 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
I have listedn to You and Yours and I think a crucial point is the very end statement when the AiTo rep says that any schools that are still booked with SE should make sure they recieve a notification in writing that their trip details have or have not changed, if they have changed and they are informed this in writing by SE then they probably have the right to cancel.
|
This is not what the AiTO lawyer said - check here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100j8y @18.40 - she specifically says that the schools should contract the brokers if Reynard does not confirm the arrangements. |
Stephen101, this is what actually was said, as best as I can type it
| Quote: |
| ...when is the policy triggered ... schools not yet travelled should make sure they have in writing from SE exactly what has been booked for them and if SE does not have this information ...the school contact the insurance broker ... for correct couse of action. |
However many schools have already cancelled as a knee jerk reaction and we do not know the exact process that was followed. So, any school that cancelled without requesting in writing what had been booked and SE had not then provided this information, then I am not sure whether SE has actually contractually breached any of its obligations. If that is the case such cancelled holidays would have occured before bankruptcy and fall outside of any Bond situation in the case of bankrputcy proceedings.
I think that Tavistock etc who cancelled atb the latest possible stage may have a stronger case though than the latter schools that cancelled, but if all of this was not in writing .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
bar shaker, Absoulutely bang on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
Stephen101, this is what actually was said, as best as I can type it
| Quote: |
| when is the policy triggered ... schools not yet travelled should make sure they have in writing from SE exactly what has been booked for them and if SE does not have this information ...the school contact the insurance broker ... for correct couse of action. |
However many schools have already cancelled as a knee jerk reaction and we do not know the exact process that was followed. So, any school that cancelled without requesting in writing what had been booked and SE had not then provided this information, then I am not sure whether SE has actually contractually breached any of its obligations. If that is the case such cancelled holidays would have occured before bankruptcy and fall outside of any Bond situation in the case of bankrputcy proceedings.
|
And this unfortunately is where any loss adjuster or person reveiwing the claim will have a field day. The parents should be refunded by the schools and pursue that route, they do not deserve to be tied up in legal arguments with the insurance company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The skiing europe/Chris Reynard totaliser now stands at:
February Half Term
Reading Grammar School - 100 children - £90,000 (www.getreading.co.uk)
Tavistock College - 120 children - £90,000 (BBC News)
Tonbridge Grammar School - 33 children - c£27,000? (www.thisiskent.co.uk)
Easter Hols
Meole Brace School - 38 children - £41,000 (www.shropshirestar.com)
Mount Grace School - c120 children? - c£90,000? (this thread)
Beechwood Park School - c38 children? - c£35,000? (this thread)
Purbeck - 42 children - £33,600 (BBC News)
Ferndown - c28 children? - c£22,400 (BBC News/This thread)
St Helena School, Colchester £12,000 (http://teachersupport.info)
Girvan Academy - ?
Salisbury Cathedral School - ?
Then factor in unpaid staff, coach companies, lift passes, ski hire & hotels from the trips that did get away.
Approx (at least) £431,000 and counting...
It's been widely reported that 10 or 12 schools were booked to go away at Easter - if you know of any schools missing from the list, please post some details.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 18-04-11 18:59; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Anyone affected should contact Devon trading standards as they are investigating this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
However many schools have already cancelled as a knee jerk reaction
|
Where is your evidence for this statement - everything I have seen suggests that when the schools knew there was a problem they contacted SE asking them to confirm the arrangements exactly in writing and that they only took the decision not to go ahead when SE failed to provide such confirmation. You and leedsunited, also conveniently ignored AiTO confirmation that the bond was valid and was in place for those who had booked with SE and that she expected the schools to be reimbursed. No one has said that parents should be involved in the negotiations with insurance companies.
As for barshakers comments - I never said that it takes 2-3 months to develop legal arguments, it doesn't in this case most lawyers could do so in a couple of hours in this case. What takes time os the process of sending out letters demanding repayment and then the court processes for obtaining judgement on the debts and then forcing bankruptcy. Don't believe me just go and look at the time taken to obtain most CCJs from the date the payment was first missed and then add on some time for the bankruptcy hearing. Agree that people should complain about Reynard to the authorities - Trading Standards are the ones that initiate prosecutions fro fraudulent trading and the Package Holiday regs - but the police, councillors and MPs are all also alternatives. But until SE go bankrupt or there are CCJs I supect they will hold off from criminal prosecutions given the higher burden of proof required.
