Part three: the repeating invoice

In this series about the way some companies seek to trick firms that sell to schools out of their money, I’ve dealt with sales pitches concerning government legislation that doesn’t exist, and the selling of entries and adverts in directories that teachers don’t use.

This third article moves into another field: the way invoices are presented and money collected.

What happens is that the firm buying the advertising is charged for the first job, and then unless you cancel by a certain date, you are charged again and the advert is run again.

Worse, sometimes these charges can be very high.  For example, a £3000 advertising campaign might be an experiment you want to try.   Then you find it doesn’t work, and you write it off as a bad move.

But horror of horrors, some months later you get a bill for another £3000 on the grounds that your advert is being repeated, as you have not cancelled in time.

This approach has apparently been used by directory publishers and those who run new forms of directory advertising such as advertising in directories on web sites and on memory sticks.

It is important to remember that just as I made clear in the last article, not everyone who publishes a directory is trying to rip you off, and this applies to web site directories and memory sticks, as much as anything else.

But I would say (and like everything else in these articles, this is just a personal view) I don’t like repeating invoices for large amounts.  They are bad enough when they are for £40 a month with the need to cancel one week before the repeating date (a system operated by many internet retailers), but when they are for £3000 a year and that hits you in one go without further warning, I think that is going too far.

Are they legal?  Well, I think they could be challenged – although you will appreciate that I am certainly not a lawyer.

Transactions between businesses are covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and what follows is taken from the government’s web site on the matter http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1074405689&type=RESOURCES

In general, businesses are assumed to be free to enter into whatever contracts they agree between themselves, but UCTA places a number of restrictions on the contract terms businesses can agree to and it introduces reasonableness as a condition of the validity of a contract.

UCTA doesn’t define precisely what is meant by reasonable, but the County Court will usually take into account the information available to both parties when the contract was drawn up and whether the contract was negotiated or in standard form.

My non-lawyers view is that if you have been caught by a repeating contract you might want to consider two points.

First, in my experience companies that are bent tend to be very aggressive in trying to collect unpaid bills but rarely take you to court, for fear of losing the case which would give you the chance to put the whole thing on the internet.

Second, if they were to take you to court and you lost then yes you would have to pay the bill, but you would only also have to pay the normal county court costs (not lawyers’ fees).

I must repeat however that a) I am not a lawyer and b) repeating invoices are not necessarily evil.  My own company undertakes marketing work for a number of firms on a month by month basis.  Our contract says that our clients have to give us one month’s notice to stop work, and we would argue that is reasonable since it is well publicised, and we need to wind down the company’s work if they do want to stop.

This is the third article in this series – the first article appeared at http://www.blog.educationmarketing.org.uk/2010/07/26/selling-into-schools-all-the-con-tricks/

Tony Attwood

Part two: directory publishing

Yesterday in this series of articles on the way that some firms aim to trick companies that want to advertise to schools, I mentioned the approach that focuses on a change in government legislation.   The argument was the government is changing the rules on how you can advertise to schools, so

if you are not part of the new service, no one will see your web site.

In this piece I want to turn to a different topic all together: directory advertising and its associated issue, sponsored articles in once a year journals.

Every industry has directories, and education is no different – and there is nothing wrong with directories.

But the questions we must always ask are

a)    Are the directories paid for or sent out for free

b)    If paid for where was the directory advertised last year

c)    If for free, how are they distributed?  What warehouse is used?

d)    Is this the first year?  If not, can I have a copy of last year’s?

The point is that if you start asking questions like these you are either going to be given no information at all, or else you are going to get answers which lead nowhere.  And if you do get a set of good answers and the directory or reference book looks genuine, you can then go and ask a few schools if they use the book.  (If fact if you are totally bemused let me know and I might be able to explore the matter for you.)

There’s also the issue of logic.  Why will a teacher use this book?  If it is to find products or services then the question is, where is the book kept?  If one copy is sent to a school free of charge, how does an individual head of department go and get it and look at it

And come to that, would that person bother?  The average head of department receives product material through the post and via email, and is aware of sites such as our own www.top5.org.uk which lists a lot of suppliers of different subjects.   What’s more it is not beyond the wit of any teacher to go to Google or Bing and type in whatever it is that the person is looking for.

The con of course can be that hardly any copies are printed, and very few are distributed, so the money is wasted.  If you think you are looking at a genuine journal or reference book or directory, there should be a lot of entries from many people (including teachers) on the internet, not just those under the company name.

In short I would say, look for a long established publication, try to get support to show that the directory is published, and most of all, get a copy of last year’s edition and ask yourself “would a teacher ever use this?”

This is the second in this series – the first article appeared at http://www.blog.educationmarketing.org.uk/2010/07/26/selling-into-schools-all-the-con-tricks/

One might think that selling into schools is the last area of work to find con tricks and dubious practice, but in the nine years since the daily Education Marketing news service was launched we seem to have covered loads of such practices.

These are not, generally speaking, practices in terms of the actual selling into schools, but rather the selling of marketing products and services to companies that sell into schools.

I am not quite sure why this is, but there certainly are some services that I would say, “beware of” and it is a fact that every few weeks I am emailed or called with details of another dodgy practice.

What I thought might be of interest would be to gather together some of the practices that I have been told about, and instead of just writing them in the Education Marketing daily emails I would put them into a series of blog articles.   And that is what will follow on this site over the next few days.

But I would like to start with one word of caution.

Hamilton House Mailings, the company that runs this blog and for whom I work, is itself in the business of selling education marketing services.  We sell email lists, direct mail lists, and marketing services.   So you might well feel that this is merely an attempt by Hamilton House to attack its competitors.  If so, do disregard all that follows.

By way of introduction, here’s one of the scams…

A caller announces that the government has said that from the start of next term schools will only be able to access web sites that are registered on a new intranet.  All sites that are not registered will be unavailable to schools, and so teachers will not be able to see details of products and services advertised to schools.

Then in a curious switch of direction the caller says they are sending out hundreds of thousands of items to schools to remind them of which firms are now supporting this initiative.  The link between these new items and the supposed government change is never clearly given.

Of course the sale point can be anything – it could be another web site, a set of mousemats, a memory stick or anything else.

The con of course is that the government policy doesn’t exist.  If you are approached and you think there might be something in this, then you simply need to clarify the legislation or some other detail of the change, type it into Google, and verify that this major change exists.

In terms of a walled-in approach to web sites, I can say for certain that this is not on the agenda.  Schools are protected either through their own devices, or through approaches that they buy via the local Grid for Learning.  It is not a government controlled policy.

As to whether or not the items sent out to teachers to tell them about the policy actually exist, the answer is probably not – not least because the policy doesn’t exist either.

Links

The Education Marketing Blog: www.blog.educationmarketing.org.uk

The Education Marketing daily news service – send an email to education-marketing-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and then reply to the email you are sent back.   The service has over 1200 subscribers, and covers all aspects of selling into schools.  It is completely free.

The Education Marketing web site: www.educationmarketing.org.uk

A statement on the DfE web site states that the government has “put headteachers and teachers back in control of the classroom by stripping away bureaucracy that far too often prevents them from maintaining good behaviour.

“The Government will cut red tape and simplify guidance and legislation so that teachers can ensure better behaviour.”

The government plans to  end the rule requiring schools to give 24 hours written notice for detentions allow heads and school staff to search pupils for mobile phones, pornography and cigarettes strengthen guidance and legislation if necessary surrounding use of force in the classroom give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

Nick Gibb said today:

“All pupils should show respect and courtesy towards teachers, towards other staff and towards each other. Headteachers help to create that culture of respect by supporting their staff’s authority to discipline pupils. The role of the Government is to give schools the freedom and support they need to provide a safe and structured environment in which teachers can teach and children can learn.

“We know that the majority of pupils are well-behaved and want others to behave well too. Heads and teachers know best how to improve behaviour but are too often constrained by regulations which inhibit them from maintaining control of the classroom. Today we are removing red tape so that teachers can ensure discipline in the classroom and promote good behaviour.

“Teachers should feel confident in exercising their authority, and pupils should not have to suffer disruption to their learning caused by the poor behaviour of others.”

Currently, the law gives teachers the power to put pupils in detention, but only if the school gives their parents 24 hours’ notice in writing. In future each school will be able to decide what notice to give and how to inform parents.

Also headteachers and authorised school staff currently only have the statutory power to search without consent anyone who is suspected of carrying a knife or other weapon. Alcohol, controlled drugs, and stolen property will be added from 1 September 2010. Under the changes announced today we plan to extend the list this autumn to include:

• personal electronic devices such as mobile phones, MP3 players and cameras
• legal highs
• pornography
• cigarettes
• fireworks.

The Government says it will also issue simplified guidance about the use of force for safety or restraint. Schools should not have ‘no touch’ policies and teachers should feel able to use force when they need to.

Reporting restrictions will be placed on allegations made about teachers. Ministers wish to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers.

Improving behaviour in schools is a major priority for the government. Further measures, including on tackling bullying, exclusions, and reforming alternative provision will be announced soon. The Government will consult teachers and schools representatives on the best way to implement these changes, to ensure that legislation gives teachers the powers they need.

Nick Gibb added:

Same-day detentions will give immediacy to pupil discipline and will strengthen the impact detention can have. It is also profoundly wrong that teachers feel they cannot search pupils for items that put pupils and their peers at risk such as drugs, alcohol or fireworks – so we will expand search powers for teachers to put an end to this nonsense.

It cannot be right that teachers are afraid to use force to constrain out-of-control and disruptive pupils for fear of retribution and malicious allegations. We will strengthen the guidance and legislate if necessary to make it plain when and how teachers might need to use force to control pupils. We want to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers and even lives.

The previous government made provisions in the ASCL Act 2009 so that from 1 September 2010, the list of items will be extended that can be searched for without the pupil’s consent to include alcohol, controlled drugs and stolen items (‘prohibited items’). The ASCL provisions also include a power to make regulations to add to the list of prohibited items – these powers also come into force on 1 September 2010. Regulations made under this power are subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses i.e. they will need to be debated before coming into force.

Disabled pupils will retain their existing rights to reasonable adjustments to policies, where a policy would place the child at a substantial disadvantage for a reason related to their disability.

It seems to have taken forever but at last we know the education cuts programme.  And at least for once I am not covered in egg – I more or less got them right.   BSF has gone, along with a bit of the Harnessing Technology Grant, claw back is coming in big time, and there’s also a cut in the drive towards school swimming pools.

Sure Start money not spent is being reclaimed – yet another warning to schools that next April their underspend will be clawed back into central government, and in fact the school underspend reclaim is being made utterly explicit.

School buildings and services that already have contracts signed will go ahead, but those which have gone through the consultation stage involving the local populace and community services will be scrapped.

The Department for Education said it was cutting £169m worth of identified capital projects, adding that the remaining £831m would be saved by better financial controls on existing school building projects, including clawing back underspends.

£24m worth of funding for co-locating services including health and social services on schools sites has gone; £15m set aside for new swimming pools has gone; a £2.5m schools contribution to the eco-towns initiative has gone; £50m went from the “Harnessing Technology Grant” a couple of weeks back; and £13m for the Youth Capital Fund to pay for activities for teenagers has now gone.

The HT Grant replaced e-learning credits, and is generally used by LAs to pay for broadband connection.  It’s removal has annoyed LAs as the money was allocated back in April, and has now been taken back again.