Bannatynes took me to County Court

ukk9

blue_haddock wrote: »

It does seem a rather hollow victory. Its cost you 6 months subscriptions for 2 months gym usage plus all the time, money and effort to defend this case.

Surely sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

I agree, it was a hollow victory, however sometimes when you feel that you deserve a better level of service than you are receiving and get the bit between your teeth, taking the sensible option tends to fall from view.

ukk9

woody01 wrote: »

Bloody Hell Op!
You are this happy and you got stiffed.

If this is you winning i would hate to see the losing side!

Obviously when I chose to argue my point in court I was hopefull that the judge would see things from my point of view, however there was always the chance that he would take Bannatynes side over mine.

In the end the judge seemed to take a 50 - 50 view and neither of us came out a winner, nevertheless from my point of view it was a better result than having to pay the entire amount claimed.

ukk9

rl290 wrote: »

The gym got 6 months of fees, but only provided 2 months of service. Their fees got paid also. This was the judge's ruling... so he has ruled that OP was in the wrong (but maybe not as much as the gym said...) Hollow victory indeed.

I agree, the gym had poor customer service in not returning the calls as promised. But, clearly, the OP has made even more errors:
1) Not knowing which bank account the DD was meant to be coming from.
2) Signing a legally binding contract, but not checking the DD mandate that allowed this contract to be fulfilled. OP had to sign this form, but didn't check the detail?!
3) Not being a little more proactive in solving the issue. OP could have just filled out a new form during the period the gym membership was being used. Why keep phoning (and OP's expense) when walking into the gym reguarly?!

R

I couldn't agree more - I should have checked the DD mandate and its a lesson well learnt, in fact in future I shall insist in completing it myself.

yes I could have been more proactive and I could have paid by other means, nevertheless my point was that Bannatynes have a duty to provide a certain level of customer service and they didn't - I accept that in my efforts to make them respond to my request for the bank details I rather lost sight of the financial obligation I was under.

In regard to not knowing what bank account the DD was set up on, it wasn't an issue as there was always going to be sufficient money in all accounts to make the payment, I simply opted for the account that I was able to provide DD details to Bannatynes at the time (as I had a cheque book with me).

In regard to why phone, when you speak to the staff on the desk over what they consider to be an admin issue they refer you to their administrative officer, who is never available but they do provide a phone number, so I phoned, and its just as well I did because bannatynes stated that I had made no contact and I was able to provide phone records to show they were lying.

ukk9

Takoda wrote: »

The OP has not been back so he's either embarassed or a troll.

I vote troll.

The answer is neither - why so quick to judge people?

I work long hours and shifts and have returned ASAP to answer any points made.

ukk9

woody01 wrote: »

I vote embarassed.
I would be if winning cost me money and decided to gloat about the fact.

Who said it was a he btw?

Might have been a woman that failed at Fat Fighters.

Its a He

Who's gloating - I posted purely as information for others should anyone think that poor service will win them their day in court.

ukk9

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Another Moooldooom comes on here laying the law down to us all, when one simple rewrite of the DD mandate on the next visit to the gym would have cost next to nothing.

Besides, does OP fit car radios in the evening?

Who's laying the law down? It was a simple post describing what happened and the circumstances leading to it and the result.

I don't understand why your post is so negative - would you rather no one posted at all? Your attitude would certainly make anyone reluctant to post on this forum

ukk9

Takoda wrote: »

Only a bloke could try to turn such an obvious failure into a victory. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I still vote troll.

Look at the post count. He's obviously done a creditcruncher!

So lots of posts spent slagging off other forum members makes you better than the rest of us does it - you must be leading a sad life if you judge others on the number of posts they have written.

ukk9

I posted the original entry in order that anyone else who finds themselves in the position where they believe that poor customer service will be sufficient reason for not paying for that service could see where it lead to in my case.

I believed that the purpose of the forum was to try and assist others in saving money. Although in my case I decided to put the principle of demanding service in front of 'common sense' the outcome was that it cost me me money - albeit not as much as it could have done.

From my point of view I'm happy enought that I stood up for what I believe in, but I am aware that in the long run I lost.

What I can't understand is the negative attitude or the need for moral judgement that some who have responded to the post seem to feel is necessary.

I wasn't looking for pats on the back neither was I expecting to be be slagged off, I simply thought that there would be questions asked that I might be able to answer that would lead to others understanding where standing up for your principles can lead to and help them make an informed decision if they believe that poor service will excuse them from their financial obligation.

I don't think I'll bother posting again, I don't like sarcastic comments from faceless individuals who clearly believe they are superior and are unlikely to make a mistake themselves - especially if the number of posts made are an indication of their worth.

Thanks to those who made sensible replies - I appreciate it

ukk9

ChrisCobra

Run and swim , woulda saved you bags of cash.

UK2010

ukk9 wrote: »

I work long hours and shifts and have returned ASAP to answer any points made.

To cover the cost of all the court cases you're planning to lose :rotfl: