Labels

If Your Child is Suspended, No Trip and No Refund” – Why I’m Fighting This Clause, and Why You Might Need To As Well

Let me tell you about a battle I’m still fighting.

A few months ago, my child was offered a place on a school trip. It was during school hours, on regular school days - not a holiday add-on, not an optional extra in the usual sense. But it came with a price tag: £85.

Now, I know my rights. I know that for activities during school time, schools can only request voluntary contributions. Technically, I could have offered £1 and challenged any refusal. But I didn’t. I paid the full amount straight away. I didn’t want my child to miss out - and the parents were told it was first-come, first served.

Then came the terms and conditions.

A clause that said:

“Suspensions = no trip and no refunds.”

A charging policy that states:

“Removal from the activity due to poor behaviour may result in the child being removed from the activity. Removal from the activity due to poor behaviour will result in the parent being liable for the costs incurred by the school for their child's place.”

And a behaviour policy that states: 

“Any student who has been suspended from school during a specific half-term cannot represent their cohort or school during the same term. This includes but is not exhausted to: Drama productions, Sports day, Off-site activities and Music performances.

At first, it looked like just another school behaviour policy. But actually, it’s far more serious than that - because not only is it a blanket condition (See our section of Behaviour Policies), but it’s tied to a financial transaction, and that makes it a consumer contract.

The Clause That Crosses the Line

Here’s what this combination of terms and conditions and policy really means:

  • If your child is suspended at any point before the trip (even for unrelated reasons), they don’t go.

  • And even if the school hasn't spent your money or lost anything from your child not going...

  • You don’t get a penny back.

This is not a school rule.
This is a contractual penalty disguised as a policy.
And it’s one I’ve now spent months fighting - being told time and time again:

“Policy states…”
“We had committed costs…”
“We explained this at the time…”

But here’s the truth: policy is not law.
And the law does not permit the transfer of financial risk to someone who wasn’t properly informed that they were accepting that risk.

That’s what’s happening here - and I’m not letting it go.

Why This Is Still Ongoing

At the time of writing, I’m still in dispute with the school. I've raised it multiple times with leadership, and now, after pushing and pushing, I’ve officially escalated to stage 3 of the school's complaints policy, meaning a meeting with the representatives of the governing body.

I’ve asked questions. Reasonable ones.

  • What actual cost did the school incur for my child specifically?

  • What part of the £85 is unrecoverable?

  • Why does a behaviour issue - which is already dealt with through internal discipline - justify a financial penalty?

  • And Consumer Rights?

I’ve had no clear answers.

Just references to “policy”, “precedent”, and “commitments” made behind closed doors with external providers. But again, those commitments were not mine , and I was never told I’d be held financially liable if the school decided to withdraw my child over behaviour.

That’s not a policy - that’s an unfair contract term.

Unfair Contract Terms Are Not Binding

Let’s be absolutely clear here: even if a parent “agrees” to a term - if that term creates a significant imbalance between the parties, it can be found unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and yes, this is even if you've ticked an 'I agree' box on an online form.

It’s not transparent, it’s not balanced, and it transfers all the risk onto parents, which is Illegal.

“Committed Costs” Is Not a Blank Cheque

Another phrase I keep hearing is: “We had already committed the funds,” or "The finance team have determined the cost you paid was the cost that was lost". Convienient, I agree.

But “committed” is not the same as “lost.”

The law says that a business (yes, including a school acting as a service provider) is only entitled to retain payments where they’ve suffered actual loss. That means they must show:

  • Money was spent specifically on your child, and

  • That money can’t be recovered, reused, or transferred.

Without that, they have no right to keep the payment.
If they do? That’s not recovering costs - that’s keeping money they didn’t earn.

And again that’s illegal.

So Where Am I Now?

As I said - this fight is ongoing. I’ve got a meeting coming up with the school’s governors, and I’ll be raising all of this. Not just for my own child, but because I’m certain I’m not the only one being pushed around by vague “policies” that don’t hold up legally.

This kind of clause — Suspension = no refund” - sounds clean and simple on paper. But in practice, it’s just a way to:

  • Shift risk to families who weren’t told they were taking it on

  • Tie behaviour enforcement to financial penalties

  • Shut down any discussion with “It’s our policy”

And I don’t think that should stand.

Policy Is Not Law. And Law Protects You.

Let me say it again: policy is not law.

A school can write whatever it wants into a form - but if it’s not lawful, it’s not enforceable. The Consumer Rights Act exists to protect people from exactly this sort of imbalance - where one party (in this case, a school) writes all the rules and leaves the other (a parent) without any real choice or redress.

So if you’re reading this and thinking, “That happened to me too,” - know this:

You’re not being difficult, and you’re not wrong to push back.

Final Word (for now…)

I’ll report back once I’ve had the meeting with the governors.
But whatever happens, this won’t stop here - because this issue is bigger than just one trip.

It’s about holding schools accountable when they step beyond what the law allows.

It’s about making sure parents aren’t treated like ATMs for disciplinary decisions.

And it’s about reminding everyone that consumer protection doesn’t disappear at the school gate, 

If I win this, I’m not just taking my £85 and walking away quietly.

This isn’t about one payment or one child anymore. It’s about the principle - and the hundreds of other families who’ve likely been caught by the same unfair clause.

If I’m proven right - and I believe I will be - I’ll be demanding that every child who was excluded under this policy be offered their money back, not just mine.

And I won’t stop there.

This kind of clause isn’t isolated. It's embedded in schools across the country, hiding behind vague policies and unchecked power. So once this is settled locally, I’ll be taking the win nationally - pushing for proper scrutiny, parent awareness, and legal accountability for every school using financial penalties to control behaviour.

Matt

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment