To say if not found the SCHOOL should replace it?

[Arrowfanatic]

Day one of school today. My year one son came out of school crying as his book bag has gone missing. This book bag is an expensive one issued by the school, I cannot afford to replace it.

He had it in school, the teachers were very half hearted about it. Suggested another child took it home, but since there were no bags in the classroom left over this child would presumably have left with 2 bags.

I told the teacher if it wasn't found tomorrow I would expect the school to replace it. The way I see it the bag was sent in to school, I have no control on how the bags are stored in school so why should I have to replace what is an expensive item when it's not my fault & a 5 year old who goes to get his back from the storage & find it missing is also not to blame.

Ds1 had his winter coat go missing. I was furious as it had obviously been stolen. A week later his teacher (lovely woman) checked every peg in the school and found it on a kid's peg on another floor.

I work in and visit a lot of primary schools. You can guarantee the newsletters will always remind parents constantly to label the clothes, make sure your child brings home the right stuff and please check in lost property as they have a lot of lost property.

It's guaranteed to appear in every newsletter. Along with please make an appointment to see your teacher, please ensure money is brought in an envelope, please don't park outside the school, please ensure your child arrives on time and is picked up on time etc.

SparkleMotions
After 40 years of teaching, I know.
If it had been taken accidentally by another child , one would have been left in its place.
A pity that the poster has not had the courtesy to inform all her supporters of the outcome.
Every Friday afternoon I use to empty the large lost property box in the cloakroom and return the (mostly named) items to their owners, to put away in trays, PE bags, rucksacks etc. When the class had departed I would then gather up all the trainers, jumpers, gloves etc that had been left by said owners because they could not be bothered to put them away in their proper places.
One of the functions of Reception classes is to teach children to take responsibility for their own property; places are provided to store things because otherwise possessions would be abandoned on the floor, under desks, in play areas and there would be far more accusations of stealing. One only has to watch certain parents carrying everything for their children and trying to hang up their coats and put their bags and boxes away for them before and after school to see how little this is reinforced at home.

The fact that the book bags ( which, admittedly are not as expensive as the OP's - £30!!!! What?!!) contain property belonging to school,i.e.reading books, reading diaries seems to carry no weight?
School loses so many books in a year. We ask you buy a book bag, but you don't HAVE to. We will provide a plastic zip wallet, in an effort to keep the books in good condition, and for ease of transport. And yet, they STILL go missing...
"Where did you leave it?"
"In my bedroom."
"Then it must be there, please look for it."
Next time the are asked to read...
"I don't have my book"
"Did you look for it?"
" No, Mum hasn't had the time!"

This is a frequent scenario. The difference is, we can't come and search your home. And, unless it is an expensive library book that has been lost, we rarely ask to be reimbursed. This is why schools, on the whole, have a lot of old, mismatched reading books, because we can't afford to keep buying new ones to replace the 'lost' ones.( Or defaced,torn, ones)
It works both ways. We do our best to look after your child's property, but equally, it would be great if that was reciprocated.

Bogey, again, you can post legalese as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

MN is full of threads started by and commented on by people who "know their rights" when actually they have no idea on anything of the sort. I think this idea that the school is providing you a service like you are customer leads to this snooty and pretentious attitude. We're working for you, not with you is the approach many of you seem to take on here, and you've got that wrong.

But lets pretend that the rules are that the school should replace stuff that has been lost or damaged etc, it would have to be reciprocal, I can guarantee that in 99.9% of cases the parent's bill per year would be larger than the schools

smallfox, school disclaimers don't work in law when the teacher has taken direct responsibility for the belongings in question. Think about in terms of, say, going to a building where you are required to hand over your phone on arrival to security. They have a duty to keep that phone safe and a sign saying "You must hand in your telephone on arrival but we take no responsibility for its safety whilst in our care" would not only be absurd but the disclaimer would have no legal effect.

And of course it's reciprocal. If the school lends a child a laptop that is normally kept in school and it gets broken at the child's home, absolutely the school can claim against the parents.

Calling fundamental legal principles "legalease" (or even "legalese") and doesn't magic them out of existence - nor does slinging insults at people who draw these pesky inconvenient facts to your attention.

