Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Forgot to cancel standing order for gym Part II
412 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Bentley
Jan 25, 2012, 8:55:18 AM1/25/12
to
Thanks to everyone who responded to my first post, it has been very
useful.
First post:
When I cancelled my gym membership 2 years ago I didn't cancel the
standing order. I have now realized that I have made 24 months
payments of £44(£1054 total)in error.
Having contacted the gym they say it is my error and are refusing to
give the money back.
Does any know what my legal rights are?
Having spoken to the gym again this morning they are quoting a section
of the contract I signed.
c) Cancellation of fully flexible monthly membership
iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
continue your membership.
How will this efect my rights?
useful.
First post:
When I cancelled my gym membership 2 years ago I didn't cancel the
standing order. I have now realized that I have made 24 months
payments of £44(£1054 total)in error.
Having contacted the gym they say it is my error and are refusing to
give the money back.
Does any know what my legal rights are?
Having spoken to the gym again this morning they are quoting a section
of the contract I signed.
c) Cancellation of fully flexible monthly membership
iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
continue your membership.
How will this efect my rights?
steve robinson
Jan 25, 2012, 2:40:02 PM1/25/12
to
was a month , even two then you may have a fair arguement but you let
it run for two years .
You could try an argue that the term is unfair , however given the
length of time its going to be an uphill struggle
The Todal
Jan 25, 2012, 4:35:03 PM1/25/12
to
attempt to take advantage of people who forget to cancel their standing
orders. It doesn't say that payment will be deemed to renew the
contract. It just says they will interpret it as a wish to continue
membership. Fine, but that doesn't stop you saying that they have
misinterpreted the situation and that the payments were inadvertent.
Don't take any crap, and sue them. Incidentally are they a big chain
with many branches? Best not to name them.
Roland Perry
Jan 26, 2012, 3:05:01 AM1/26/12
to
In message <9obaqf...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:35:03 on Wed, 25 Jan
2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>It just says they will interpret it as a wish to continue membership.
On a rolling monthly basis, perhaps. Without a contract's termination
notice etc.
>Fine, but that doesn't stop you saying that they have misinterpreted
>the situation and that the payments were inadvertent.
I wonder if there's a relevant trade association with a code of conduct
or faq for this situation, which can hardly be uncommon.
--
Roland Perry
2012, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>> c) Cancellation of fully flexible monthly membership
>> iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
>> cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
>> continue your membership.
>>
>> How will this efect my rights?
>
>> iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
>> cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
>> continue your membership.
>>
>> How will this efect my rights?
>
>It doesn't say that payment will be deemed to renew the contract.
Indeed.
>It just says they will interpret it as a wish to continue membership.
notice etc.
>Fine, but that doesn't stop you saying that they have misinterpreted
>the situation and that the payments were inadvertent.
or faq for this situation, which can hardly be uncommon.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Jan 26, 2012, 4:10:02 AM1/26/12
to
"Matt Bentley" <matt.b...@guardian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ea005ba-c6c6-42af...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I would suggest to them that this contitutes unfair trading and that you
will talk to Trading Standards about it. Put this in writing.
Peter Crosland
news:3ea005ba-c6c6-42af...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I would suggest to them that this contitutes unfair trading and that you
will talk to Trading Standards about it. Put this in writing.
Peter Crosland
GB
Jan 26, 2012, 4:25:09 AM1/26/12
to
The Todal wrote:
> It's sloppily worded as if written by a non-lawyer. It's a blatant
> attempt to take advantage of people who forget to cancel their
> standing orders. It doesn't say that payment will be deemed to renew
> the contract. It just says they will interpret it as a wish to
> continue membership. Fine, but that doesn't stop you saying that they
> have misinterpreted the situation and that the payments were
> inadvertent. Don't take any crap, and sue them. Incidentally are they
> a big chain with many branches? Best not to name them.
It's not just an unfair term in a consumer contract, it's down-right
> It's sloppily worded as if written by a non-lawyer. It's a blatant
> attempt to take advantage of people who forget to cancel their
> standing orders. It doesn't say that payment will be deemed to renew
> the contract. It just says they will interpret it as a wish to
> continue membership. Fine, but that doesn't stop you saying that they
> have misinterpreted the situation and that the payments were
> inadvertent. Don't take any crap, and sue them. Incidentally are they
> a big chain with many branches? Best not to name them.
outrageous!
