that the school head does not understand what they are doing or that they were in fact acting as a TO is irrelevant, they are still obliged (forced) to adhere to the 1992 regs, and many others.
e.g.
It would be “very” simple for any parent to check if the VAT office has registered the school/authority as a TO, and the TO’s margin scheme, if not then …..
It would be very simple for any parent to check if the school bonded the funds it held as required by the 1992 regs, if not then ….
It would be very simple for any parent to check if ….. well you get the idea
The parents do "not" have a claim against SE, however much they are vilified either here or elsewhere. The school may have though. The parents do however have a very simple case against the TO they booked with.
NOTE - I have no connection to any parties involved in this "stuff" nor do we run school trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
smithski, An internet search is not sufficient due diligence. With such large sums of the public's money involved, Dunn and Bradstreet director and company status checks, together with credit references, should have been done.
If the company's accounts were not up to date or it's legal status was not perfect, or if it's credit rating was not good for the sums of money being paid over, they would not get the business.
The school could have got these checks done for a hundred pounds paid to a firm of accountants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
smithski, An internet search is not sufficient due diligence. With such large sums of the public's money involved, Dunn and Bradstreet director and company status checks, together with credit references, should have been done.
If the company's accounts were not up to date or it's legal status was not perfect, or if it's credit rating was not good for the sums of money being paid over, they would not get the business.
The school could have got these checks done for a hundred pounds paid to a firm of accountants. |
OK, thanks, but why should they spend more public funds when the council has (or would have led the school to believe) those checks are already in place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne
I think you will find that it is far from clear in such cases as to whether the school was acting as agent or principal in dealing with SE or whoever. I suspect that they would argue that they were only acting as agent and only collecting funds on behalf of SE.
A claim against SE and/or Reynard may well be of (direct) financial irrelevance - but there are plenty of other good reasons why Reynard should be pursued and prosecuted, one of which may be that the AITO bonding arrangements would be triggered. If AITO/insurer try to wriggle out of the bonding arrangements then the next course of action may be against the local authority for negligence in approving SE/Reynard. I find it interesting that Devon CC have already agreed to paid out - and one can speculate that this is perhaps because their insurers would not be too keen on defending such a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Thanks Wayne. The money is one thing and you are correct the school is the contract holder not the parents. They are responsible for signing the Terms and Conditions with whoever and it is yet to be found if they are trading as skiing europe - a limited business - or a sole trader - the legal team will at least clarify that.
The school are duty bound to act safely and did so. No one got hurt and that is a blessing.
I doubt any bunch of parents are going on a witch hunt against their own school where their children learn for the next 4 or 5 years; it's not particularly in the childrens best interest. And their education will come before the lost monies.
My intention is to highlight to others that this should not happen again and that the trading practices are exposed. The latest game is showing hotels on their web site, lets take Hotel Sasso Rosso put up only last week and DOES NOT take school groups at all  Now is that an honest mistake or something else.
The tripadvisor reviews of the hotels aren't just poor they are the worst I have ever read [and funny too.] I quote" scrambled egg looked a week old. when i gently asked the owner if we could have a little palatable breakfast, he retorted " i think i will have to arrange a cook for you'" priceless
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
[quote="Stephen101"]Wayne
AITO bonding arrangements would be triggered. I have found it will not becuase there was no trip. The bond is only good once they start the trip - No trip so no bond. AITO have quality standards taht are breached many times over by Skiing Europe - brochure, web, trading style CCJs against them. AITO are yet to act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
noskitrip, There should be no need for a witchhunt. As Wayne states you have a contract with the school / LA which you paid for and which they failed to supply. The why is irrelevant, that between the school/ LA and their supplier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Noskitrip
You are barking up the wrong legal tree I'm afraid - please look at the package holiday regulations here. SE is the operator and the school would appear to be the other party to the contract. If you look at clause 15 you will see that the "other party to the contract" is not responsible for events beyond there control. You will also see from clause 8 that the other party to the contract has a legal responsibility to provide details of the address where under 16s are staying - given that SE did not provide such an address the schools would have been breaking the law if they had allowed the ski trips to go ahead! Yet more evidence that thsy did not cancel the trips.
The operator has specific legal responsibilities to the consumer which did not appear to be followed in several respects in this case.
You are also wrong on AITO bonding arrangements they cover failure of TO's before the trips start.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/contents/made
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
If you look at clause 15 you will see that the "other party to the contract" is not responsible for events beyond there control. You will also see from clause 8 that the other party to the contract has a legal responsibility to provide details of the address where under 16s are staying - given that SE did not provide such an address the schools would have been breaking the law if they had allowed the ski trips to go ahead! Yet more evidence that thsy did not cancel the trips.
The operator has specific legal responsibilities to the consumer which did not appear to be followed in several respects in this case.
You are also wrong on AITO bonding arrangements they cover failure of TO's before the trips start.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/contents/made |
I think you're miss-understanding the TO's regs. In this case the "other party" is the school. Also, as they supplied more than 2 sections of the contract (eg. admin, school staff, etc, which were an intrinsic part of the trip) they “are” the TO with whom the contract was made (by the parents). They may or may not have had other contracts in place with various suppliers eg. Coaches, travel, lift pass, etc, for example with SE, but this is totally irrelevant (to a parent just wanting the cash back) although, as has been pointed out above, giving the school grief may have other implications ?
Seems dead simple to me. The parents should get the money back from the school and then leave the school/authority to argue about all the other stuff, which they will with lots of buck passing and finger pointing, but that’s the nature of local authorities.
Look at it this way.
The school puts together a tour using its own staff, resources and with outside companies supplying some of the aspects of the tour as sub-contractors.
The school take cash from the parents.
The school cancels the tour.
Really is that simple – regardless of how much the school and others try and fudge the matter.
Regardless of why the tour was cancelled, which I assume was for perfectly good reasons, the fact is the school created a tour and then cancelled it. It really doesn’t matter, to the parents, whether the school is taking action against its sub-contractors.
Best type of problem that – someone else’s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| smithski wrote: |
OK, thanks, but why should they spend more public funds when the council has (or would have led the school to believe) those checks are already in place? |
Because they are taking in a large amount of parents money and spending this on a holiday for school pupils.
I wonder if they would have been so trusting with their own money?
Wayne That is exactly the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Wayne
Your interpreation of who is the organiser and who is the retailer is somewhat perverse - look at clause 2 of the regs
"organiser” means the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer;
The school is quite clearly the other party to the contract - the schools did not cancel the tours either SE would appear to have already been in breach of their contract on several counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| "organiser” means the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer; |
Yep you're right in pointing that out. "If" the school has not organised trips previously (like every year) then they would not be the TO - but ..... maybe you're assumption that this was the school's 1st tour is correct. Who knows, but every year is NOT occasionally but regularly, and this make a "big" difference
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| SE would appear to have already been in breach of their contract on several counts. |
Totally and utterly irrelevant, from a parent wanting the cash back point of view.
But, this is just what the school and authority will try and push across to the parents - I bet ya 
As an example, this year we had a case when one of the hotel's meat suppliers went bust in Verona. The contract "our" clients had was with us (for half board), we had a contract with the hotel, and they had a contract with the..... you get the idea. The clients paid “us” for the half board (in the same way the parents paid the school) and so, if it was not able to be supplied, they would have had a claim against us, we against the hotel, them against the .... blah blah.
If you buy your dyson from ABC shop and it doesn't work, you get your cash back from ABC shop not from dyson - even though the manager of ABC shop will try and tell you differently, just like the school is trying to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deary me!
Reynard's a convicted crook, focus on him and his dodgy company.
School's booked in good faith - they're not barristers/business analysts!
If school's and teachers are blamed/pursued in the courts they will not arrange any more trips, no matter how reputable the company, which means fewer children get to experience the thrills of the sport we love...
Don't lose sight of the fact that Chris Reynard & skiing Europe are at fault here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yep you're right in pointing that out. "If" the school has not organised trips previously (like every year) then they would not be the TO - but ..... maybe you're assumption that this was the school's 1st tour is correct. Who knows, but every year is NOT occasionally but regularly, and this make a "big" difference |
Not to mention trips to museums, field trips, activity trips etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
anarchicsaltire,
Hi Mate 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I'm just glad 
