The fees & the refund
We paid €7,672.50. No refund was offered.
Our children attended for about eight weeks. When we withdrew them because, in our view, the agreed special-needs provision was not delivered, the school declined any refund and relied on a clause stating fees are non-refundable "under any circumstances." Here is the breakdown, and why we believe that clause should not apply on these facts. The legal characterisations below are our position and opinion, not findings.
What we paid
These figures are from the school's own statements of account, each dated 27 February 2026. The "agreed amount" in each case reflects a substantial discount the school applied to its list price.
| Item | Elder son | Younger son | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fees / association / other (list price) | €7,470.00 | €8,085.00 | €15,555.00 |
| Less: discount | (€4,397.00) | (€4,536.00) | (€8,933.00) |
| Agreed amount (tuition & fees) | €3,073.00 | €3,549.00 | €6,622.00 |
| Paid on account, 24 Feb 2026 | €2,800.00 | €2,800.00 | €5,600.00 |
The total sum we paid to the school, inclusive of tuition, fees, books and associated costs, is €7,672.50. That figure exceeds the combined agreed tuition and fees of €6,622.00 by €1,050.50, representing books and associated costs.
The clause the school relied on
The school declined any refund by reference to a clause in its 2025–2026 price list, quoted to us as "Point 13":
"The inability to continue with school lessons, for whatever reason, does not exempt the parent/guardian from the obligation to pay the school fees for the whole academic year... In the event that fees of a pupil were paid in full and the pupil ceases to attend the school, no refund is applicable. The departure of any pupil in no way minimizes the school's running costs." — quoted from the school's price list, "Point 13"
Why we believe the clause does not apply here
We don't dispute that such clauses exist. We dispute that they cover this situation. These are our arguments, advanced as our position:
- It answers the wrong question. The clause is about a parent's "inability to continue" — withdrawal for the parent's own reasons. Our case is the opposite: we say the school did not deliver the provision it agreed to provide. A term that lets a business keep payment in full despite its own non-performance is not really a "non-refundable deposit" at all.
- We paid for something we didn't receive. The fees were the price of appropriate, special-needs-aware education across the year. To the extent that wasn't delivered to the standard agreed, in our view the money should be recoverable.
- A blanket "no refund under any circumstances" clause can be unfair. A term that excludes any refund even where the trader itself has failed to perform is, in our view, the kind of term consumer-protection law treats as unfair — and an unfair term is not binding on the consumer.
- The "running costs" rationale doesn't fit. The clause justifies keeping the money by pointing to staffing and running costs "for the academic year." Our children attended only about eight weeks, and the fees we actually paid were already heavily discounted — which, to us, undercuts any suggestion that keeping the full amount was necessary to cover fixed costs.
For us, the simple point is this: declaring the matter "closed" does not discharge an obligation. We believe a school that accepts a child with disclosed needs, takes the fees, and then doesn't deliver the agreed support should not be able to keep every euro by pointing to a clause about parents who simply change their minds.
What we have asked for
We have asked the school and the group for the following, and remain willing to resolve things constructively:
- A full refund of €7,672.50.
- A regulatory review of how disclosed special-needs were handled, the classroom, testing, homework and behaviour-management practices, and the fairness of the no-refund policy.
- A written acknowledgement and apology recognising the communication and provision failures.
- A finding on record that the agreed, special-needs-appropriate provision was not delivered — regardless of the financial outcome.
Not legal advice. This page explains our own position as the family involved. It isn't legal advice, and nothing here is a finding by any court or authority. If you're in a similar position, consider taking your own advice and reporting concerns to the Cyprus authorities — see share your story.