The relevant reference is to the unfair contract terms regulations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999
in particular "Regulation 8 provides that an unfair term "shall not be
binding upon the consumer"." There's a link on the wiki page to the regs.
In theory, the OFT has power to take the gym to court to get a ruling
whether the term is fair. In practice you may find it hrd to get OFT to act.
You can see more here, and it may be worth your while to download their
guidance.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/oft-powers
In short, you write back to the gym saying that the clause they are
referring to is an unfair term under
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and thus not
binding on you. Write that you will institute proceedings unless they refund
the money within the next day without further warning. At the end of 10
days, use the Money Claims Online website to issue proceedings.
If they are foolish enough to try to defend the case in court, print off a
copy of the regs and take them with you to show the judge.
--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp
Serena Blanchflower
Jan 26, 2012, 6:20:09 AM1/26/12
to
* GB wrote, On 26/01/2012 09:25:
> In theory, the OFT has power to take the gym to court to get a ruling
> whether the term is fair. In practice you may find it hrd to get OFT to act.
> You can see more here, and it may be worth your while to download their
> guidance.
> http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/oft-powers
According to an article I saw recently in the Guardian
> In theory, the OFT has power to take the gym to court to get a ruling
> whether the term is fair. In practice you may find it hrd to get OFT to act.
> You can see more here, and it may be worth your while to download their
> guidance.
> http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/oft-powers
(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they
may be interested in this.
--
Cheers, Serena
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still
exist, but you have ceased to live.
(Mark Twain)
Roland Perry
Jan 26, 2012, 7:00:13 AM1/26/12
to
In message <TZ6dnVT7U7qCq7zS...@brightview.co.uk>, at
11:20:09 on Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
going to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to
get involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and
perhaps issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start*
considering such contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
--
Roland Perry
11:20:09 on Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>According to an article I saw recently in the Guardian
>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they
>may be interested in this.
The problem I have with this is that if the contracts are *already*
>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they
>may be interested in this.
going to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to
get involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and
perhaps issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start*
considering such contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
--
Roland Perry
RobertL
Jan 26, 2012, 8:25:03 AM1/26/12
to
Do you get anything tangible from the gym each year? Do they send a
membership pack out to you each year or a membership card? if they
stopped sending such things after you cancelled that would support the
view that the contract had ended.
Were the payments actually made by a standing order (as you said) or
was it actually direct debit or continuing card instruction? If it
was in fact a DD or card then it is not you who have continued making
the payments it is they who who have continued to take them when they
should have stopped. That would strengthen your case.
Did they write a "sorry to see you go" letter thus confirming the end
of the contract? If so that might help you persuade your bank to
refund the money if it was paid by card or DD.
Robert
The Todal
Jan 26, 2012, 10:00:06 AM1/26/12
to
this as your notification of your wish to continue your membership" but as a
matter of contract law there has to be an offer and an acceptance. You
cancel your membership. They confirm the cancellation. They say your further
payment is a notification of your wish to continue your membership but they
never write to you saying "we note that you want to resume your membership
and we hereby accept your application and enclose a further membership card"
Or "we have therefore reinstated you as a member". Therefore there is no
membership.
GB
Jan 27, 2012, 9:45:11 AM1/27/12
to
The Todal wrote:
> All good points. Also, the (silly) contractual term says "we will
> accept this as your notification of your wish to continue your
> membership" but as a matter of contract law there has to be an offer
> and an acceptance. You cancel your membership. They confirm the
> cancellation. They say your further payment is a notification of your
> wish to continue your membership but they never write to you saying
> "we note that you want to resume your membership and we hereby accept
> your application and enclose a further membership card" Or "we have
> therefore reinstated you as a member". Therefore there is no
> membership.
