Unfair gym advrtising

ian1979_2

bazster wrote: »

Nope, I don't think so. If I see an advert on the telly that tells me something is green and the price is £10, then I go to the shop and it turns out to be red and the price is £20, that is not misrepresentation, because the advert is nothing more than an "invitation to treat". The ASA might take a dim view of the advert, but misrepresentation it is not. I very much suspect that the same principle applies here.

Suppose that the gym in question has a number of different contracts available, but they only bothered to describe one of them on their website. Does that then mean that they can't sell a different one? No, of course not.

So, unless someone at the company actually told him that there was no minimum period in the contract, whilst getting him to sign a 12-month contract, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

the ‘Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008' makes it an offence to engage in a trading practice which in any way "deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer" and in doing so "causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise

Tozer

bazster wrote: »

Nope, I don't think so. If I see an advert on the telly that tells me something is green and the price is £10, then I go to the shop and it turns out to be red and the price is £20, that is not misrepresentation, because the advert is nothing more than an "invitation to treat". The ASA might take a dim view of the advert, but misrepresentation it is not. I very much suspect that the same principle applies here.

Suppose that the gym in question has a number of different contracts available, but they only bothered to describe one of them on their website. Does that then mean that they can't sell a different one? No, of course not.

So, unless someone at the company actually told him that there was no minimum period in the contract, whilst getting him to sign a 12-month contract, I don't think he's got a leg to stand on.

You are getting confused between contract and misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a separate action to breach of contract.

Widelats

ian1979 wrote: »

I joined Arena fitness cityside gym in Belfast in October, the websites FAQ's explicitly stated that there was no minimum contract and I only wanted to join for three months so I signed up. I signed what I thought was just a direct debit mandate but which I later found out was a 12 month contract. of course I should have read what I was signing properly but I would not have joined if the website had not been misleading, the club have accepted that the website was inaccurate and have taken down the website but they are insisting that the contract will stand up in court despite the fact that I feel the service was sold using a deception. I have contacted the trading standards service and sent them a link to the website which they managed to see before it was taken down. It would appear that this is a breach of the 'Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regs 2008' but my reading is that I cant enforce this without the government taking a case. I am tempted to stop paying but the club are threatening me with debt recovery if I do so. Can anyone advise me what my next step should be. Thanks in advance. Ian

I been in gyms all my life, heres what i would do:

Do not pay for more than 3 months, that is what was said on their website and thats what they get.

Let them start court proceedings, they will have to pay far more in costs than your gym membership for a year is worth to them, and as the trading standards have already seen the website before it was changed, you have already won your case - pay them nothing, do not part with your cash.

ian1979_2

hollydays wrote: »

In addition,a bit of press exposure locally,or the threat of it, might do the trick.
I think the gym are being incredibly unreasonable not cancelling,so the threat of bad PR may do it.

If it was me,I would write out my own press release and send it to the Manager asking if he had any comment to add before you send it to the newspaper.,adding, you will sent a copy to their head office too.If you need help,I am sure we can assist.I think they need "encouraging" to do the right thing.

This worked like a charm, drafted a letter to the newspaper this morning, sent a copy by email to the director of the company giving him a week to consider his response and the gym membership was cancelled by lunch time. Thanks to everyone who posted and & I wont be so stupid next time.

bazster

What a bunch of pedants! Is it misrepresentation to sell a product which you haven't advertised? Of course not. Plain fact is that, as far as we know, no-one misled the OP. He saw a product advertised, and assumed (wrongly) that this was the product he was buying. No-one claimed that was the case. In fact, from what he's told us, there is no reason to believe that anyone (him included) even mentioned the website, or the product advertised thereon, while he was doing the deal.

The absurd conclusion of the arguments being put forward here is that a company can only sell products which it has described on it's website, for fear that a stupid customer might assume he is buying one of those products when he is really buying something else. In fact, you could make that into an argument that any company can only ever sell one product, lest the poor moron in the street buys the wrong thing. Ridiculous.

Tozer

bazster wrote: »

What a bunch of pedants! Is it misrepresentation to sell a product which you haven't advertised? Of course not. Plain fact is that, as far as we know, no-one misled the OP. He saw a product advertised, and assumed (wrongly) that this was the product he was buying. No-one claimed that was the case. In fact, from what he's told us, there is no reason to believe that anyone (him included) even mentioned the website, or the product advertised thereon, while he was doing the deal.

The absurd conclusion of the arguments being put forward here is that a company can only sell products which it has described on it's website, for fear that a stupid customer might assume he is buying one of those products when he is really buying something else. In fact, you could make that into an argument that any company can only ever sell one product, lest the poor moron in the street buys the wrong thing. Ridiculous.

With respect, I don't think you understand the principles of misrepresentation at all.

suited-aces

You don't need to understand things to argue them on the interweb, tozer!

Tozer

suited-aces wrote: »

You don't need to understand things to argue them on the interweb, tozer!

Sadly, very, very true.;)

ian1979_2

bazster wrote: »

What a bunch of pedants! Is it misrepresentation to sell a product which you haven't advertised? Of course not. Plain fact is that, as far as we know, no-one misled the OP. He saw a product advertised, and assumed (wrongly) that this was the product he was buying. No-one claimed that was the case. In fact, from what he's told us, there is no reason to believe that anyone (him included) even mentioned the website, or the product advertised thereon, while he was doing the deal.

The absurd conclusion of the arguments being put forward here is that a company can only sell products which it has described on it's website, for fear that a stupid customer might assume he is buying one of those products when he is really buying something else. In fact, you could make that into an argument that any company can only ever sell one product, lest the poor moron in the street buys the wrong thing. Ridiculous.

Bazster, the website stated "Unless you have paid in advance for a pre-specified number of months, your membership will continue month by month for as long as you wish. There is no minimum period of membership and no annual contract.” You would be forgiven for thinking that if you entered into a transaction with a company who made this claim and you did not pay in advance for their service that you could pay month by month for as long as you wish and there would be no minimum period of membership. The company have re-writen their website since my complaint and cancelled my membership.
The ‘Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008' makes it an offence to engage in a trading practice which in any way "deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer" and in doing so "causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise"
By your logic the gym could have argued that the website was reffering to members who joined on the first tuesday of any month during a leap year while wearing a penguin costume but we didn't have to mention this on the website as it is one of the myriad of membership options available.