This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A colleague (truly it's not me!) registered for a "complimentary" conference.
They ticked a box to accept T&Cs but (most unwisely) didn't read them.
They then were unable to attend for medical reasons (a root canal).
They have now received a very large bill (>£500).
The T&Cs do say that there is a no show fee, but this is nowhere on the marketing blurb which holds the event out as free.
It seems disproportionately expensive for not taking up the place.
It also received no prominence in the promotion, when it's a very material condition.
Is it enforceable? Is it an "unfair contract term"? Would the organiser need to demonstrate loss to enforce (hard to do for a free conference)?
I'm happy to have jokes, comments, abuse, whatever; in fact I'd welcome all of those. The only thing I ask is that you identify whether or not you have any qualification (probably legal) that means I should pay attention to your advice!
Thanks for your help
They ticked a box to accept T&Cs but (most unwisely) didn't read them.
They then were unable to attend for medical reasons (a root canal).
They have now received a very large bill (>£500).
The T&Cs do say that there is a no show fee, but this is nowhere on the marketing blurb which holds the event out as free.
It seems disproportionately expensive for not taking up the place.
It also received no prominence in the promotion, when it's a very material condition.
Is it enforceable? Is it an "unfair contract term"? Would the organiser need to demonstrate loss to enforce (hard to do for a free conference)?
I'm happy to have jokes, comments, abuse, whatever; in fact I'd welcome all of those. The only thing I ask is that you identify whether or not you have any qualification (probably legal) that means I should pay attention to your advice!
Thanks for your help
1
In reply to JJL:
Have they admitted not attending? If not, maybe the organisers 'have an error in their attendance records'...
Have they admitted not attending? If not, maybe the organisers 'have an error in their attendance records'...
3
In reply to JJL:
Hi there, it's not unusual on some of the conference circuits. E.g the Ellen MacArthur series on Circular Econmy has it as standard in its ts and Cs although only 50 quid. The amount varies, but it is usually there in the info.
Hi there, it's not unusual on some of the conference circuits. E.g the Ellen MacArthur series on Circular Econmy has it as standard in its ts and Cs although only 50 quid. The amount varies, but it is usually there in the info.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
What, a fee for not going to something that was free to go to?! Never heard of such a thing, I'd tell them to get f*cked.
What, a fee for not going to something that was free to go to?! Never heard of such a thing, I'd tell them to get f*cked.
3
In reply to JJL:
Free conferences aren't really free, someone is paying. The issue is that people are happy to sign up on a whim and not turn up because they haven't paid for it. Blocking someone else from attending. And if loads of people do this, making the conference a bit of a farce. In bio science conference fees are usually about £500 for a 3 day conference so if the penalty for non attendance was such then it would make sense.
How much notice did the non attendee give?
Free conferences aren't really free, someone is paying. The issue is that people are happy to sign up on a whim and not turn up because they haven't paid for it. Blocking someone else from attending. And if loads of people do this, making the conference a bit of a farce. In bio science conference fees are usually about £500 for a 3 day conference so if the penalty for non attendance was such then it would make sense.
How much notice did the non attendee give?
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
Almost none - they may even have been a no show; I don't know exactly.
The invoice has now arrived. And the no show fee is for each of the round table discusisons - so it's over £2000!
I get the point about it being paid for by someone, but presumably if everyone turns up then nobody pays?!
Almost none - they may even have been a no show; I don't know exactly.
The invoice has now arrived. And the no show fee is for each of the round table discusisons - so it's over £2000!
I get the point about it being paid for by someone, but presumably if everyone turns up then nobody pays?!
In reply to JJL:
Eek.
The sponsor pays.
jk
> The invoice has now arrived. And the no show fee is for each of the round table discusisons - so it's over £2000!
Eek.
> I get the point about it being paid for by someone, but presumably if everyone turns up then nobody pays?!
The sponsor pays.
jk
In reply to JJL:
The cynic in me wonders if this is part of their business model as extra revenue.