Is there a further point - if he cancelled his membership contract, then the
> All good points. Also, the (silly) contractual term says "we will
> accept this as your notification of your wish to continue your
> membership" but as a matter of contract law there has to be an offer
> and an acceptance. You cancel your membership. They confirm the
> cancellation. They say your further payment is a notification of your
> wish to continue your membership but they never write to you saying
> "we note that you want to resume your membership and we hereby accept
> your application and enclose a further membership card" Or "we have
> therefore reinstated you as a member". Therefore there is no
> membership.
clause they are referring to no longer 'existed', or is that a step too far?
tim....
Jan 27, 2012, 11:10:02 AM1/27/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pS8TGmi8...@perry.co.uk...
The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind. The thing is that none
of the parties know what that will be. So the OFT investigate, make their
decision and then tell the industry, "if you don't change we'll got to court
to force you to".
Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
so they comply. But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and
it goes to court. Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
TimB
Jan 27, 2012, 11:25:02 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 2:45 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a further point - if he cancelled his membership contract, then the
> clause they are referring to no longer 'existed', or is that a step too far?
>
I'd say it depends. Presumably some notice period is required for
>
> Is there a further point - if he cancelled his membership contract, then the
> clause they are referring to no longer 'existed', or is that a step too far?
>
cancellation, and during that period, any terms would still apply. If
the new payment went out before the end of the notice period, then,
assuming the terms were fair, he could feasibly still be held to
them.
Once the contract is completely cancelled, I have no idea what the
situation would be.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 27, 2012, 12:31:13 PM1/27/12
to
On 2012-01-27, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
>
>> All good points. Also, the (silly) contractual term says "we will
>> accept this as your notification of your wish to continue your
>> membership" but as a matter of contract law there has to be an offer
>> and an acceptance. You cancel your membership. They confirm the
>> cancellation. They say your further payment is a notification of your
>> wish to continue your membership but they never write to you saying
>> "we note that you want to resume your membership and we hereby accept
>> your application and enclose a further membership card" Or "we have
>> therefore reinstated you as a member". Therefore there is no
>> membership.
>
> Is there a further point - if he cancelled his membership contract,
> then the clause they are referring to no longer 'existed', or is
> that a step too far?
I don't think that matters. Contracts can contain terms that continue
> The Todal wrote:
>
>> All good points. Also, the (silly) contractual term says "we will
>> accept this as your notification of your wish to continue your
>> membership" but as a matter of contract law there has to be an offer
>> and an acceptance. You cancel your membership. They confirm the
>> cancellation. They say your further payment is a notification of your
>> wish to continue your membership but they never write to you saying
>> "we note that you want to resume your membership and we hereby accept
>> your application and enclose a further membership card" Or "we have
>> therefore reinstated you as a member". Therefore there is no
>> membership.
>
> Is there a further point - if he cancelled his membership contract,
> then the clause they are referring to no longer 'existed', or is
> that a step too far?
to apply even after the main contract is "finished" - for example,
contracts of employment may contain "non-disclosure" terms that will
still apply even after the employment has finished.
Roland Perry
Jan 27, 2012, 12:35:09 PM1/27/12
to
In message <9og0a9...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:10:02 on Fri, 27 Jan
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
The problem is that the Act only has a list of "indicative" unfair
conditions (schedule 2)[1]. As an individual litigant it's quite
difficult to persuade a court to act on things outside the list. The OFT
is seeking to do particular studies to reinforce and extend that list so
courts take notice.
>The thing is that none of the parties know what that will be. So the
>OFT investigate, make their decision and then tell the industry, "if
>you don't change we'll got to court to force you to".
Only when they think that classes of customer are being fobbed off in
large numbers when cases are brought individually.
Actually, the OFT has done health and fitness clubs before (in 2002), so
they must think the effect has worn off:
<http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_term
s/oft373.pdf>
>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>so they comply.
Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>court.
I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
cases.
>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
They are very rarely are the ones involved (normally it's the aggrieved
customer).
[1] Para 1(h) starts off looking useful...
automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the
consumer does not indicate otherwise,
but then follows with this:
when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire
not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
Perhaps someone can say which para they think is closest to the OP's
situation?
--
Roland Perry
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
>>>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they may
>>>be interested in this.
>>
>> The problem I have with this is that if the contracts are *already* going
>> to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to get
>> involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and perhaps
>> issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start* considering such
>> contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
>
>Doesn't work like that.
>
>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
>>>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they may
>>>be interested in this.
>>
>> The problem I have with this is that if the contracts are *already* going
>> to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to get
>> involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and perhaps
>> issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start* considering such
>> contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
>
>Doesn't work like that.
>
>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
The problem is that the Act only has a list of "indicative" unfair
conditions (schedule 2)[1]. As an individual litigant it's quite
difficult to persuade a court to act on things outside the list. The OFT
is seeking to do particular studies to reinforce and extend that list so
courts take notice.
>The thing is that none of the parties know what that will be. So the
>OFT investigate, make their decision and then tell the industry, "if
>you don't change we'll got to court to force you to".
large numbers when cases are brought individually.
Actually, the OFT has done health and fitness clubs before (in 2002), so
they must think the effect has worn off:
<http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_term
s/oft373.pdf>
>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>so they comply.
>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>court.
cases.
>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
customer).
[1] Para 1(h) starts off looking useful...
automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the
consumer does not indicate otherwise,
but then follows with this:
when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire
not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
Perhaps someone can say which para they think is closest to the OP's
situation?
--
Roland Perry
tim....
Jan 27, 2012, 2:20:02 PM1/27/12
to
news:hO4RBHqu...@perry.co.uk...
>
> The problem is that the Act only has a list of "indicative" unfair
> conditions (schedule 2)[1]. As an individual litigant it's quite
> difficult to persuade a court to act on things outside the list. The OFT
> is seeking to do particular studies to reinforce and extend that list so
> courts take notice.
>
>>The thing is that none of the parties know what that will be. So the
>>OFT investigate, make their decision and then tell the industry, "if
>>you don't change we'll got to court to force you to".
>
> Only when they think that classes of customer are being fobbed off in
> large numbers when cases are brought individually.
>
> Actually, the OFT has done health and fitness clubs before (in 2002), so
> they must think the effect has worn off:
>
> <http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_term
> s/oft373.pdf>
>
>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>>so they comply.
>
> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
Cots incurred when the OFT bring a test case.
>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>court.
>
> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
> cases.
>
>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>
> They are very rarely are the ones involved
That's because it rarely gets to a trial.
I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
contracts.
>(normally it's the aggrieved
> customer).
>
> [1] Para 1(h) starts off looking useful...
>
> automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the
> consumer does not indicate otherwise,
>
> but then follows with this:
>
> when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire
> not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
>
> Perhaps someone can say which para they think is closest to the OP's
> situation?
I think that the issue with gyms is that they only seem to have fixed term
contracts of several years duration, never offering punters the option of
"pay as you go", which many would prefer.
OT1H this is seen as abusing their dominant bargaining position (and limited
supply in any geographical area)
OTOH, it's difficult to argue that gym membership is a basic human need and
punters can always "walk away" (before contract).
Perhaps it's just an issue of this term not being clear enough (which
anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't) and that the only remedy that the OFT
can apply is to make sure that all the condition that they are signing up
for a (long) fixed term is known to all punters
tim
> In message <9og0a9...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:10:02 on Fri, 27 Jan
> 2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
>>>>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they
>>>>may
>>>>be interested in this.
>>>
>>> The problem I have with this is that if the contracts are *already*
>>> going
>>> to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to get
>>> involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and perhaps
>>> issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start* considering such
>>> contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
>>
>>Doesn't work like that.
>>
>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>
> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
I fail to see how this adds to the discusion, either way.
> 2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/25/gyms-contract-crackdown-oft>),
>>>>the OFT is currently looking at unfair terms in gym contracts, so they
>>>>may
>>>>be interested in this.
>>>
>>> The problem I have with this is that if the contracts are *already*
>>> going
>>> to be found "Unfair" by a court, there's no need for the OFT to get
>>> involved. So it sounds like they want to consider the issue and perhaps
>>> issue some guidance to courts so that the court *start* considering such
>>> contracts as unfair, on the grounds of that guidance.
>>
>>Doesn't work like that.