Vicarious liability insurance - yes some schools/LEAs may have such cover - but my guess is that booking extra curricular activities may well be one of the many exclusions common to such policies.
Also I don't think that SE was ever hidden from parents - in most cases they will have given a presentation to the parents and have organised ski trips for a number of years.
As for parents being aware of all the contractual and legal requirements - I absolutley agree that they probably weren't and most probably took little interest. Some may have taken comfort from the AiTO membership and the insurance - especially given that AITO say their members provide complete financial protection and peace of mind. And yes it would be nice if the schools/LEA could take all the risk and pay the parents back straightaway - but my guess is that some may not be in a position to do so and/or they have to curtail other school activities (and no I don't mean the statutory ones) which will penalise those who didn't pay to go on the ski trips as well. I don't honestly think now is the time for conflicts between schools and parents - and even then conflict is usually the best way of dealing with such differences. It is precisely because I take rayscoops point about standing up for those whose parents are less well off - that i think that the steps with the best chance of recovery should be pursued and I don't want to damage schools discretionary spending - which is often used to help justy such kids.
PS Perhaps leedsunited, should go and listen to the broadcast before he comments on it - or perhpas he should be busy studying history instead in order to realise how offensive his SS and jackboot comparisons actuallly are. (DYOR - do your own research)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone affected should contact the Police.
This is fraud on a massive scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Anyone affected should contact the Police.
This is fraud on a massive scale. |
I wouldnt know who to contact in the police if I was affected. 999 or my town's answering machine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, maybe go to your local police station ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
[quote="Stephen101"]
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| (DYOR - do your own research) |
|
Bugg** i thought it was "Do Your Own Refund"
And for the record i find that your accusations of my slant towards Nazism very offensive, the "SS" stands for "Samberg Sue" and the jackboot word was used as she is along with others kicking down anybody who does not show their own skills for grammar, punctuation, spelling and ones own ability to think outside of what the teaching fraternity on here believe is correct.
As i have said many times this whole thing is a debacle and the kids and parents, yourself included really do not need all the stress of waiting for their money to be returned via insurance companies or the courts, that is a battle for bigger people to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| I wouldnt know who to contact in the police if I was affected. 999 or my town's answering machine? |
Thinking outside of the box but why not set up an on line petition aimed at Nick Gibb, Education Minister, to investigate the whole shooting match. If there is any sniff of fraud it will get handed to the fraud squad PDQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, the AiOL lady advised the schools to talk to the insurers and broker direct rather than contact AiOL to act as a conduit for it all, and actually for example, it is you who posted an earlier statement by AiOL that Reading school had cancelled its trip, not SE. I beleive the Aitol lady said all schools should be covered, but surely that is only if the have expedited the situation correctly and SE do not find some legal loop hole in how the schools issued their notices etc.
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
If as a parent you can absorb the cost of your loss for the greater good of the school then fine, but not everyone is in that position which is why two schools at least have done the right thing and reimbursed the parents and correctly discharged their liabilty in this matter
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Mon 18-04-11 19:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Hold on! I'm one of the teaching 'fraternity' (rather sexist)! Tell me - what do I believe?
The thread's about a school ski company; it's bound to attract teachers!
Personally it's made me wary about organising next year's trip. A group of parents were keen for me to book all the elements independently of a TO - this thread made me shoot the idea down in flames because of the contractual complications that could ensue - prior to this I might have been tempted!
