Refund - course

lalala85

Help - please! So I signed up to do an interior design course. It cost me €1,700. I paid the €500 deposit. I went to the first class. However before the scone class, I decided that it was just too expensive and my heart wasn't in it so I emailed the institute and pulled out. The guy I was emailing sai I was still liable for the €500 and that he was not going to refund this. I then just received an email saying according to their terms I am now liable for the remaining €1200. This just does not seem fair. He had initially been willing to forgo this and put a hold on my account but he now said that I am liable for this. Is there anything I can do?

MarkAnthony

Do you have a written contract? What does it say?

lalala85

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Do you have a written contract? What does it say?

There were a few terms and conditions on the website. One says that if the course materials are returned within 14 days of receipt, a full refund will be issued. Sadly, I didn't return them within 14 days. The terms and conditions do not go on to say what happens after the 14 days. Do I have any ground to stand on?

MarkAnthony

lalala85 wrote: »

There were a few terms and conditions on the website. One says that if the course materials are returned within 14 days of receipt, a full refund will be issued. Sadly, I didn't return them within 14 days. The terms and conditions do not go on to say what happens after the 14 days. Do I have any ground to stand on?

You possibly have through unfair contract terms regs. Did you return the materials at all? If so tbh if it were me I'd simply ignore anything else but wouldn't expect my €500 back.

Get proper advice from FLAC.

lalala85

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You possibly have through unfair contract terms regs. Did you return the materials at all? If so tbh if it were me I'd simply ignore anything else but wouldn't expect my €500 back.

Get proper advice from FLAC.

Yes I agree. However my concern is that they are now threatening to take the full €1200 from me. Initially this was never mentioned by them. I fear the reason that they have now suggested this is because I kicked up such a fuss about the €500.

I will contact the FLAC in the morning.

I just don't have €1200 spare. This is really upsetting me. I will ask my bank if they can possibly block that payee, although I doubt that is possible.

Sam Mac

lalala85 wrote: »

Yes I agree. However my concern is that they are now threatening to take the full €1200 from me. Initially this was never mentioned by them. I fear the reason that they have now suggested this is because I kicked up such a fuss about the €500.

I will contact the FLAC in the morning.

I just don't have €1200 spare. This is really upsetting me. I will ask my bank if they can possibly block that payee, although I doubt that is possible.

Remove the direct debit/standing order. Your bank will do this for you. Ring them up ASAP.

athtrasna

sorry OP but I can't see how you'd be entitled to pull out without paying. You knew the fees before you started, you had a 14 day change of mind period and you didn't use that. Therefore the odds are against you imo

whomitconcerns

For all they know you copied and had a full learning experience form the course materials. Then decided you didn't 'need' to attend. Also you attended the first course. How is it fair on the provider to lose out because you didn't think things through? You might have been the delegate that helped them break even on the course cost for all you know. I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay 100% although I am sure lots of people will tell you not to bother...

Sorry for the reality check..but your an adult and you should own your decision.

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You possibly have through unfair contract terms regs.

What appears to be unfair about the terms of the contract we haven't seen?

Fishyfreak

The course provider could argue that you had taken up a space which they could have filled with another (€1,700 paying) student.

You could contact your bank to block the payee but there is a chance the college could pursue you for the full fee.

whomitconcerns

Sorry I should clarify my previous post to directly answer your query OP. Yes, it is fair.

Uno my Uno.

Does anyone have an opinion on weather or not EU distance contract consumer protection could apply to a situation such as this? (assuming it was done on line of course). the protections are much better than for face to face dealings and can't be contracted out of. the time periods are longer also.

slimjimmc

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Does anyone have an opinion on weather or not EU distance contract consumer protection could apply to a situation such as this? (assuming it was done on line of course). the protections are much better than for face to face dealings and can't be contracted out of. the time periods are longer also.

There are exemptions from the 14 day cooling off period such as when provision of the service has begun with the consumer's agreement. The OP doesn't seem to be disputing the quality of the course but considers it too expensive. That looks like a change of mind.

Uno my Uno.

slimjimmc wrote: »

There are exemptions from the 14 day cooling off period such as when provision of the service has begun with the consumer's consent.

