Awful cancellation fees

Someone on my Facebook posted a link to this new report showing some of the worst pricing enforcement I've ever seen in martial arts. This seems to be based out of Alberta, so anyone thinking about taekwondo in that area might want to watch this before signing up to this particular studio:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=...binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1

The school in question is Tien Long, and the video shows some of their staff debating the ethical considerations of charging over a thousand dollars for a student who dropped out after three months.

It's always worth remembering that a good school doesn't need to tie you in to restrictive long-term contracts with extortionate cancellation fees. Bear in mind that these parents are now being taken to court over this, so their lives will be disrupted for quite some time due to this awful business model!

 

I can see the advantage of monthly rolling contracts or similar. It means you don't have to mess about with paying for each individual session and you're encouraged to go to more classes. Anything that ties in to long contracts, especially with very large exit penalties and where children are involved, is designed to benefit only the owner.

I can understand the temptation in business to sign someone up to a binding long term contract to protect your cashflow, but from the consumer perspective it's just completely inappropriate, especially for a beginner.

 

Incidentally, the reddit discussion is here if anyone would like to throw in some advice or moral support for the family in question:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/2uylqx/update_taekwondo_do_scammust_readhelp_us_stop/

 

Sorry, I don't feel much sympathy for the family. I just don't.

I would like to know if the cancellation fee is actually collection of the fees the school would have gotten over the contract time and they are collecting it because payments fell behind. This is what I suspect. The reporter seemed biased towards the family. The nature of those fees needed to be explained in detail.

They didn't read the contract before signing it. They didn't sign paperwork to transfer over one contract to another kid's contract. They fell behind in their payments.

If they felt that that was too big of a commitment for kids their age, they should have gone to a different school without signing that contract in the first place.

No - no sympathy for them.

Now, I don't think the school is completely good either. If it is true they said something different about cancellation fee's than what is in the contract, that is shady.

And again, I really would like to know the nature of this cancellation fee. If it is not what i mentioned above, that is shady too.

I question a business with contracts like this being a non profit? Something doesn't seem right about that.

Not sure about the school, As I said before, the report seemed biased against them, but they may have deserved the reporting done that way. But definitely not impressed with the family.

 

I started to read the reddit thing, and all I got was the family making themselves sound more sympathetic. The report had them admitting to doing things irresponsibly, then they sort of tell the story differently in their written out side of the story.

I think this does need to go to court to be sorted out. And I am most curious to see what the courts decide. I rather get the feeling that there is blame and irresponsible or corrupt behavior on both sides. The family admitted to just not paying and not signing paperwork they knew they should have- I find them unreliable. And I am dubious of the "non-profit" business wanting $10,000 from a family.

I don't know about other states, but in California enforcing a contract like that just doesn't happen either. But again, there is a lot of "he said- she said" going on now. The facts need to be looked at by a court to separate the fact from the fiction both sides may be telling to bolster their side.

I probably wouldn't go to that school, and I wouldn't enter a business dealing with that family. I would steer clear of both sides of this conflict.

 

Which conflicts with the original news report. Where they just say they admit they didn't do the paperwork. So I wonder if they are bolstering their story later on. Are they changing their story to make it more sympathetic? Why was that not in the news report? It makes me doubt them.

But maybe it is true.

That is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be sorted out in a court of law. And that is why I am curious what the courts decide.

I don't know how much blame lies with each side, I don't really trust either side. I want the facts sorted out from potential stories each side is telling. At this point, that is only going to happen in a court of law.