If a group of families, a club, snowheads EOSB, a bunch of mates, a community church group etc book a trip - is there a difference in the legal/contractual aspects from a school group, if it all goes tits up? If not, then again the knock on effect of the skiing europe/Chris Raynard fiasco is profound and will inevitably have an adverse effect for children and snowsports' lovers in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
the AiOL lady advised the schools to talk to the insurers and broker direct rather than contact AiOL to act as a conduit for it all
|
I never suggested or said that the AITC lady had said anyone should contiact them direct - she said they should contact the brokers Status and gave the telephone number
| Quote: |
it is you who posted an earlier statement by AiOL that Reading school had cancelled its trip
|
Yes it is true they said this initially
| Quote: |
I beleive the Aitol lady said all schools should be covered, but surely that is only if the have expedited the situation correctly and SE do not find some legal loop hole in how the schools issued their notices etc.
|
Yes they have changed subtly changed their position - perhaps this has something to do with the facts having been pointed out to them - and some lobbying of AiTO to get involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
I think those parents who had to rearrange their affairs and also handle the natural disappointment from their children, to say nothing of reducing unnecessary expenditure, would prefer rather more than the one days notice that those affected at half term received. Mount Grace waited until 3/4 days before departure before they cancelled (not the case see below)
In the case of Tavistock it was the LEA who coughed up not the school.- big difference I'm afraid.
From a subsequnt post by snowbunny see below
"This is in fact incorrect. Mount Grace School did not cancel the trip and have not cancelled the trip. Chris Reynard visited the school ten days before the departure date and confirmed that he could not afford to finance the trip. He offered to provide an alternative trip if they were prepared to pay an additional sum of approximately £25,000, this option was rejected. Mount Grace School gave Chris Reynard the option of providing them with an alternative ski trip next year which remains in place. In the meantime I understand that the LEA solicitors have issued formal demands on Chris Reynard for the return of the monies paid due to his failure to provide the trip in accordance with the contract.
The school confirmed that they are making arrangements to refund the parents money but should they be unable to recover the monies through either their insurance or legal means then, unfortunately, cutbacks will be necessary."
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 18-04-11 23:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
daveyladboy, I looked into organising our own trip independently of a TO years ago and quite soon concluded it was too much work and would leave too much on the staff's shoulders even with an event-free trip never mind should anything go wrong . With a serious accident to a pupil, say, there is great value in having a full-time travel company's organisation to help deal. Also an accident that incapacitates a member of staff would be problematic. Bear in mind too that it has to be done additional to all your other duties - organising through a TO is time-consuming enough as you will know! If you just start a checklist of all the things you would have to set up, check, liaise with - accommodation, coach, ferry, equipment hire, instruction etc - you will see what I mean. Are you familiar with making contractual arrangements? I wasn't, and realised that was territory I would be getting into. I didn't get as far as looking into the insurance cover you would need which goes well beyond personal travel insurance for the participants. All in all, it just did not seem worth the time, effort and the stress of responsibility.
As to booking a trip for next year with a TO, I wouldn't let this or the SE thread put you off. There is much in them that is alarmist, wrong, speculative and mischievous. Against the disastrous collapse of SE, just count the thousands of young people who have been on successful ski trips over many years with reliable operators without this sort of scandalous outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
Just another illustration of how you do not understand the management of a school and the needs of its students and parents. Which would not be any more of an issue than the fact that I would not know much about the management of your business if you didn't keep making pronouncements like this.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 18-04-11 20:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ccl wrote: |
| daveyladboy, As to booking a trip for next year with a TO, I wouldn't let this or the SE thread put you off. There is much in them that is alarmist, wrong, speculative and mischievous. Against the disastrous collapse of SE, just count the thousands of young people who have been on successful ski trips over many years with reliable operators without this sort of scandalous outcome. |
Totally agree, there a lot of good people out there that want to do a good job for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
SE was run by a serial fraudulent crook, it's not the schools who are to blame it's the system which allowed this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
SE was run by a serial fraudulent crook, it's not the schools who are to blame it's the system which allowed this.
|
yep, the world has its fair share of gits, liars, cheats who will find a way around any system.
Hindsight is a wonderful gift which snowheads (including me) seem to have in abundance 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, enough is enough.
I really can’t continue sitting here reading all this stuff without making any comment.
Whereas I don’t know exactly what’s happening at the moment, I am one of just a few people who knows about Chris Reynard’s past, and I know that his ‘history’ is almost entirely a ‘creation’ of the media.
