Gym cancelation debt was penalty rules judge

vax2002

For all those locked in battles with gyms and debt collectors a landmark case
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/mother_triumphs_in_legal_fight_over_ending_gym_membership_1_4136768

unholyangel

What amuses me is:

A spokesman for Roko said: “We are pleased the judge agreed notice should have been given and has awarded us costs.

“Our contracts are in accordance with OFT guidance. We always ensure all members are clear upon joining what they are committing to, whether it be short term, or up to 12 months.” Oh well thats all right then, I guess you can disregard UK Law providing you inform them of what they're signing up to

Erm which OFT guidance? Because its certainly not OFT's guidance to Unfair Contract Terms. They specifically state that any charge that is not a genuine pre-loss estimate is likely to be unfair, considered a penalty and unenforceable. Clearly the Judge agree's with OFT's guidance as he said:

This was because the requirement was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss Roko would suffer, and was therefore a penalty.

Is it just me or do that Gym seem to be on cloud cuckoo?

Barneysmom

Have I got it right here, she doesn't pay the full year's membership, but she does have to pay costs. Wonder how much it has cost her?

vax2002

Apparently all they got was £37, so they were just sounding off about costs.
However a very good ruling that effects gym's and debt collectors alike.
Anything but an actual loss is a penalty.

unholyangel

Barneysmom wrote: »

Have I got it right here, she doesn't pay the full year's membership, but she does have to pay costs. Wonder how much it has cost her?

He said Roko had sued for £255
Roko insisted Mrs Morton pay the full year’s membership fee of £111
Credit Resolution Service’s debt collection charges of £80

I might be wrong, but looks like a maximum £60. Even if they paid a solicitor, afaik its unusual to have solicitors costs awarded against the "losing" party.

Personally though........I would say this is a win - even if having to pay costs. Morally anyway.

DVardysShadow

Barneysmom wrote: »

Have I got it right here, she doesn't pay the full year's membership, but she does have to pay costs. Wonder how much it has cost her?

I think costs will be limited to the Small Claims Court filing fee - £35 or something like that. So Roko got less than they went out to get and their statement

A spokesman for Roko said: “We are pleased the judge agreed notice should have been given and has awarded us costs.

really is for the most part spin. I would think that if she had offered the month's subs which was ordered in the judgement, costs might not have been awarded.

On the whole a very welcome poke in the eye for gyms everywhere.

unholyangel

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think costs will be limited to the Small Claims Court filing fee - £35 or something like that. So Roko got less than they went out to get and their statement

really is for the most part spin. I would think that if she had offered the month's subs which was ordered in the judgement, costs might not have been awarded.

On the whole a very welcome poke in the eye for gyms everywhere.

You have the filing claim and hearing fee too (if it goes to hearing which obviously this has) from what's been said on here (MSE consumer rights board).

Just checked Filing fee is £25 if done online and £35 if not. Hearing fee is £25 for amounts up to £300.

Flyboy152

Why was it necessary for the Post to call her a "mother."

I suppose it all helps if your husband is a lawyer.

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Why was it necessary for the Post to call her a "mother."

I suppose it all helps if your husband is a lawyer.

Could be one of a few reasons. A) so people can relate/sympathise. So that the "average joe" (or joanne in this case?) feels empowered and realises that they don't have to be a legal hot shot.

Personally I think its C) "Lawyer loses case but it could have good implications for thousands" as a storyline wouldnt sell as many papers or attract as many readers

tomwakefield

All I can see happening is that memberships will go up in price to compensate for the increased risk that they are no longer legally binding for the consumer.

Flyboy152

tomwakefield wrote: »

All I can see happening is that memberships will go up in price to compensate for the increased risk that they are no longer legally binding for the consumer.

And they get fewer customers spending the money and will ultimately lose out.