Lengthy gym contracts

sabz3008

Good news?

Lengthy gym terms were 'unfair' says judge -BBC NEWS

I still don't get what justification gyms have for even a 3 month membership such as what VA & Fitness First do... What cost, what SERIOUS COST is there to cancel a membership...I'm sure with 1 month contracts, 1 member goes, another comes...?! Plus admin fees as well with most gyms

Gym memberships are a subject that really gets me :mad: Good to see a judge take it in the right direction

Zandoni

sabz3008 wrote: »

Good news?

Lengthy gym terms were 'unfair' says judge -BBC NEWS

I still don't get what justification gyms have for even a 3 month membership such as what VA & Fitness First do... What cost, what SERIOUS COST is there to cancel a membership...I'm sure with 1 month contracts, 1 member goes, another comes...?! Plus admin fees as well with most gyms

Gym memberships are a subject that really gets me :mad: Good to see a judge take it in the right direction

Agree 100%

arcon5

Equally, maybe consumers should take greater care when agreeing to join for minimum periods.

A break option in contracts greater than 1 year would be a good idea though.

fozmcfc

I can understand gyms offering contract for 12 months and giving savings to those who sign up for them, but it's the getting out of it after the 12 months is up that annoys me.

With David Lloyds, I had to give 3 months notice even though I was a member for 15 months and my minimum term was 12 months.

I think key features in the T&C's should be highlighted when signing up, rather then a huge list of T&C's being shoved under your nose when signing up.

Also even if quite a bit more expensive per month, 1 month and 3 month contracts should be available at all gyms. With 1 months notice only needed to be given at the end of the term.

Zandoni

I don't even see why you have to give notice at all.

sabz3008

arcon5 wrote: »

Equally, maybe consumers should take greater care when agreeing to join for minimum periods.

For all you know, a consumer could well have had a car accident 9 months into some bizarre 36 month contract and is unable to use a gym anymore...Or, as the article has stated, the gym may not be of satisfactory quality...Or , the fact that gym memberships are very expensive, the consumer cannot afford it any longer as he/she loses their job

Outpost

You could say the same things about 24 month phone contracts and year-long car insurance or breakdown policies. There's no big mystery over why these organisations and gyms want to tie you into a long contract where they're essentially guaranteed money off you every month for a year surely?

wealdroam

Outpost wrote: »

You could say the same things about 24 month phone contracts and year-long car insurance or breakdown policies. There's no big mystery over why these organisations and gyms want to tie you into a long contract where they're essentially guaranteed money off you every month for a year surely?

Well with mobile phone contracts they need to recover the costs of a subsidised phone.
Sim only contracts do not have long tie-ins.

arcon5

sabz3008 wrote: »

For all you know, a consumer could well have had a car accident 9 months into some bizarre 36 month contract and is unable to use a gym anymore...Or, as the article has stated, the gym may not be of satisfactory quality...Or , the fact that gym memberships are very expensive, the consumer cannot afford it any longer as he/she loses their job

And if they are unfortuante they find themself unable to walk, lease a 1st floor flat -- should the landlord be forced to release them from this obligation?

Or develop back problems meaning they need a specialist chair for their home -- cancel their DFS credit agreement & return the sofa?

I don't disagree 3 years is excessive -- but they don't physically force you to agree to it and sign the agreement, do they? If the length of time & costs are explicitly clear I think it devalues the whole point of having contracts in place if in just 1/8 way into the agreement you have a legal get out.

Outpost

wealdroam wrote: »

Well with mobile phone contracts they need to recover the costs of a subsidised phone.
Sim only contracts do not have long tie-ins.

Agreed, but I don't see that the increase from 12, to 18 to 24 months becoming the standard length of phone contracts as being due to having to subsidise the cost of the handset.

It's ultimately down to them wanting guaranteed revenue each month for the length of the contract in the same way that the aforementioned gyms do. Yes it's considered unfair from the customer's point of view when they want to wriggle free, but it makes perfect sense from a business point of view to have those monthly payments essentially guaranteed for a year.

Outpost

arcon5 wrote: »

Or develop back problems meaning they need a specialist chair for their home -- cancel their DFS credit agreement & return the sofa?

You're starting to compare apples to oranges now. A credit agreement set up to pay for the sofa sitting in your living room is not the same thing as gym membership is it?