For example he did have absolutely nothing to do with Lyme Regis. It was not his company that had the accident, they were his biggest competitors, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the company.
What was so unfair of the media, was just because he had a shareholding of 0.93%, i.e. less than 1%, and these shares he was given – he didn’t buy them, that this was then variously presented as a “major” or “main” shareholding, with the obvious intention of trying to implcate him in some way in something he had nothing to do with.
Take the director’s issue, over which incidentally no one lost any money. Merely reading what was written by a journalist who makes his living pedalling scandal, lies, half-truths and deceptions gives a completely false picture. There was an expert’s report that said “there was no case to answer”, and the same expert subsequently said that the judge was wrong. The judiciary subsequently simply closed ranks and Blackburn for example made 17 errors of fact and then based his judgement on his own errors! There was a subsequent appeal which Chris won, and given everything that went before it is not surprising that he is now pursuing this matter in the European Court.
A simple example of how outrageous these journalists can be is on the matter of Chris ski instructor qualifications. To try to say he isn’t qualified and has mislead anyone is simply stupid, because it is so easy to check.
Sorry if I have spoiled anyone’s fun, but I am aware of the legal aspects of what has gone on previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
daveyladboy,
| Quote: |
If a group of families, a club, snowheads EOSB, a bunch of mates, a community church group etc book a trip - is there a difference in the legal/contractual aspects from a school group, if it all goes tits up?
|
There is an exemption in the regulations for those who organise packages on an occaisonal basis i.e "organiser” means the person who, otherwise than occasionally, organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/regulation/2/made . But as to how the boundary between occaisonal and regular is defined - and what is meant by selling - you would probably need to discuss with a solicitor for any cases other than those that are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skiinglegals,
So would you please explain this extracts from the Court of Appeal judgement which are on the record
The original allegations for which Reynard was disqualified for 10 years.
"Mr Reynard faced allegations of misconduct in the proceedings instituted against him by the Secretary of State under the 1986 Act on 14 January 1998: trading from April 1995 whilst insolvent at the risk of creditors; failing to provide holidays paid for in advance; misusing the company’s money in payment of personal expenses and personal tax liabilities; misappropriating a company car (a Citroen); acting in breach of fiduciary duty to Howglen in paying salary to his estranged wife, in arranging for the company to make an interest free unsecured loan to a charitable company (Adventures for Life Limited) of which he was sole director and to another associated company (Multi-Activity Training Unit Limited) and in agreeing for the company to pay 15 % interest on a secured loan of £300,000 by him to the company; drawing excessive remuneration before the administrative receivership; failing to make deductions for PAYE and NIC; failing to keep adequate accounting records; breaching the trading standards legislation regarding the contents of the holiday brochure; breaching health and safety requirements regarding fire precautions; failing to co-operate with the administrative receivers with respect to the statement of affairs and the recovery of the Citroen car; and late filing of accounts and returns of two other companies.
What the judge found on appeal by Reynard
"On the appeal from the decision of the Registrar Blackburne J held that the Registrar was correct to find that unfitness was established, saying that there were ample grounds for that conclusion. He held, however, that the Registrar’s exercise of discretion in fixing the period of disqualification at ten years was open to review, as he had taken into account as misconduct matters which should either have not been considered at all or which did not amount to misconduct. He was therefore entitled to exercise the discretion afresh and, in doing so, he stated that he had no doubt that the period of ten years was altogether excessive. He substituted the period of 5 ½ years as the appropriate period. In fixing that period he did not take into account the Registrar’s finding that Mr Reynard was “a most unsatisfactory witness"
This was written by the Court of Appeal judges and not a journalist - I'm sure Chris has a copy that he check if he wishes - otehers with access can look it up on Lexis Nexis. Both the judges in the original appeal and yhe Court of Appeal - upheld the original decision by Blackbrurn and only reduced the period of disqualification because Blackburne took Reynards behaviour as witness into account when detrmingthe disqualification period - which he clearly shouldn't have done. The original grounds for disqulifcation were not overuled by two sets of judges - and now almost 9 years later where is the appeal to the European Court. The Court of Appeal did not give leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Stephen101, you have made a statement that Mount Grace School cancelled their trip 3/4 days before it was due to depart. This is in fact incorrect. Mount Grace School did not cancel the trip and have not cancelled the trip. Chris Reynard visited the school ten days before the departure date and confirmed that he could not afford to finance the trip. He offered to provide an alternative trip if they were prepared to pay an additional sum of approximately £25,000, this option was rejected. Mount Grace School gave Chris Reynard the option of providing them with an alternative ski trip next year which remains in place. In the meantime I understand that the LEA solicitors have issued formal demands on Chris Reynard for the return of the monies paid due to his failure to provide the trip in accordance with the contract.
The school confirmed that they are making arrangements to refund the parents money but should they be unable to recover the monies through either their insurance or legal means then, unfortunately, cutbacks will be necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
snowbunnie333, Many thanks for the correction. The school quite rightly did not let things go right to the line - which is the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
skiinglegals, In the light of the information which is already in the public domain, which has been referred to previously in this thread and of which we have been fully reminded by Stephen101, you can no more expect to be believed than Mr Reynard could seriously have expected a school to cough up an additional £25,000 to finance a trip it had already paid for. To walk into that school with that proposal demonstrates either outrageous nerve or incredible naivety. It takes the same outrageous nerve or incredible stupidity to post such a pathetic denial of what is known. There may of course be a common factor here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| ccl wrote: |
| skiinglegals, There may of course be a common factor here. |
Hmmmm, I think you may have something there!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Colin B wrote: |
| SE was run by a serial fraudulent crook, it's not the schools who are to blame it's the system which allowed this. |
if you exchange the word school with parents I would agree, ... edited for the greater good ...
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 19-04-11 10:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ccl wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
Just another illustration of how you do not understand the management of a school and the needs of its students and parents. Which would not be any more of an issue than the fact that I would not know much about the management of your business if you didn't keep making pronouncements like this. |
actually snowbunnie33 has explained what Mount Grace has done which is exactly what I have desribed above. Obviously the kids/parents would have been made aware that a trip was highly unlikely to go ahead but for technical legal reasons it would be foolish to cancel the trip
I think Mount Grace have played it as best they could have after being let down by SE.
| snowbunnie333 wrote: |
| Mount Grace School did not cancel the trip and have not cancelled the trip. ... Mount Grace School gave Chris Reynard the option of providing them with an alternative ski trip next year which remains in place. In the meantime I understand that the LEA solicitors have issued formal demands on Chris Reynard for the return of the monies paid due to his failure to provide the trip in accordance with the contract. The school confirmed that they are making arrangements to refund the parents money but should they be unable to recover the monies through either their insurance or legal means then, unfortunately, cutbacks will be necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I've heard (a rumour) that Edgbarrow School in Bracknell Forest was due to go skiing to St Anton, Austria on 15th April with skiing europe/Chris Reynard, but the ski trip was cancelled at the last minute. Anybody know any details of how many pupils/sum of money involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| daveyladboy wrote: |
| I've heard (a rumour) that Edgbarrow School in Bracknell Forest was due to go skiing to St Anton, Austria on 15th April with skiing europe/Chris Reynard, but the ski trip was cancelled at the last minute. Anybody know any details of how many pupils/sum of money involved? |
There is a lad on the Facebook page that is from that school but he has given no details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Quote: |
What I mean by knee jerk is that the cancellation by others schools of their easter trip for example was quite quick and quite soon after the problems became known at half term and if I remember correctly was well before the AiOL BBC broadcast upon which you seem to pin your hopes. Personally I would not have even cancelled the trip and waited until the last possible moment when dialogue had been fully explored and the schools had a cast iron case.
|
I think those parents who had to rearrange their affairs and also handle the natural disappointment from their children, to say nothing of reducing unnecessary expenditure, would prefer rather more than the one days notice that those affected at half term received. ... In the case of Tavistock it was the LEA who coughed up not the school.- big difference I'm afraid. |
I agree but I am talking about protecting ones legal position and strength. If SE verbally informs a school that nothing is organised of course tell the parents that the trip is not going to take place and let them make alternative arrangements for the holiday period, but do not formally cancel anything until the proper procedure is correctly in place otherwise you may provide SE with a way of twisting the situation.
Tha package Tour regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/regulation/12/made are shambolic in that they do not set any timescales for SE to inform a school of a change of circumstance and only mention such phrases like 'as soon as possible' etc., so at any time SE could say that they were trying to agree alternative arrangements with its suppliers to offer the school an alternative but the school cancelled before (SE) could fully explore the possibilities. You have to be very careful in making sure that by cancelling one is not handing the legal initiative to SE.
As I posted above, Mount Grace imv, have done the right thing by not formally cancelling the holiday (it seems) and leaving SE default with out any abiguity at all. If Bonds are in place etc I have no doubt they will recover their money and perhaps that is why (in part) they feel it right to begin reimbursing parents.
I am not sure other schools have played the game as well as Mount Grace seem to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rayscoops,
What you constantly fail to understand is that the schools that did not go on their trips at half term only had a day or so to react from when they first knew their were difficulties - Mount Grace had more time because they had been made aware of what had happened at half term. At half term the schools were faced with a position where the coach companies were asking for extra payments, the hotels that they had been told were booked said they had cancelled the bookings many month previously and had no space available nor did other hotels in the towns concerned, AND REYNARD/SE WAS NOT CONFIRMING WHAT SPECIFIC ACCOMODATION ARRANGEMENTS WERE IN PLACE. Only a complete idiot would have travelled to the the resorts on such a basis and not called off the trips (to say nothing about the legal requirement to tell under 16s where they were going). And given you know little of what the schools actaully did/communicated and/or the legal advice they received at the time - other than what has been reported I fail to see how you are in a position to issue such judgements. But I suppose you must be right given that your superior IQ tells you that your prejudice about teachers is always right.
The regulations are not shambolic - I suspect that a court and most sensible people are able to determine what is meant by "as soon as possible". Laws and regulations in the UK do not offer definitions of every single phrase in common usage in the English language - and the courts are quite happy to rule out pervers interpretations even though it allows barrack room lawyers to pretend that such terms can be given idiotic meanings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone got any of their money back from Chris Reynard yet?
Not the community school or the LEA but hard cash from the Millionaire built on my and your money!? I am seriously bothered this drags on while Chris Reynard flies about Europe and has plenty of time to move your and my assets to who knows where.
skiinglegals - you say you know Chris Reynard. Explain to us this man?
SE web site and promotional material was found to be far short of any professional standard, including quotes from his own staff said to be customers! Questioning some of the links SE made the firms all pulled away. He may of had some standing 15 or 20 years ago but I see no basis in 2011? Please explain and let us hear another side of this sorry tale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
[quote="Stephen101"]rayscoops,
| Quote: |
I fail to see how you are in a position to issue such judgements. But I suppose you must be right given that your superior IQ tells you that your prejudice about teachers is always right.
|
There you go again, why must you continue to put people down just because their opinion is not the same as yours.
All i get from your posts are that you do not want to upset your own school by asking for your money back directly from those who you gave it to in good faith.
Just get the schools to repay the money to the parents and let the schools / LEA's have the battle in court with SE, CR or the insurance companies. Really cannot see what the issue is with this route of reimbursement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
so at any time SE could say that they were trying to agree alternative arrangements with its suppliers to offer the school an alternative but the school cancelled before (SE) could fully explore the possibilities.
|
Ah but as soon as they know that they will not be getting what they asked (and paid for) the customer is entitled to a full refund without penalty.
I think the biggest issue is that SE certainly in some cases never actually even attempted to book transport and accommodation for some schools, Chris Reynard actually told the Head of the Purbek school this was the case less than 2 weeks before they were due to depart, this despite the fact that these schools had apparently already paid in full for their trips.
Elsewhere SE failed to pay balances due for ski hire, lift passes, accommodation and transportation leaving various schools having to pay bills or come home early, in one resort outstanding bills apparently caused one SE rep to be arrested, which must have been particularly annoying for the rep as I gather they've not been paid either
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