> The invoice has now arrived. And the no show fee is for each of the round table discusisons - so it's over £2000!
The cynic in me wonders if this is part of their business model as extra revenue.
2
In reply to Dax H:
I wondered that, too. But then I'm a cynic...
> The cynic in me wonders if this is part of their business model as extra revenue.
I wondered that, too. But then I'm a cynic...
In reply to JJL:
Conferences aint cheap, as somebody else has pointed out. If it is free to the attendee then somebody else is paying and they want to get something out of this. They don't get this if nobody is there.
e.g. a supplier of tools for a particular industry sponsors a conference on new thinking in that industry. Attendees are bombarded with the supplier's marketing guff during the 3 days and the supplier hopes that by association with new thinking, the industry leading lights (middle management) that attended the conference will get their employers to buy the supplier's tools.
That of course doesn't address your question of enforcability of the charges - sorry.
Conferences aint cheap, as somebody else has pointed out. If it is free to the attendee then somebody else is paying and they want to get something out of this. They don't get this if nobody is there.
e.g. a supplier of tools for a particular industry sponsors a conference on new thinking in that industry. Attendees are bombarded with the supplier's marketing guff during the 3 days and the supplier hopes that by association with new thinking, the industry leading lights (middle management) that attended the conference will get their employers to buy the supplier's tools.
That of course doesn't address your question of enforcability of the charges - sorry.
Post edited at 12:57
In reply to JJL:
Is there anything about medical emergencies in the terms and conditions...I was wondering if perhaps they could go to their dentist and ask to have something written up stating it as such, due to intense pain (he could mention it being painful when he asks)?
There's rules and there's the human capacity to lie & fudge
Is there anything about medical emergencies in the terms and conditions...I was wondering if perhaps they could go to their dentist and ask to have something written up stating it as such, due to intense pain (he could mention it being painful when he asks)?
There's rules and there's the human capacity to lie & fudge
Post edited at 13:11
In reply to JJL:
It does sound like a con, however if we knew what the conference was about it would give a better context. Your friend was blocking someone else attending and I assume the conference needs a certain number of attendees to "work",so your friend not attending may/probably have cost. Having said that it does sound like an unfair term and condition which is probably unenforceable unless it was in a B2B context, when it may be.
It does sound like a con, however if we knew what the conference was about it would give a better context. Your friend was blocking someone else attending and I assume the conference needs a certain number of attendees to "work",so your friend not attending may/probably have cost. Having said that it does sound like an unfair term and condition which is probably unenforceable unless it was in a B2B context, when it may be.
In reply to JJL:
It's fairly common, but the numbers you are talking about seem excessive and you are usually up front about it.
It's fairly common, but the numbers you are talking about seem excessive and you are usually up front about it.
In reply to JJL:
The organisers are probably being paid for every body through the door and costs are more or less fixed, that means less money for the organiser, so there is a cost to the organiser.
You will have a better idea than me if the invoice levied reasonably reflects those costs, or if it's a penalty. A penalty of course wouldn't be enforceable.
I'm not a lawyer.
The organisers are probably being paid for every body through the door and costs are more or less fixed, that means less money for the organiser, so there is a cost to the organiser.
You will have a better idea than me if the invoice levied reasonably reflects those costs, or if it's a penalty. A penalty of course wouldn't be enforceable.
I'm not a lawyer.
In reply to Dax H:
Me too. I've had my arm twisted a few times to present or take part in panel discussions at not particularly interesting conferences with the offer of having all my fees and accommodation paid. They are very persistent and extremely keen for me to sign up miles ahead of the date, even though I explain that it's very possible that something else will crop up to which I would need to give priority. This doesn't bother them at all, although it seems to me that there's very little point building a conference programme around speakers who have specifically said that they can't guarantee to attend.
Then I spot the small print that I'm liable for all the fees if I can't attend...
