Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Nursery - Threatening Debt Recovery After We Requested Our Child Be Removed **RESOLVED**

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 344 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

On Friday 24th of February, we sent an e-mail requesting the immediate removal of our baby daughter from our nursery which I am happy to name if necessary. There are several incidents that have pushed us into this decision.



there have been several occasions that our daughter was inappropriately dressed after visiting the nursery. This includes missing socks, missing shoes and even missing nappies.



the Nursery failed an Ofsted late last year. They received inadequate in EVERY category and were failed accordingly with a result of Inadequate overall. Ofsted made reference to children eating apples off the floor (which even made local news, so some googling on your part would find the nursery pretty quickly), in some cases which had been trodden on and made statements to the effect of "children were left to fend for themselves".


This failed report wasn't enough to convince us to remove her, as we appreciate that any business can have a bad day and we for the most part, we believed they meant well.



the final straw came on Friday of last week. After our family battled one of the worst Novovirus experiences I've ever had (5 days of vomiting) and yet not knowing where this had come from, I phoned the nursery and was informed of an outbreak that had occurred in the baby room the previous week. This wasn't communicated through at al to us. In fact, no illnesses have ever been communicated to us which is staggering considering she's been there for over 6 months. This was the final straw.


The nursery have since contacted us and demand a huge overpayment of what we expected and threatening to pass the debt to a collection agency if we don't resolve this now. We do not challenge that she attended Nursery over February and that a payment remains outstanding. However I strongly challenge the figure they are presenting. 


On top of this they want

- Payment for 3 days that she was not in Nursery over half-term in October. We have copies of documents that we filled in before she started at the Nursery, that specifically state that we did NOT intend to take her in over half-term and we stuck to this. We also have an e-mail that we sent where we asked them to amend the invoice for October because they had included half-term. We did not pay the additional monies and paid our usual fee. This was not challenged at the time


- The rest of a 12 month payment plan. They claim we have signed a 12 month contract. I am yet to see anything which claims that we are locked into a 12 month contract though and I have all the documents that we sent. What I do have seen is a statement that the nursery requires 4 weeks of notice before a child can be removed and that monthly payments are calculated over a 12 month period to factor in August. This is not the same as being locked into a contract, this is merely adjusting the payments so that August (which includes 6 weeks holiday) are also covered as the school is closed.


Additionally, we have reviewed the original agreement that was made via e-mail and incredibly we have actually been overpaying by £57 a month. The original agreement was £487 yet they were demanding payment of £536 and we have been happily paying for this. I did not challenge this at the time, as this was mostly arranged by my partner.


We are happy to pay the days she attended for February and if it solves a problem, we will pay for the 2 additional days that she didn't attend in February. However, I strongly contest that these chancers have any legal grounding hence coming here for some expert advice. Does their failure of Ofsted etc constitute a contractual breakdown? They proudly hang on a sign on the front of their business claiming to be Ofsted Outstanding. Clearly that isn't the case.


Anything you can provide would be wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

debt collectors are not and can never be bailiffs.


if you have overpaid by £xx over xx mts.

then write it out in a letter.

clearly stating you do/do not owe them any money and will gladly see them in court should they wish to chance their arm regarding the above details.



  • Like 2

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OkYeah said:

Does their failure of Ofsted etc constitute a contractual breakdown? They proudly hang on a sign on the front of their business claiming to be Ofsted Outstanding. Clearly that isn't the case.


The banner is mere advertising and as such is not a term of their contract with you. Unless the contract commits them to retaining a certain Ofsted grade - and I'm certain it won't - then being downgraded by Ofsted is unlikely to have any contractual significance.


False advertising may be a breach of advertising regulations and you could report it to Trading Standards if you feel so inclined. Don't expect Trading Standards to do anything much though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This played out reasonably well. I phoned the owner and discussed the situation. Both my partner and her were incorrect in their maths and it took about 30 seconds with a calculator to resolve that. 


She was happy not to honour the 12 months contract so long as we paid off the balance in full.


Can't complain with that outcome. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Nursery - Threatening Debt Recovery After We Requested Our Child Be Removed **RESOLVED**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...