Ahhh well, thought it might have been an interesting angle.

endacl

lalala85 wrote: »

s there anything I can do?

Plan better in future. Honestly, who signs up for a course costing four figures on a whim? Perhaps if your personal circumstances had changed, the institute would have been understanding, but, from their point of view you've taken a place that they offered in good faith that could have been offered to somebody else who wouldn't decide that it cost too much all of a sudden. If they didn't have strict policies in place around fees/deposits, their courses would be long collapsing.

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

What appears to be unfair about the terms of the contract we haven't seen?

Almost anything with a deposit almost always falls short. If not that there is usually something to hang one's hat on.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Almost anything with a deposit almost always falls short. If not that there is usually something to hang one's hat on.

A wide brush there Mark

I think it is only right that courses require a deposit. It's the only way to commit people. If no deposit, or booking fee is taken, the person has not committed and may not attend.

I often see it in my place of work. There are a few therapists running their own businesses. I am one of them. I take a booking fee of €25, which means that 19 times out of 20, the person shows up. There's always one eijet who won't and then asks for their "deposit" back; at which point I inform them that they paid a booking fee and if they haven't given me the courtesy of 48 hours notice, I take the full amount, which they agreed to when ticking the box to accept my booking terms and conditions.

The other therapists for reasons I cannot fathom, do not take booking fees, let alone securing payment details for no shows. Ive seen several of them come, fail and go over the years because of this. There is a guy who teaches Guitar. He takes payment up front for 6 lessons. He is there longer than I have been and it is thanks to providing a good service AND protecting his business by securing payment upfront.

Businesses need to protect themselves from customers who change their minds like the weather. The OP signed up for the course. She can afford it, as she has said she doesn't have it "spare" rather than saying she doesn't have the money and can't afford it. Buyers remorse. Tough luck. Best thing she can do now is finish the course and apologise for being a pain in the butt.

MarkAnthony

goz83 wrote: »

A wide brush there Mark

I think it is only right that courses require a deposit. It's the only way to commit people. If no deposit, or booking fee is taken, the person has not committed and may not attend.

I often see it in my place of work. There are a few therapists running their own businesses. I am one of them. I take a booking fee of €25, which means that 19 times out of 20, the person shows up. There's always one eijet who won't and then asks for their "deposit" back; at which point I inform them that they paid a booking fee and if they haven't given me the courtesy of 48 hours notice, I take the full amount, which they agreed to when ticking the box to accept my booking terms and conditions.

The other therapists for reasons I cannot fathom, do not take booking fees, let alone securing payment details for no shows. Ive seen several of them come, fail and go over the years because of this. There is a guy who teaches Guitar. He takes payment up front for 6 lessons. He is there longer than I have been and it is thanks to providing a good service AND protecting his business by securing payment upfront.

Businesses need to protect themselves from customers who change their minds like the weather. The OP signed up for the course. She can afford it, as she has said she doesn't have it "spare" rather than saying she doesn't have the money and can't afford it. Buyers remorse. Tough luck. Best thing she can do now is finish the course and apologise for being a pain in the butt.

Thats all fine but do your contracts provide for compensation in the event of your side cancelling?

That's what the regs are there to redress, the imbalance in bargaining power.

goz83

If the service were cancelled on my end, the customer is indeed entitled to a new booking, or refund of any fees paid. I can't recall being compensated when Garth Brooks cancelled. It was a refund in itself, which is all I expected. I wasn't compensated for the loss of funds in having the tickets delivered though. I've always bent over backwards to accommodate clients, but not all businesses will, or can do that.

MarkAnthony

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS, 1995.

SCHEDULE 3

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

1. Terms which have the object or effect of:

( d ) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

( e ) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS, 1995.

SCHEDULE 3

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

1. Terms which have the object or effect of:

( d ) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

( e ) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

I'd interpret that as if the trainer decides to cancel the course part the way through, the full amount may be refundable, i.e. an equivalent amount where the latter is the party cancelling the contract.

I would also argue the consumer is not being asked to pay a disproportionately high sum as the cost of running the course has not changed/reduced.

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

I'd interpret that as if the trainer decides to cancel the course part the way through, the full amount may be refundable, i.e. an equivalent amount where the latter is the party cancelling the contract.