> The cynic in me wonders if this is part of their business model as extra revenue.
Me too. I've had my arm twisted a few times to present or take part in panel discussions at not particularly interesting conferences with the offer of having all my fees and accommodation paid. They are very persistent and extremely keen for me to sign up miles ahead of the date, even though I explain that it's very possible that something else will crop up to which I would need to give priority. This doesn't bother them at all, although it seems to me that there's very little point building a conference programme around speakers who have specifically said that they can't guarantee to attend.
Then I spot the small print that I'm liable for all the fees if I can't attend...
In reply to JJL:
The first thing you need to do assuming this was a website sign-up is get a copy of everything before they tear it down and you have no evidence of how they were presenting the conference up to the Accept Terms and Conditions tick box.
Then you need to either ignore them or refer them to your lawyers to see how serious they are. They could well just be trying to scoop some money off people who roll over quickly and have no stomach for the costs and reputational damage (if it resulted in publicity about their rip-off practices) involved in chasing those that don't. The time to give them the £2K is when it is absolutely clear they will go to court and your lawyer is saying it is going to cost more than £2K to fight, not the first time they ask for it.
The first thing you need to do assuming this was a website sign-up is get a copy of everything before they tear it down and you have no evidence of how they were presenting the conference up to the Accept Terms and Conditions tick box.
Then you need to either ignore them or refer them to your lawyers to see how serious they are. They could well just be trying to scoop some money off people who roll over quickly and have no stomach for the costs and reputational damage (if it resulted in publicity about their rip-off practices) involved in chasing those that don't. The time to give them the £2K is when it is absolutely clear they will go to court and your lawyer is saying it is going to cost more than £2K to fight, not the first time they ask for it.
Post edited at 13:47
3
In reply to JJL:
Ok, I'm not a lawyer but...
As I understand it, the organisers could only claim for losses they have actually suffered as a result of the participant not attending. If sponsors were paying them £2k for everyone who showed up (seems unlikely) then they would have a case, but if the amount is purely there as punitive damages then I think it would be considered an unfair contract by the courts.
Secondly, everyone has a duty to mitigate which means they have a duty to minimise any losses they suffer through the actions of others and can only claim for unavoidable losses. Personally, I would say conferences like this have to expect a certain number of no-shows and overbook accordingly. If they haven't done this I think a court would say they have not shown sufficient effort to minimise their losses and, again, would be unlikely to be able to claim the full amount.
In short, for the sum billed I'd say it's well worth getting a legal opinion.
Ok, I'm not a lawyer but...
As I understand it, the organisers could only claim for losses they have actually suffered as a result of the participant not attending. If sponsors were paying them £2k for everyone who showed up (seems unlikely) then they would have a case, but if the amount is purely there as punitive damages then I think it would be considered an unfair contract by the courts.
Secondly, everyone has a duty to mitigate which means they have a duty to minimise any losses they suffer through the actions of others and can only claim for unavoidable losses. Personally, I would say conferences like this have to expect a certain number of no-shows and overbook accordingly. If they haven't done this I think a court would say they have not shown sufficient effort to minimise their losses and, again, would be unlikely to be able to claim the full amount.
In short, for the sum billed I'd say it's well worth getting a legal opinion.
2
In reply to BarrySW19:
I don't think the organisers would have a leg to stand on unless it was made clear on the booking form/conditions that a "no show" fee would be charged.
I recently attended a refresher First Aid course which was "free". However the booking conditions clearly stated that there was a £75 fee chargable if you failed to attend.
Fair enough every one knew where they stood.
I don't think the organisers would have a leg to stand on unless it was made clear on the booking form/conditions that a "no show" fee would be charged.
I recently attended a refresher First Aid course which was "free". However the booking conditions clearly stated that there was a £75 fee chargable if you failed to attend.
Fair enough every one knew where they stood.
In reply to JJL:
The bill sounds excessive, but the principle of charging no shows is often necessary as people sadly tend to take the piss if an event is free. I've attended events where you pay on booking and are refunded when you actually attend.
The bill sounds excessive, but the principle of charging no shows is often necessary as people sadly tend to take the piss if an event is free. I've attended events where you pay on booking and are refunded when you actually attend.
In reply to JJL:
It seems to me that the conference place was made as a gift, not a contract. As far as I know receiving a gift does not make you liable under contract law if you don't use it. That's the first line I'd try.
Say that the non attender genuinely believed he was being offered the place as a gift and that this was how it was represented to him by the website using the term "complimentary" and therefore he was not under any obligation to read any terms and conditions anyway, and would never have expected any penalty clauses.
It seems a bit dodgy to me as presumably they wanted to "employ" the non attender to be present in the round table discussions but weren't providing any remuneration.
(Law degree, many years ago, but I'm not a lawyer)
It seems to me that the conference place was made as a gift, not a contract. As far as I know receiving a gift does not make you liable under contract law if you don't use it. That's the first line I'd try.
Say that the non attender genuinely believed he was being offered the place as a gift and that this was how it was represented to him by the website using the term "complimentary" and therefore he was not under any obligation to read any terms and conditions anyway, and would never have expected any penalty clauses.
It seems a bit dodgy to me as presumably they wanted to "employ" the non attender to be present in the round table discussions but weren't providing any remuneration.
(Law degree, many years ago, but I'm not a lawyer)
Post edited at 15:55
1
In reply to JJL:
Charges for non attendance at conferences are common in my industry. I have no idea how enforceable they are although in general, a Credit Card is required at time of booking so that puts the organiser in a better place than yours who is trying to get you to physically pay up (rather than just debiting the card supplied).
However - on a reputational and relationship basis I've found that the conferences can be cancelled at the last minute without issue. Indeed they are generally so keen to sign up attendees that 6 months ahead when they are trying to get your name on list, if you raise cancelation/last minute changes in plans as a concern and reason you don't want to commit they generally say that's fine, just let us know etc.
So - The practice is common, I've never had a problem cancelling on short notice when I need to and I'd imagine simply having a word, explaining it was an unavoidable medical emergency and surely as they will want you and colleagues to attend in future they are not going to be daft enough to actually enforce the charge (and have you and your firm never ever attend one of their events again) will probably be enough to make it go away. Along with a few comments about how charging you would damage their reputation and make people less likely to commit in future.
If that doesn't work get legal input (which I'm afraid I cant supply) - I do suspect that commercial common sense will prevail if you handle the situation right. Also, in my office, if I commit to a work conference my expenses to attend would be paid by employer and that would include cancelation - my employer wouldn't expect me to be personally liable for a work conference... so I hope your company will step in and either pay or provide legal expertise - its a work issue, not a personal one surely.
Charges for non attendance at conferences are common in my industry. I have no idea how enforceable they are although in general, a Credit Card is required at time of booking so that puts the organiser in a better place than yours who is trying to get you to physically pay up (rather than just debiting the card supplied).
However - on a reputational and relationship basis I've found that the conferences can be cancelled at the last minute without issue. Indeed they are generally so keen to sign up attendees that 6 months ahead when they are trying to get your name on list, if you raise cancelation/last minute changes in plans as a concern and reason you don't want to commit they generally say that's fine, just let us know etc.
So - The practice is common, I've never had a problem cancelling on short notice when I need to and I'd imagine simply having a word, explaining it was an unavoidable medical emergency and surely as they will want you and colleagues to attend in future they are not going to be daft enough to actually enforce the charge (and have you and your firm never ever attend one of their events again) will probably be enough to make it go away. Along with a few comments about how charging you would damage their reputation and make people less likely to commit in future.
If that doesn't work get legal input (which I'm afraid I cant supply) - I do suspect that commercial common sense will prevail if you handle the situation right. Also, in my office, if I commit to a work conference my expenses to attend would be paid by employer and that would include cancelation - my employer wouldn't expect me to be personally liable for a work conference... so I hope your company will step in and either pay or provide legal expertise - its a work issue, not a personal one surely.
In reply to JJL:
Not a lawyer.
Perfectly sensible advice above about the organisers needing to demonstrate loss etc, but also - did your 'friend' sign a hard copy of the T&Cs, or fill in a form on t'internet? Were they ever given a hard copy? In order to properly constitute a contract, it's often the case that these terms have to be provided in a durable form - ie not just on a website.
So, if they didn't send a letter or email containing the terms and conditions, they may not be enforceable in any case, regardless of further losses for the organisers.
Not a lawyer.
Perfectly sensible advice above about the organisers needing to demonstrate loss etc, but also - did your 'friend' sign a hard copy of the T&Cs, or fill in a form on t'internet? Were they ever given a hard copy? In order to properly constitute a contract, it's often the case that these terms have to be provided in a durable form - ie not just on a website.
So, if they didn't send a letter or email containing the terms and conditions, they may not be enforceable in any case, regardless of further losses for the organisers.
In reply to JayPee630:
Our Scout County subsidises Leader training courses if you attend or cancel with sufficient notice. If you don't, a fee is charged, because they only subsidise it once, and the money will already be spent.
Our Scout County subsidises Leader training courses if you attend or cancel with sufficient notice. If you don't, a fee is charged, because they only subsidise it once, and the money will already be spent.
In reply to Ferret:
This is what I was expecting... but having explained, their response was "tough, your colleague ticked the box". I suspect it's a form of mild extortion and fully part of how they make money.
The issue is that if we dispute it they will, presumably, add solicitor costs to the bill...
> So - The practice is common, I've never had a problem cancelling on short notice when I need to and I'd imagine simply having a word, explaining it was an unavoidable medical emergency and surely as they will want you and colleagues to attend in future they are not going to be daft enough to actually enforce the charge (and have you and your firm never ever attend one of their events again) will probably be enough to make it go away. Along with a few comments about how charging you would damage their reputation and make people less likely to commit in future.
This is what I was expecting... but having explained, their response was "tough, your colleague ticked the box". I suspect it's a form of mild extortion and fully part of how they make money.
The issue is that if we dispute it they will, presumably, add solicitor costs to the bill...
In reply to JJL:
Take a look at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made
With particular reference to schedule 10: if there was any right to cancel (and there should have been) then it was their legal obligation to send him BOTH details of the process AND a copy of the form required, in a durable form.
If they didn't, look at schedule 19: they've committed an offence which carries a financial penalty.
Plus, in these cases, they have to prove that they complied with the law, rather than you having to prove they didn't.
Seek a solicitor's advice. Or gaffa tape up your @rsehole and threaten to report them to trading standards.
Take a look at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made
With particular reference to schedule 10: if there was any right to cancel (and there should have been) then it was their legal obligation to send him BOTH details of the process AND a copy of the form required, in a durable form.
If they didn't, look at schedule 19: they've committed an offence which carries a financial penalty.
Plus, in these cases, they have to prove that they complied with the law, rather than you having to prove they didn't.
Seek a solicitor's advice. Or gaffa tape up your @rsehole and threaten to report them to trading standards.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
that's probably distinguishable from this case in that there is a preexisting organisational relationship involved with its own set of obligations and rules.
that's probably distinguishable from this case in that there is a preexisting organisational relationship involved with its own set of obligations and rules.
In reply to JJL:
Sounds like a ludicrous fee. But we live in a ludicrous world.
Can your friend cite the "distance selling act" something along the lines of items bought over Internet can be returned no questions asked after a certain time period. You'll have to look up the small print on that one though.
Sounds like a ludicrous fee. But we live in a ludicrous world.
Can your friend cite the "distance selling act" something along the lines of items bought over Internet can be returned no questions asked after a certain time period. You'll have to look up the small print on that one though.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...