The disclaimers do work, because of course at no point does the school, or teacher ever enter into a legal agreement to accept responsibility for whatever item it is, only if this was done, then could they face any costs for loss or damage of goods.

Your laptop example is a good one, parents sign an agreement that they will accept responsibility for any damage or loss of the item.

Until a school does this the disclaimer that they are not responsible for loss of goods therefore stands. Sorry if its inconvenient for you to understand that.

because of course at no point does the school, or teacher ever enter into a legal agreement to accept responsibility for whatever item it is, only if this was done, then could they face any costs for loss or damage of goods.

And I am the one "spouting legalese"?!

A signed piece of paper does not have to exist for there to be a contract between 2 people or organisations ffs.

But hey, you convince yourself that you are right if it helps you justify losing items that are not yours and you refuse to replace.

Ah, a contract does need to exist for it to be enforceable by law, and a verbal.contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm fine with my position, cause I'm right.

Hope it turned up OP

Verbal contracts are completely enforceable in law. You enter into a verbal contract every time you go into a shop, ask for something and buy it. You can then enforce the terms of the contract if, for example, what you buy falls apart or causes harm to you.

Further, a disclaimer doesn't automatically have legal effect in law. It is negated by, for instance, the Unfair Contract Terms Act; there are some types of liability you cannot disclaim; and you cannot disclaim liability for fundamental breach of the contract or bailment (bailment being what we're dealing with here in fact).

Really, smallfox, you should stop proclaiming that you are right when you don't seem to be aware of fundamental legal principles.

In a shop you have consumer protection laws which cover you, and the receipt acts as proof of purchase and means that both parties have to follow the letter of the law.

If the child had been given a receipt, as they do in cloakrooms etc, then they might have been responsible for replacing it, but as you'll see on many cloakrooms there are disclaimers that the place bear no responsibility for items left there, so I think the schools disclaimer might work there too.

In any case Judy, for the verbal contract to apply and be up held the specific terms and conditions have to be agreed, you can't just say: " you took it so you pay for it." The teacher must have agreed that they are responsible for the items, and what will happen in case of loss or damage. They must be entered into with an adult which means that either this wasn't covered by any sort of contract because one party was a child, or that it needs to be covered in the agreement between the school and parents.

This would then suggest that the schools disclaimer that they bear no responsibility for property brought into school covers this particular instance and whatever you are claiming is therefore not enforceable under contract law.

Saying something is a contract doesn't make it one, neither does deciding what the terms and conditions of a contract are after the fact, or with out specific agreement by both parties to those terms and conditions.

You'd be laughed at in court if you tried such a thing, so it seems my fundamental understanding of legal principles is far better than yours. You just want to jump up and down and say that its enforceable under contract law to sound good.

It isn't, you're wrong, but funny that you keep trying to correct me.

Did it turn up?

For goodness sake, smallfox, you're embarrassing yourself. I simply corrected your statement that verbal contracts are unenforceable, a fact which you now suddenly seem to accept having said previously they were absolutely worthless. Just as a matter of information, you don't have to agree all the specific terms of a verbal contract: there are all sorts of implied terms which the law imposes. If you asked a friend to look after your dog and said you'd pay her for it, it would be a binding contract and there would be implied terms around you not turning up late to collect, her keeping your dog safe, you paying up if your dog damages something etc, without everything being spelt out.

But I've pointed out that it is the law of bailment we're dealing with here, which doesn't depend on the law of contract in any event, and imposes a number of obligations on the bailee including taking proper care of goods they have taken into their custody.

Every school class has parents who would make school pay if they could. 5 million school pupils in the UK, the stuff they hide, lose, break or steal would be in the autumn budget.

Why don't op's come back and reply

Very annoying !!! 😡😡😡😡

I'm embarrassing my self?

"To create a bailment, the bailee must both intend to possess, and actually physically possess, the bailable chattel."

In this case I don't think the teacher could have been said to intend to posses. It was taken out of a drawer and put into a box as were the instructions for the children. There was no attempt to posses.

Bailment would work for confiscation. In terms of confiscation, reasonable care has to be taken, as in this case it could be proved to be by placing it in the box with the others.

Verbal contracts are notoriously difficult to enforce in courts of law, hence the saying not worth the paper that they are written on, this is often because of the implications you discuss. Both parties must be aware of them, one party might say that X was implied, and the other can say that . they weren't aware of it. In this case it would be reasonable to say that it isn't even implied that the school would be resonsible for the loss of this item, even after it was moved for one place to another and in fact as no attempt to possess has been made the schools disclaimer would still be valid.

So lets assess the situation, no verbal contract could have been entered into because it would have to be with the parent, not the child. The contract with the parent would be covered by the disclaimer that the school has about possessions brought in. The contract with the parent is not verbal, but set out in the terms and conditions of the school, which you accept by enrolling you child.

Bailment wouldn't count unless in terms of confiscation, this wasn't a confiscation.

And I'm making a fool of myself?

Yeah, you go to court and try to claim compensation for this case and see who is the fool.

Jumping up and down spouting about the law about such a small beer and common place incident like this? Foolish.

You're really twisting and turning here, smallfox. You said "a contract does need to exist for it to be enforceable by law, and a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." You now accept that a verbal contract can be binding but just difficult to enforce. That obviously does not make it unenforceable.

Of course the teacher intended to possess the bag. She took it out of the drawer and put it in a box within her control: what else did she intend to do other than to possess it? Throw it away? If schools don't have potential liability for children's belongings, why do you imagine they issue disclaimers? But, whilst a school disclaimer would be effective for things like coats left in a cloakroom, where it is recognised that no school is going to have someone standing guard, it isn't effective where the teacher has taken a specific decision to take something away from a child and store it. It would be the same if, for instance, a school demands that all children hand in mobile phones at the beginning of the day to be collected at the end: they're not confiscating them, and I assume no-one suggests they can just leave them out in a box in the corridor where anyone can pick them up on the basis that they can't possibly have any responsibility for them.

It's not me who started jumping up and down about the law. There are various people on this thread proclaiming the "fact" that the school would have no legal responsibility in this situation. That is a statement of the law. I and a number of others have simply pointed out that their understanding of the legal position is incorrect. As I've said more than once, the law of contract is not what is relevant here, it is the law of bailment, which isn't dependent on any contract being in existence. There is also absolutely nothing in law that suggests a school can only ever have responsibility for a child's belongings if someone confiscates them.

Of course no-one is going to go to court to claim compensation for a £30 bag. It doesn't change the fact that, as a matter of law, the school is liable.

You're the one who seems to be investing a massive amount of energy into proclaiming that the law isn't the law and slinging insults around into the bargain. Do you see no element of folly there?

A teacher is NOT responsible or 30 cardigans, 30 PE kits, 30 water bottles, 30 toys, 30 book bags.

A teacher is responsible for teaching 30 children.

Your child and you are responsible for their belongings.

End of story.

MiaowTheCat . I wonder how the boy got on in secondary, when mummy can't come into the classroom and precious will face consequences for not having the right equipment or homework.

I'm certainly not twisting at all. Merely repeating a my stated point that the disclaimers that schools issue cover cases like this. Bailment isn't applicable because the teacher didn't take possession, she moved the thing, taking possession would be the act of taking in order to keep it.

Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on, because without written terms and conditions they are very difficult to prove, its for this exact reason that the schools disclaimer is in the terms and conditions, that you accept by enrolling your child

I'm not twisting and turning, you're the applying laws that don't count in this instance.

The poster above who said that teachers are not responsible for the possessions of students was exactly right, the only point you do become responsible is if you remove something with the intention of keeping it from the child's possession. This was just moved cause the child didn't have it in the place that it was requested.

All the rest of the thread with the legalese and jumping up and down on here is just more of the same mumsnet entitled parent dribble.

bumblecat so pleased to hear my son's teacher ain't responsible for his uniform.

So why's he waste 10 minutes on the phone to me whining a pair of shoes that the school said were OK last term, are not OK, this term? (Poor bloke. I felt sorry for him).

And why do teachers or Heads bother with uniform at all, then? Either they are responsible for it - because that is suggested by the endless whinging my kids have had to put up with from their school about shoes with a 1cm logo on, etc - or they're not. In which case - dump uniform.

I would love to see a photo of this 30 pound book bag just to see why it's worth said amount

Requiring book bags to be made by Louis Vitton is an invitation to theft imo and I therefore judge the school to be responsible
{{{bangs gavel}}}