>>
>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>
> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
>
> The problem is that the Act only has a list of "indicative" unfair
> conditions (schedule 2)[1]. As an individual litigant it's quite
> difficult to persuade a court to act on things outside the list. The OFT
> is seeking to do particular studies to reinforce and extend that list so
> courts take notice.
>
>>The thing is that none of the parties know what that will be. So the
>>OFT investigate, make their decision and then tell the industry, "if
>>you don't change we'll got to court to force you to".
>
> Only when they think that classes of customer are being fobbed off in
> large numbers when cases are brought individually.
>
> Actually, the OFT has done health and fitness clubs before (in 2002), so
> they must think the effect has worn off:
>
> <http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_term
> s/oft373.pdf>
>
>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>>so they comply.
>
> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>court.
>
> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
> cases.
>
>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>
> They are very rarely are the ones involved
I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
contracts.
>(normally it's the aggrieved
> customer).
>
> [1] Para 1(h) starts off looking useful...
>
> automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the
> consumer does not indicate otherwise,
>
> but then follows with this:
>
> when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire
> not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;
>
> Perhaps someone can say which para they think is closest to the OP's
> situation?
contracts of several years duration, never offering punters the option of
"pay as you go", which many would prefer.
OT1H this is seen as abusing their dominant bargaining position (and limited
supply in any geographical area)
OTOH, it's difficult to argue that gym membership is a basic human need and
punters can always "walk away" (before contract).
Perhaps it's just an issue of this term not being clear enough (which
anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't) and that the only remedy that the OFT
can apply is to make sure that all the condition that they are signing up
for a (long) fixed term is known to all punters
tim
Chris R
Jan 27, 2012, 3:45:02 PM1/27/12
to
>
>
> "tim...." wrote in message news:9ogbd3...@mid.individual.net...
in this discussion: OFT v Ashbourne
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1237.html. It demonstrates that
the OFT has recently taken a very tough stance on unfair terms in gym
membership contracts, and that the court agreed with most of what the OFT
said about clauses being unfair. I have little doubt that the OP's term
would be held to be unfair on this basis.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2012, 4:25:21 AM1/28/12
to
In message <YNydndoIboZilr7S...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:45:02 on Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
of winning, because otherwise it does huge damage to their reputation.
Trading Standards are similar - if they lose a test case it sets what
you might describe as a "negative precedent", an activity which hasn't
been deemed unlawful.
--
Roland Perry
20:45:02 on Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
> the court agreed with most of what the OFT said about clauses being
>unfair.
I'm pretty sure the OFT only take cases to court they are pretty certain
>unfair.
of winning, because otherwise it does huge damage to their reputation.
Trading Standards are similar - if they lose a test case it sets what
you might describe as a "negative precedent", an activity which hasn't
been deemed unlawful.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2012, 4:35:02 AM1/28/12
to
In message <9ogbd3...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:20:02 on Fri, 27 Jan
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>>
>> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
>> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
>
>I fail to see how this adds to the discusion, either way.
It's an example of courts being asked to make up their mind and saying
"actually, we don't want to at the moment - come back later".
>>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>>>so they comply.
>>
>> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>
>Cots incurred when the OFT bring a test case.
You'd have to be really unlucky to be the trader whose consumer
complaint turned into an OFT test case.
>>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>>court.
>>
>> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
>> cases.
>>
>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>>
>> They are very rarely are the ones involved
>
>That's because it rarely gets to a trial.
No, it's because they only take up a handful of issues a year.
Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
through the county courts?
>I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
>
>They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
>contracts.
I know, but the OP is being encouraged to take his own case through the
county court.
>I think that the issue with gyms is that they only seem to have fixed term
>contracts of several years duration, never offering punters the option of
>"pay as you go", which many would prefer.
It depends of the gym. Private ones are probably worse than council-run
ones. My own experience locally is that the former now tend to have
shorter "trial periods" possibly as a result of the recession, after
which you can indeed cancel. The latter just want three months notice at
any time.
>OT1H this is seen as abusing their dominant bargaining position (and limited
>supply in any geographical area)
We are awash with them round here. Indeed the district council is
intending to close one (it's life-expired and they don't want the
capital cost of refurbishing it) but that will still leave them with
five others. There are numerous private ones too.
>OTOH, it's difficult to argue that gym membership is a basic human need and
>punters can always "walk away" (before contract).
>
>Perhaps it's just an issue of this term not being clear enough (which
>anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't) and that the only remedy that the OFT
>can apply is to make sure that all the condition that they are signing up
>for a (long) fixed term is known to all punters
I think the main problem with gym membership is that people take it up
because they are looking for a lifestyle change, and are in denial that
the initiative could fail. So they aren't looking for ways to bail out
because they have convinced themselves it will never happen.
--
Roland Perry
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>>
>> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
>> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
>
>I fail to see how this adds to the discusion, either way.
"actually, we don't want to at the moment - come back later".
>>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding out,
>>>so they comply.
>>
>> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>
>Cots incurred when the OFT bring a test case.
complaint turned into an OFT test case.
>>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>>court.
>>
>> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
>> cases.
>>
>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>>
>> They are very rarely are the ones involved
>
>That's because it rarely gets to a trial.
Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
through the county courts?
>I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
>
>They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
>contracts.
county court.
>I think that the issue with gyms is that they only seem to have fixed term
>contracts of several years duration, never offering punters the option of
>"pay as you go", which many would prefer.
ones. My own experience locally is that the former now tend to have
shorter "trial periods" possibly as a result of the recession, after
which you can indeed cancel. The latter just want three months notice at
any time.
>OT1H this is seen as abusing their dominant bargaining position (and limited
>supply in any geographical area)
intending to close one (it's life-expired and they don't want the
capital cost of refurbishing it) but that will still leave them with
five others. There are numerous private ones too.
>OTOH, it's difficult to argue that gym membership is a basic human need and
>punters can always "walk away" (before contract).
>
>Perhaps it's just an issue of this term not being clear enough (which
>anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't) and that the only remedy that the OFT
>can apply is to make sure that all the condition that they are signing up
>for a (long) fixed term is known to all punters
because they are looking for a lifestyle change, and are in denial that
the initiative could fail. So they aren't looking for ways to bail out
because they have convinced themselves it will never happen.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Odell
Jan 28, 2012, 12:10:02 PM1/28/12
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/27/la-fitness-knockout-blow-gym-contracts
66
The OFT has now told the Guardian that it will crack down on gym
contracts that customers cannot cancel, in an announcement to be made
next week. Although it won't divulge any details yet, the watchdog is
likely to focus on long-term contracts that do not allow members to
cancel if their circumstances change.
99
Nick
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2012, 12:25:02 PM1/28/12
to
In message <1ma8i79aqfpf7gtu0...@4ax.com>, at 17:10:02 on
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Nick Odell <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid>
remarked:
circumstances change[1]), but the OP's situation is quite different. He
managed to cancel, but [arguably] inadvertently re-subscribed, on
perhaps a rolling basis.
[1] There's a precedent here for railway season tickets. You can get a
refund if your circumstance change, and you need to cancel. But after
(eg) six months you won't get back half an annual ticket, but the cost
of an annual ticket less six monthly ones.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Nick Odell <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid>
remarked:
>The OFT has now told the Guardian that it will crack down on gym
>contracts that customers cannot cancel, in an announcement to be made
>next week. Although it won't divulge any details yet, the watchdog is
>likely to focus on long-term contracts that do not allow members to
>cancel if their circumstances change.
That's fair enough (and I have much sympathy for members whose
>contracts that customers cannot cancel, in an announcement to be made
>next week. Although it won't divulge any details yet, the watchdog is
>likely to focus on long-term contracts that do not allow members to
>cancel if their circumstances change.
circumstances change[1]), but the OP's situation is quite different. He
managed to cancel, but [arguably] inadvertently re-subscribed, on
perhaps a rolling basis.
[1] There's a precedent here for railway season tickets. You can get a
refund if your circumstance change, and you need to cancel. But after
(eg) six months you won't get back half an annual ticket, but the cost
of an annual ticket less six monthly ones.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Odell
Jan 28, 2012, 1:15:03 PM1/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:25:02 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <1ma8i79aqfpf7gtu0...@4ax.com>, at 17:10:02 on
>Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Nick Odell <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid>
>remarked:
>>The OFT has now told the Guardian that it will crack down on gym
>>contracts that customers cannot cancel, in an announcement to be made
>>next week. Although it won't divulge any details yet, the watchdog is
>>likely to focus on long-term contracts that do not allow members to
>>cancel if their circumstances change.
>
>That's fair enough (and I have much sympathy for members whose
>circumstances change[1]), but the OP's situation is quite different. He
>managed to cancel, but [arguably] inadvertently re-subscribed, on
>perhaps a rolling basis.
>
Agreed. I just thought a) that it's a timely announcement and b) while
it is 'likely to focus on long-term contracts etc..' I wouldn't read
that as meaning they intend to remain blind to all the other issues.
Nick
wrote:
>In message <1ma8i79aqfpf7gtu0...@4ax.com>, at 17:10:02 on
>Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Nick Odell <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid>
>remarked:
>>The OFT has now told the Guardian that it will crack down on gym
>>contracts that customers cannot cancel, in an announcement to be made
>>next week. Although it won't divulge any details yet, the watchdog is
>>likely to focus on long-term contracts that do not allow members to
>>cancel if their circumstances change.
>
>That's fair enough (and I have much sympathy for members whose
>circumstances change[1]), but the OP's situation is quite different. He
>managed to cancel, but [arguably] inadvertently re-subscribed, on
>perhaps a rolling basis.
>
it is 'likely to focus on long-term contracts etc..' I wouldn't read
that as meaning they intend to remain blind to all the other issues.
Nick
tim....
Jan 29, 2012, 3:20:02 AM1/29/12
to
"Nick Odell" <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ma8i79aqfpf7gtu0...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:55:18 +0000, Matt Bentley
<matt.b...@guardian.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks to everyone who responded to my first post, it has been very
>useful.
>
>First post:
>When I cancelled my gym membership 2 years ago I didn't cancel the
>standing order. I have now realized that I have made 24 months
>payments of £44(£1054 total)in error.
>Having contacted the gym they say it is my error and are refusing to
>give the money back.
>Does any know what my legal rights are?
>
>Having spoken to the gym again this morning they are quoting a section
>of the contract I signed.
>
>c) Cancellation of fully flexible monthly membership
>iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
>cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
>continue your membership.
>
>How will this efect my rights?
You might be interested in this piece in the Grauniad today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/27/la-fitness-knockout-blow-gym-contracts
66
The OFT has now told the Guardian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<matt.b...@guardian.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks to everyone who responded to my first post, it has been very
>useful.
>
>First post:
>When I cancelled my gym membership 2 years ago I didn't cancel the
>standing order. I have now realized that I have made 24 months
>payments of £44(£1054 total)in error.
>Having contacted the gym they say it is my error and are refusing to
>give the money back.
>Does any know what my legal rights are?
>
>Having spoken to the gym again this morning they are quoting a section
>of the contract I signed.
>
>c) Cancellation of fully flexible monthly membership
>iii. If we continue to recieve payment after your membership has been
>cancelled, we will accept this as your notification of your wish to
>continue your membership.
>
>How will this efect my rights?
You might be interested in this piece in the Grauniad today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jan/27/la-fitness-knockout-blow-gym-contracts
66
The OFT has now told the Guardian
No they haven't. They've issued a press release which is available to be
read by anyone whose interested :-(
tim
tim....
Jan 29, 2012, 3:20:09 AM1/29/12
to
news:d46+sP2k...@perry.co.uk...
We are the discussing the methodology that the OFT use to process
"super-complaints"
>>>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>>>court.
>>>
>>> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
>>> cases.
>>>
>>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>>>
>>> They are very rarely are the ones involved
>>
>>That's because it rarely gets to a trial.
>
> No, it's because they only take up a handful of issues a year.
I think it's more than a "hand-full"
>
> Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
> through the county courts?
>
I didn't claim that there was.
>>I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
>>
>>They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
>>contracts.
>
> I know, but the OP is being encouraged to take his own case through the
> county court.
Not by me.
I only came in to reply to your suggested method that the OFT use to
"change" the law.
That is all that I am commenting upon and I'm not interested in your points
which are off topic for this
tim
> In message <9ogbd3...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:20:02 on Fri, 27 Jan
> 2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>>>
>>> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
>>> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
>>
>>I fail to see how this adds to the discusion, either way.
>
> It's an example of courts being asked to make up their mind and saying
> "actually, we don't want to at the moment - come back later".
>
>>>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding
>>>>out,
>>>>so they comply.
>>>
>>> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>>
>>Cots incurred when the OFT bring a test case.
>
> You'd have to be really unlucky to be the trader whose consumer complaint
> turned into an OFT test case.
But we weren't discussing individual consumer complaints.
> 2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>The courts, if asked, will make up their own mind.
>>>
>>> Thousands of County Court cases were suspended awaiting a test case in
>>> the matter of unfair Bank Charges.
>>
>>I fail to see how this adds to the discusion, either way.
>
> It's an example of courts being asked to make up their mind and saying
> "actually, we don't want to at the moment - come back later".
>
>>>>Most companies don't want to risk the loss of the court costs finding
>>>>out,
>>>>so they comply.
>>>
>>> Most customers don't go to court, so pay up.
>>
>>Cots incurred when the OFT bring a test case.
>
> You'd have to be really unlucky to be the trader whose consumer complaint
> turned into an OFT test case.
We are the discussing the methodology that the OFT use to process
"super-complaints"
>>>>But every now and again a company says "you are wrong" and it goes to
>>>>court.
>>>
>>> I don't see a huge amount of reporting of consumer success in one-off
>>> cases.
>>>
>>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>>>
>>> They are very rarely are the ones involved
>>
>>That's because it rarely gets to a trial.
>
> No, it's because they only take up a handful of issues a year.
>
> Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
> through the county courts?
>
>>I am specifically talking about the OFT's role as primary "enforcer" here.
>>
>>They do a lot of work behind the scenes getting industries to change their
>>contracts.
>
> I know, but the OP is being encouraged to take his own case through the
> county court.
I only came in to reply to your suggested method that the OFT use to
"change" the law.
That is all that I am commenting upon and I'm not interested in your points
which are off topic for this
tim
tim....
Jan 29, 2012, 3:20:16 AM1/29/12
to
"Nick Odell" <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
If long term contracts are banned and only e.g. only month-to-month ones are
available then the remedy that a punter has for inadequate supply of
services is to stop paying. It's not the OFT's (or in fact anybodies) remit
to make sure that every company offers a "quality" service, only that
punters aren't locked into paying for it.
tim
>
>
> Nick
Roland Perry
Jan 29, 2012, 1:00:04 PM1/29/12
to
In message <9okd4v...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:20:09 on Sun, 29 Jan
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
And what he might or might not be able to do about it as an individual
in the county court.
>>>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
<http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/guid
ance>
>> Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
>> through the county courts?
>>
>I didn't claim that there was.
You didn't, but others are quite regularly sure that such actions will
succeed. I just don't see the basis for that.
>I only came in to reply to your suggested method that the OFT use to
>"change" the law.
>
>That is all that I am commenting upon and I'm not interested in your points
>which are off topic for this
Addressing your diversion into the OFT's methods, I don't agree with
your proposition. See earlier postings.
--
Roland Perry
2012, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>But we weren't discussing individual consumer complaints.
Of course we are, the OP's problem with his "phoenix" subscription.
And what he might or might not be able to do about it as an individual
in the county court.
>>>>>Sometimes the OFT win, and sometimes they lose
>> No, it's because they only take up a handful of issues a year.
>I think it's more than a "hand-full"
I can see only a dozen since 1999:
>I think it's more than a "hand-full"
<http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/guid
ance>
>> Where are the reports of hundreds of cases taken by individual consumers
>> through the county courts?
>>
>I didn't claim that there was.
succeed. I just don't see the basis for that.
>I only came in to reply to your suggested method that the OFT use to
>"change" the law.
>
>That is all that I am commenting upon and I'm not interested in your points
>which are off topic for this
your proposition. See earlier postings.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages