Reclaim course fees - AA/BSM for training / support to become a driving instructor

[Manxman in exile]

4 hours ago, gaterguts1 said:

...

 

I contacted the coordinator of AA training and explained my situation; that in spite of my firm initial intentions to complete the training I had been forced to re-evaluate what I was doing because of the unforeseen impact of the coronavirus pandemic. After this discussion the AA agreed to suspend my training until I returned from Hong Kong.

 

Although I initially accepted this I reconsidered and made contact again to suggest that £2k was a lot of money to pay out and leave sitting ...

 

Isn't this the problem - that the OP agreed to suspend the training and (presumably) agreed to allow AA/BSM to retain the £2k?

 

Isn't this like those people who've had a flight or holiday cancelled because of Covid?  Yes, they were entitled to a refund, but... if they've agreed to accept vouchers, or some other form of credit... where does that leave them?

 

And that's before deciding whether it's a consumer or business contract.

 

Although... despite what the T&Cs may say, they can't determine what is or is not a consumer contract, can they?  By definition the OP can't be carrying out a trade or a profession because he's not qualified to do so - that's the whole point of the training in the first place.  Or are we saying that all professional and trade examinations are business to business.  Law Society exams?  Accountancy exams?  Are they all B2B?

[Manxman in exile]

I suppose that what seems counterintuitive to me is that if you need to hold a particular qualification before you can practise or engage in a particular profession or trade, that the provision of training to gain the required qualification(s) should be seen as practising or carrying out that profession or trade - and hence a business transaction - even though the trainee can't yet be doing so.

 

Does that mean that the provision of all strictly "non-educational" training for the purpose of gaining a professional or "trade" qualification is to be treated as B2B?

 

I simply have difficulty getting my head around the idea that training can be within an "... individual’s trade, business, craft or profession" when the individual is prevented from practising any trade etc precisely because they do not yet hold the required qualifications and that is why they are training in the first place.

[Manxman in exile]

An unqualified doctor is the consumer of the organisation providing their medical training - likewise unqualified solicitors and accountants.  Once that trainee has qualified, they are permitted to practise their profession and to provide their services to unsuspecting consumers of those services.

 

If a trainee fails all their exams and thus is unable to qualify to practise their profession, are we saying that whilst training they are acting in a trade or profession even though as a point of fact they never actually reach the point of doing so?

 

I'm not saying my view is the correct one - just that I see a significant difference between being engaged in training in preparation to join a trade a trade or profession, and actually practising that trade or profession.  In terms of relative bargaining power, knowledge etc, the position of an unqualified trainee is really no more advantageous then that of a consumer.

 

Much as I hate the idea of seeing undergraduates as consumers of degree services provided by universities, I don't think professional trainees are any less consumers, except that the former are mostly being educated (sometimes with an element of training) and the latter are mostly being trained (often with an element of education).

 

I must admit I'd never really thought about this before reading this thread, and the idea that training to qualify to do a job was a business transaction had really never struck me.

 

What would you say was the position of an undergraduate student straight out of school starting a nursing degree?  Is that a business transaction from the law's point of view, or a consumer one?

[Manxman in exile]

On 01/01/2021 at 11:27, Ethel Street said:

 

Let's see what OP says when he gets a reply from AA/BSM about the full -vs- installments payments issue. I wondered if the standard T&C included a clause that said that installment plan payers had to pay the full amount immediately if they cancelled but I couldn't see anything like that in the T&C. There could be other payment plan documentation that covers it.

 

 

 

I wondered about that as well.  I thought that there might be something in the T&Cs to say that the FULL amount was payable - not just whatever the trainee had paid to date.  But I can't see anything either.  The T&Cs don't seem very comprehensive to be honest - I'm surprised they aren't more detailed.

 

I think the consumer/business distinction is quite interesting, but agree it may be a distraction here.

 

Having a varied academic and professional history myself and also having been involved in the commissioning and monitoring of training contracts for non-medical NHS clinical staff, I probably take a particular interest in such questions.

 

Generally I'm quite clear about where education ends and training starts!