we paid for 5 years to my sons private school which he had been at since he was 4. as part of their terms and conditions is was complusory to pay it even if we said we didnt want it they would still charge it anyway, but i thought it would be useful for a rainy day etc etc. we never got any details about who this insurance was with, leaflets nothing.

we have tried twice to claim on it once in 2006 when my partner lost his company but as he was considered self employed did not cover him, i do not work anyway.

so we struggled on with the fees with help from grandparents as money wass getting tighter as well. in 2008 my partner lost his employment and we could not afford the fees as well as pay for the house etc. in the summer term april 2008 we were put under considerable strain to come up with the money so we tried to claim again. the school basically said pay up or we will send your son (9 years old) to the headmaster and tell him hes got to leave the school because his parents havnt paid the money for him to be there.

we took him out because he could hve just walked out the school by himself i dont know what effect it would have on him.

we then tried various ways to get loans, remortaging( joking) anything but no luck. we then tried again to claim on the insurance and we had to ask the school for the insurance company to send details so that we could claim. it turned out my son had been taken off the list and we couldnt.

can anyone advise if a school can sell insurance that is compulsory?

Have you got anything in writing showing what it says about insurance? Could you scan it and post it here, removing all personal markers?

At first reading, it looks like a giant [problem]. You can't be forced to sign to something if you're not given full T&Cs and other information, and considering you wouldn't be covered no matter what due to the self-employed thing, talk of money for nothing!

Did you find out who the insurance company was? We really need more info here.

hi thanks so much for getting back a lot of people dis me because i sent my son to a private school

in answer to your question we never got any leaflets signed anything other than the schools terms and conditions. we never who the insurance was suppossed to be with until we tried to claim in 2006 when my partner could not claim because he was self employed.

just to let you know we went to court yesterday over the outstanding school fees you have to give a terms notice of leaving and as they threatened us by telling he would be sent to the headmaster and told he had to leave etc we withdrew him the next day. this was 3 weeks into the summer term.

their action got stayed until our claim for basically the mis selling of insurance and other claims which we are considering are settled. which is a victory in a way.

i spoke to HSBC insurance brokers yesterday and they say that they make it quite clear that it is optional anyway a letter is going to them requesting information. other schools i have noted on the internet only recommend it and give the normal bit about taking independent adivice but not this school. i have noted that the solicitors that the school used to take us to court have had an investigaton into their terms and conditions that independent schools use and stated that they are unfair.

can i pursue this as a type of ppi misselling?

thanks so much

Yes, that's what I was heading for. ;-)

Have a read there:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/61081-ppi-some-notes-claimants.html

although the post is about loans, it's still relevant.

My worry is that the school itself won't come under the FSA umbrella, obviously. Your recourse would then be against HSBC themselves, after all it is presumably them who got the money for the insurance, but you really need to follow the paper trail to work out who got what.

As for being dissed for sending your child to private school, well, I have my opinions on the subject, but they're irrelevant in this instance, you're a consumer in need of help, that's what matters. ;-) We try not to judge on here.

If they sell you insurance which it is impossible for you to claim on, that is mis-selling. The fact that your husband was classed as self-employed should have been taken into consideration as to whether the policy was suitable or not. If it was compulsory and not suitable, then I would say that the contract term that required it was an unfair term under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

 

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

 

© making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

 

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

 

(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

 

(o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

The court sems to have recognised all this in staying the case. So yes, a small victory. Don't give up, go for the rest. You should claim back all the insurance payments right back to day 1. If this is longer ago than 6 years, then you should invove s32 of the Liitations Act 1980

32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake

 

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either--

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant;

or

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

 

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

hi thanks for all the support everybody i promise to donate when i get my 12000 pounds back from lloyds in excess charges which is with the ombudsman.

anyway i didnt mention that i googled the name of the solicitors who represent the school and found that they have been investigated by the office of fair trading on guess what unfair terms and conditions. i didnt go into the room but i was at the court (i had my son with me) but the burser went in with the barrister and the school was told off by the judge for no mediation and secondly the solicitors had bombarded the court with faxes so were told off again.

i am confused as to whom to go after as when i called the HSBC who the insurance is with i was put through to the director, well she's got a letter coming to her now. she acted very cagey