Getting a refund of 13+ deposit in London

[February7]

I wonder if anyone can help me?

I paid a non-refundable deposit of £2000 to secure 13+ place for my child at a London day school. This school was one of 2 back up plan schools in case my child failed favoured school at CE.

Back up school 1 held entry exams earlier than all London day schools and wouldn't let me hold the offer we received for place 2 weeks until I got results of Back up school 2 exam. We landed up paying 2 deposits as back up school 1 was not for us.. Non-refundable... And then our child was successful at CE at favourite school.

As soon as I heard that my child had got into back up school 2 we called school 1 and told them 1.5 terms in advance that our cold would not be attending. They filled the space dozens of times over and refused to refund the deposit, in stark contrast to the other London school who returned the 2,000 saying it would be "immoral" to keep it as his school was full.

Can anyone suggest how I can approach this best? Or recommend a lawyer who could help?

I'd like to explore the legality of school not refunding a place-holding deposit of £2,000 even though

1. I have given 1.5 terms notice in February that my child would not start school in September.
2. The place were all filled
3. Is non-refundable deposit permitted in these circumstance, by legislation or charities regulation?

In my view this school has simply moved its entrance exams to before everyone else's cynically, knowing well that it is a back up school and using this system of taking deposits as a cash cow from London parents where there are few private schools around.

Any help/thoughts much appreciated

WaitingandHoping2015. I'm actually not American, not that it's relevant. What is certain in this strand is that the only "septic" person is not me, nor the lady exploring if she can retrieve a deposit, it's you!!! Racism stinks.

Last message for WaitingandHoping. Given your superior UK education you should know $ is a currency in many jurisdictions. Ciao Troll. X.

I think the rest of us on this strand can conclude that non-refundable deposits aren't refundable in law, though they may not always be morally right!!

I am in the US and can verify that going private is not necessary 99.9% of the time. Dd is turning 5 in July and will be attending the local public school for now and not Spence where she was offered a place which we turned down because we don't forsee is having the time to take her for play dates etc. Our son has just been diagnosed with ASD and private school is the absolute last play you want to be. Our public school district has won awards for their work with autistic DC.

It is even more so like this in Canada. According to my family up there very very few of the private schools offer anything close to what the public schools offer.

I think we have got off track from the OP. On that subject, still think it's baffling that the OP think she should have any right to her non-refundable deposit.

You played the game and you knew the rules.

Personal attacked should be reported, as they breach MN talk guidelines.

It's not however trolling (unless you are a DM journalist, as we've had a recent example of inability to use labels correctly and make everything synonymous with trolling. Sigh).

And the dollar may be used in many places, but it is not the currency in London, so not really relevant in the slightest to the situation that OP outlined.

And if people do not want to use schools that require non-refundable deposits, they are free to choose other ones.

Sorry pressed enter too soon...

The thing here in the US is that to get to a good school district you either have amazing Federal funding and/or property taxes which are incredibly high. We moved to a town with good Federal funding and our home has taxes of $14k a year. In the town we lived in previously they got no Federal funding and, for the same value home that we are in now, the property taxes would be $25-35k a year. Yes they have cheaper properties in the area and you get families who rent a 1 or 2 bed apartment during the school years where they are over crowded so they can attend the school district but don't pretend for a minute that here in the NY Tristate area there is no rich/poor divide when it comes to education. There is and it is HUGE.

It's quite straightforward - the deposit is to hold a place and in this case, as in many other situations, a non refundable one. Unfortunately you have lost your deposit. It's similar to a holiday booking with a non refundable deposit - you either pay the balance and have the holiday or loose your deposit.

Let's cut with the Americans are really stupid line. There are many stupid ones but plenty of smart ones as well. The same goes for this country - you don't have to go too far to find stupid Brits.

This thread has completely degenerated and moved away from its original subject.

As I said above it may just be a difference between common law and civil code countries in terms of what contracts mean. One reason people like the UK is our rule of law and straighforwardness. Non refundable means exactly that.

As for which countries have the best schools I suspect the UK private schools are some of the best schools on the planet which is why so many people from abroad want to go to them and some of us are lucky enough to able to choose them and have children who pass the test to get in.

Back to the foreigner opinion on this..... Yes, non-refundable means just that, OB will get nothing, nada - legally (though morally one school has repaid as they didn't lose out). BUT, if you are paying a deposit 1.5 terms in advance to reserve a place and give notice 1.5 terms in advance AND the school always fill space then WHY is it ok for the school to make this deposit non-refundable? Illogical. It should be REFUNDABLE if the space is filled. No-one addresses this - which is what OB says (she has gone silent probably cos of the vehement comments!!??)

If your child is on a wait list they get in. There is still 1.5 term to go.

It isn't refundable. End of. Move on as the OP obviously has.

Really hope it works out.

That just isn't an engaged response. This thread is now the talking point at Thomas's, my kids school. Not one person is addressing the question of whether it's right for these deposits to be Refundable instead of not refundable.

Makes me just know it's a stitch up. A blanket refusal by people on this thread to engage in discussion about a core issue.

I guess the PR companies for these schools have just acquired false id's to use this site. It's not otherwise possible that not a single person has actually answered this question.

I've asked my friends to join so balance will soon be here.

I was trying to draw a line, not get into a bun fight. Your response sounds rather paranoid. I am not a number – I am a free man etc. If the countless grounded responses don't concur with you, it doesn't mean we haven't engaged. This subject has been fully engaged with. Please don't let this descend into suspicious accusations – it certainly doesn't help your point of view. Let's agree to disagree. Like gentlemen.

Really hope it works out

Agree to disagree, of course!!! Except there is no actual disagree because not one person has even considered or discussed that these deposits could be REFUNDABLE. That's just plain strange!! Anyway, have a great evening. Xx

Ok, one last go.

The point that needs to be appreciated is that accepting a place at a private school that you later renege on, places the school in a tricky position. It will have to fill the gap with a candidate that possibly isn't as good a fit for the school/not as high calibre. They are a business and they are judged by the results they get at the end of the day.

Initially they have a great list of kids to fill their year with, and if you accept and later decline you are leaving them with no option but choose from the not so great list. By the time you decline they could well be left with the not so hot kids. We all know we judge schools, on one level, by the results they achieve. Well, this kind of dithering could have cost them dearly as far as that is concerned. It's not always a case of money for them. It's a business that's built on results and reputation.

The non refundable deposit is often compensation for costing them a better candidate.

Really hope it works out

Thank you for your clear explanation of why it's ok/understandable for the schools to take non refundable deposits. I get that, for them. BUT It's not ok for me at all, as the buyer in a sellers market.

Except there is no actual disagree because not one person has even considered or discussed that these deposits could be REFUNDABLE

That's because they aren't. There may be a moral argument that they should be but legally there is no argument at all. The OP entered into a contract that required a non-refundable deposit. She then decided to break that contract. She therefore loses her deposit.

I would be happy to engage in a discussion as to whether or not this is morally right but the OP asked about legality. On that point there is no question. The school is entitled to keep the deposit.

Daphne, that is not a wrong point to raise. English law is pretty logical. That is why we have a common law rule against penalty clauses - if a contract says if you break this you pay £1m and yet the loss is only £1 then that clause is invalid. That is why I mentioned the latest penalty clause case above - although in that one the sum (for parking on private land) was held to be reasonable (even though it was higher than the loss) so there is no simplicity that in every case where the sum taken bears no relationship to the costs it will always be invalid. Hence why my advice above about perhaps trying to negotiate the amount etc is not unwise and sometimes works in practice.

My view is that the sums kept of usually a term's fees could be justified in terms of the costs of interviewing, preparing papers and the like even if people can fill a place BUT a local judge might disagree so some parents may want to have a go in the small claims court in defending claims.

So I would not go as far as saying there is no question that the law on penalty clauses does not apply to these keeping deposit issues. I have a client who keeps a lot of up front payments from consumers under their clear cancellation policy and all the time we get people challenging this, trading standards butting in, law on penalty clauses invoked etc. We usually win as we can justify the sums retained but it is not always cut and dried.

DeoGratias. Thank you very much for that reply. Incredibly useful and easy to understand!! So, I guess that in London, where private day places are in such demand and always filled, a smaller refundable deposit would be far fairer. A local judge could well agree.

For the UK rural and boarding schools have a very different schooling system to manage and I can see, from your explanation, why high, non-refundable deposits make sense.

So, if we want to make this point to schools then it's probably best to write to an organisation that represents all of them, right? And hopefully at same time OB will take case to her local court.

If I were the OP on a thread and I had a genuine question,which I was open-minded to hear the answers to, and if 95% of the respondents then said that I was unreasonable, I hope that the overwhelming strength of opinion (especially when backed with supporting evidence and also by experts in the field) would cause me to consider seriously, that they may well be right. I hope that in that position, I would reassess in light of the evidence and perhaps adjust my view.....and dare I say it, even admit that I have done so. It is an anonymous forum of course and face-saving isn't necessary in the way people might feel it is in the real world.

I guess the problem is that when people ask AIBU they are rarely open to hear that they might be and so dig in. And if they don't, somewhere else who supports their original view does it instead.

With regard to this case, if the OP believed the non-refundable deposit was immoral, she shouldn't have entered into a contract which committed her to it. She had free choice to enter the contract and having done so, is bound by the terms.....non-refundable. It seems very simple.

If she had a moral issue with the terms, raising that BEFORE entering into the agreement would have been the thing to do.....but funnily enough, wanting a place (as a back-up only of course) she didn't do that, but complains after the event.

As others have said, she should see that £2k as the 'cost' of extra flexibility and peace of mind about school places in that period of uncertainty about where her son would get offers from. Rather than being furious about it, perhaps she could find some appreciation of the benefits a free market in private education has afforded her ...at a price, of course. And whilst it has cost her £2k, she has accessed this peace of mind of knowing she will have a school place, when most people cannot even hope to apply for one such place, never mind several.

Private education is a market. The terms for buyers and sellers are made totally clear and no-one is forced to enagage in trade. Buyer beware. The buyer enters knowing the terms and if in disagreement needs to raise this before entering a contract. Knowing the terms and then feeling aggrieved seems ridiculous and there seems no case at all.

Of course if the OP had needed that back-up place in the end, she would have felt it was £2k well spent. In actual fact she has got her top choice and that should make her feel pleased,making with knowing she was always going to have somewhere.

parents may want to have a go in the small claims court in defending claims

Just to be clear, the parents would not be defending a claim. The school already has their money. The parents would be making the claim to try and get their money back.

a local judge might disagree

I consider this highly unlikely. There is extensive case law on the subject that has established a reasonable level for non-refundable deposits. A County Court judge will be aware of this. In the unlikely event that the judge went against established case law the school would be able to appeal and would definitely win in the Court of Appeal.

Daphne, as you sound genuinely interested and you are London based I will try and explain how it works for the three main boys London day schools.

During Y6 a boy trying for all 3 schools will sit the common pre-test for Westminster/St Pauls and the KCS pre-test. Assuming he is successful he will have interviews at all 3 schools and may receive offers from all 3. Following this offer the place can be informally accepted or declined, but no deposit is payable until the following year February of Y7 when the selection process has been completed and then a firm acceptance must be made with a non-refundable deposit. This is when schools are able to finalise their numbers and make offers from the waitlist, remember boys on the waitlist have already been waiting for a year. There is a lot of WL movement at this time.

It is possible at this point to pay 3 deposits and keep places at all 3 schools until the first CE piece of coursework has to be handed in or even CE itself but very few do this. It causes problems not only because it blocks places but because CE is a 2 year exam process. A boy who has missed out on a place at St Pauls may decide to sit scholarship exams for a less selective school, this is a different syllabus to CE. IF he only finds out in February of Y8 that he now has a place at St Pauls subject to CE it will be a problem for him as he has very little time to prepare.

You are only seeing this from the view of a parent with lots of offers, you need to think how you would feel if your son sat these tests in Y6 and was put on the WL for his favourite school which his brother already attends. He should know by Feb Y7 whether or not he will be able to join his brother and all his friends at his favoured school, but if schools start returning deposits parents will have another year to sit on offers and your son will not hear from his senior school until 2 years after he sat the entrance exam whether or not he has a place. Meanwhile your son listens to all his friends making plans for senior school, they are all working hard to make sure they get the required CE marks and he comes home every week asking mummy if she has heard from the school yet.

The system is asking parents to commit to a school in Y7 12 months after the entrance exams, I don't work at a school I am just a parent/consumer but I think that is long enough.

Presumably the relatively high deposits are meant to discourage parents from accepting two back up places, as OP did, alongside the place they want. If deposits were smaller and so buying flexibility in this way became more assessible to a wider range of parents, there would be chaos with schools struggling to manage numbers, and some children waiting a long time to know if they have any place.

Given the pressure on school places a process which encourages parents to make early decisions has to be a good thing.

There is already a bit of this with people holding both state and private places until the very last minute, and popular state schools then finding that not everyone who says they were coming actually turns up.

When DD started at an independent secondary, one ex-pat girl in her class (not British, not American) started for three days and then disappeared for a week with no explanation, before returning. State schools co-incidently started three days later. Her parents had only been in the UK for a year or two, and my best guess was that they were struggling to understand the two systems and so let her try out both before deciding. Fine for her. Perhaps not so fine for the state school, nor for the child who would otherwise have got a place there.