You'd be interpreting it wrongly. If you ask for €1 and say you're keeping it if they cancel you have to provide that you will pay €1 if you cancel. You would also be required to repay the €1 you took from the buyer.

Graham wrote: »

I would also argue the consumer is not being asked to pay a disproportionately high sum as the cost of running the course has not changed/reduced.

If there is a breach of contract then the seller is entitled to cover their costs. If that means they lost out on some materials thats what they cover. If the course was full and they turned people away they may have a point but that has not been alluded to.

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You'd be interpreting it wrongly. If you ask for €1 and say you're keeping it if they cancel you have to provide that you will pay €1 if you cancel. You would also be required to repay the €1 you took from the buyer.

Where are you getting that from, essentially you're suggesting the provider is liable for double the cost while the purchaser is only liable for the cost itself.

Either way, the provider hasn't cancelled, so even if your interpretation was correct it doesn't appear to preclude the provider charging the full amount after the delivery of the training had started, thus depriving the provider of the opportunity to sell that training place to another party.

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

Where are you getting that from, essentially you're suggesting the provider is liable for double the cost while the purchaser is only liable for the cost itself.

I'm getting it from the legislation. It's there to prevent onerous deposits. Granted it's clumsily drafted.

Graham wrote: »

Either way, the provider hasn't cancelled, so even if your interpretation was correct it doesn't appear to preclude the provider charging the full amount after the delivery of the training had started, thus depriving the provider of the opportunity to sell that training place to another party.

That fact is not discussed in the OP you're imputing that, which is fair enough, I chose to impute that there are normally spaces available.

While I'm not really interested in getting into a moral debate, I think it's fair enough the OP loses the deposit, that's what it's there for. My issue is with them trying to charge for a course the OP won't be attending.

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm getting it from the legislation. It's there to prevent onerous deposits. Granted it's clumsily drafted.

But you're not, that's your interpretation and it's an interpretation I'm not able to find anywhere else.

According to the National Consumer Agency:

This would be an unfair term:

• Terms which permit the supplier to retain pre-payments in the event of cancellation. Where the amount of such a pre-payment is in excess of a genuine pre-estimate of the trader’s loss.

Given that the OP has pulled out of the contract after delivery of the service had started, it is reasonable to say the traders loss is equal to the full cost of the training course for 1 individual.

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

But you're not, that's your interpretation and it's an interpretation I'm not able to find anywhere else.

You can look at all the websites you like all they are doing is giving you their interpretation. For example citizen's advice seems to back up my position. It's not an interpretation you lack but an understanding of the rules of interpretation.

Think what the regulations are trying to achieve. They are trying to redress the unequal bargaining positions of the parties. Simply returning monies paid where a contract is breached by the seller (other than in circumstances such as frustration) has always been the position.

Graham wrote: »

According to the National Consumer Agency:

This would be an unfair term:

• Terms which permit the supplier to retain pre-payments in the event of cancellation. Where the amount of such a pre-payment is in excess of a genuine pre-estimate of the trader’s loss.

Given that the OP has pulled out of the contract after delivery of the service had started, it is reasonable to say the traders loss is equal to the full cost of the training course for 1 individual.

No it's not. You're confusing loss and potential gain.

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No it's not. You're confusing loss and potential gain.

Provider has already been paid €500, there's nothing potential about it.


Have you a link to somewhere to backup your interpretation that a consumer is entitled to an amount equivalent to double the cost of the service provided if the service provider cancels?

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

Provider has already been paid €500, there's nothing potential about it.


Have you a link to somewhere to backup your interpretation that a consumer is entitled to an amount equivalent to double the cost of the service provided if the service provider cancels?

You've completely lost me at this point. You're completely confusing the issues.

The regulation simply means that where a deposit is required and the seller cancels the seller is required to pay compensation to the same value of the deposit - which is simply fair.

Compensation ≠simply returning the payment which would be required anyway. So as a worked example:

I want to buy a widget for €5000 the seller requires a €100 deposit. The seller decides not to sell me the widget he has to pay me €100 compensation plus I am entitled to my €100 back. I'm not entitled to €10000 as you seem to think.

What sort of link are you looking for? As I've said you're missing the point, sorry that I can't enlighten you further but you would need to find a case where the rule was subject of judicial comment. I've not really the inclination to do that for such a simply interpreted regulation. Have a look on Bailii.

Graham

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You've completely lost me at this point. You're completely confusing the issues.

The regulation simply means that where a deposit is required and the seller cancels the seller is required to pay compensation to the same value of the deposit - which is simply fair.

Compensation ≠simply returning the payment which would be required anyway. So as a worked example:

I want to buy a widget for €5000 the seller requires a €100 deposit. The seller decides not to sell me the widget he has to pay me €100 compensation plus I am entitled to my €100 back. I'm not entitled to €10000 as you seem to think.

So if I order a car tomorrow and pay for it in full, I'm entitles to double the cost of the car if the provider is unable to deliver?

Regardless (AGAIN) this is not what is under discussion. The OP has not paid for a product or service which has not been delivered so I can't see why you're determined to drag the conversation in that direction.

There is nothing to suggest (from you or the OP) that the forfeiture of the €500 falls within the terms of the unfair conditions.

MarkAnthony

Graham wrote: »

So if I order a car tomorrow and pay for it in full, I'm entitles to double the cost of the car if the provider is unable to deliver?

Why have they been unable to deliver? Does the contract provide that if you decide not to compete the sale that you would lose the entire amount? You're trying to over simplify, read the regulation and apply the facts of your scenario to it. Also bear in mind the regs do not apply to individually negotiated terms.

Graham wrote: »

Regardless (AGAIN) this is not what is under discussion. The OP has not paid for a product or service which has not been delivered so I can't see why you're determined to drag the conversation in that direction.

I was attempting to aid your understanding, you seemed to want the discussion, clearly you don't so we can stop talking now.

Graham wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest (from you or the OP) that the forfeiture of the €500 falls within the terms of the unfair conditions.

6. (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

Hence my question about what the contract said about the deposit. If it does not conform to the regulations it's void. Now you raise a good point about the course having already started so it probably falls there as it's not keeping a deposit per se but the supplier covering a legitimate loss. However I stress that needs to be a legitimate loss not a loss of a potential gain. Again I intimated to the OP that the deposit was probably gone and that the €1200 is what they should get advice on.

Legal advice can't be given here. Inane conversation can, so this frequently happens. Anyway as you don't want to discuss this I'll leave you be, enjoy your weekend.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS, 1995.

SCHEDULE 3

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

1. Terms which have the object or effect of:

( d ) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

( e ) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

Very poorly written and probably never enforced as it is very much open to interpretation. if the consumer is to be compensated, they too must be able to show a loss, rather than receive a potential gain. Every set of terms and conditions I have ever looked at, were very much weighted on the side of the seller. The consumer can decide to go elsewhere if they do not agree with the terms and conditions.

There are many truly unfair terms, but in most cases, it is not practical, or wise to self impose terms of compensation for the consumer, as a cancellation is most certainly not what a seller will aspire to achieve and will undoubtedly be a necessity and may be outside of his control. A customer who cancels in most cases is just a change of mind. I have heard some whopper excuses in my time. Some just rudely don't bother making contact despit knowing that a good hour and a half, to two hours has been set aside for them. When I enforce my terms and conditions, I am prepared to go all the way.

As an example; today i had four clients scheduled. Lately I am only comfortably able to manage two, but that's an aside due to an injury. I was left with little choice to have the four booked in. All four clients had agreed to their appointments either online, or in person by signing an appointment book. Both methods clearly point to booking terms and conditions. It being a Saturday, I Would have no difficulty filling the day with clients. I send a reminder sms text the day before the appointment. One client decided not to show up and gave no notice. There was no reply after an attempt to contact when there was no sign of her attending. This left me twiddling my thumbs for a wasted 90 minutes, when I could have been seeing another client, or had a shorter day and spent time with my family. I charged a third of the rate the client was to be charged, which was less than the minimum fee I would have received if I treated another client. My reasoning was that while I did not provide the service I expected to provide, I had made myself available to that client exclusively for that time.


I will actually look at amending my terms and conditions to be more balanced. It may never be necessary, but if I were to cancel an appointment on my end and a client were to be at a loss, they should then be compensated by the booking fee amount, plus their booking fee returned. I would be prepared to do this if there was an actual loss, where I had not given 48 hours notice.

MarkAnthony

I expect it's regularly enforced in the small claims process. All legislation is open to interpretation.

The point you make about a consumer being able to go elsewhere isn't the point and is not always the case. Even where it is the likelihood is the entire industry adopts a similar set of T&Cs. In standard form contracts legislation has to intervene to balance the rights of the consumer. Next time you're buying a TV or phone service see how far you get trying to vary the standard contract.

There is no need for the consumer to be at a loss, the regulation does not require that. It's there in part to stop suppliers from charging onerous deposits. If they are going to be at a potential loss then they are going to only ask for what they genuinely need to cover themselves.

What you do with your own T&Cs is a matter for you and your legal rep, of course, but fail to meet the requirements of the regulations and attempt to keep a deposit, for genuine reasons or not getting a judgement against you shouldn't be difficult for the consumer for €25 and filling in a form.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What you do with your own T&Cs is a matter for you and your legal rep, of course, but fail to meet the requirements of the regulations and attempt to keep a deposit, for genuine reasons or not getting a judgement against you shouldn't be difficult for the consumer for €25 and filling in a form.

A client and his solicitor last year certainly didn't feel confident in getting a judgement after being charged the full amount due. My own solicitor seemed to agree that my terms and conditions were more than reasonable and would have stood firm in the circumstances. Of course, one can never know what a Judge would rule in any given scenario and it's often not worth the fight even if you are confident of winning.

MarkAnthony

goz83 wrote: »

A client and his solicitor last year certainly didn't feel confident in getting a judgement after being charged the full amount due. My own solicitor seemed to agree that my terms and conditions were more than reasonable and would have stood firm in the circumstances. Of course, one can never know what a Judge would rule in any given scenario and it's often not worth the fight even if you are confident of winning.

If you're a one man/woman operation and the terms are individually negotiated the regulations do not apply. These regulations are there to protect consumers dealing with large companies. That said if it's a standard form contract they would arguably still apply but it's not as clear cut as the relationship when one is dealing with an employee of a company with no ability to alter the contract.

I don't know what you do, perhaps your services run to over €2000 a shot, not bad for 90 minutes work. Why solicitors were involved if the amounts were under that is beyond me. I wouldn't be so sure if it was a lay litigant, wanting to prove his or her point using the small claims procedure that you'd avoid having to pay.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If you're a one man/woman operation and the terms are individually negotiated the regulations do not apply. These regulations are there to protect consumers dealing with large companies. That said if it's a standard form contract they would arguably still apply but it's not as clear cut as the relationship when one is dealing with an employee of a company with no ability to alter the contract.

I don't know what you do, perhaps your services run to over €2000 a shot, not bad for 90 minutes work. Why solicitors were involved if the amounts were under that is beyond me. I wouldn't be so sure if it was a lay litigant, wanting to prove his or her point using the small claims procedure that you'd avoid having to pay.

2k for 90 minutes? Maybe if I went back to sales. Suffice to say that the client referred to was a bully and attmpted to discredit my business, which for the most part, is just me. It all backfired on him and after several days of lone protest, it resulted in a small boost to my business, which was not his intention. He went to a solicitor who sent a letter, to which I replied with my terms and conditions attached. I had a visit with my solicitor for something non business related and brought up the situation at the end of the meeting.

MarkAnthony

goz83 wrote: »

2k for 90 minutes? Maybe if I went back to sales. Suffice to say that the client referred to was a bully and attmpted to discredit my business, which for the most part, is just me. It all backfired on him and after several days of lone protest, it resulted in a small boost to my business, which was not his intention. He went to a solicitor who sent a letter, to which I replied with my terms and conditions attached. I had a visit with my solicitor for something non business related and brought up the situation at the end of the meeting.

I don't really see how the situation fits the regs but they are what they are. Personally I think they're fair and serve a good purpose. I don't think businesses should be at a loss but neither do I think they should be able to run on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition either. Many seem to side with the business until it's their money and a perceived unfairness.

Again very easily got around for a small business by individually negotiating the term.

Dunno what you'd be selling at > €2000 for 90 minutes :pac: