We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gym cancelation debt was penalty rules judge
Options
Comments
-
And they get fewer customers spending the money and will ultimately lose out.
Losers all round then. Except for that one woman.
I wonder if this would apply to all service contracts then? Phone contracts? Internet? Utilities?Competition wins: Where's Wally Goody Bag, Club badge branded football, Nivea for Men Goody Bag0 -
unholyangel wrote: »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
or D) The fact that she became a mother is the sole reason she wanted to end the contract.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
So if I have taken out a mortgage and only have three months left to pay and due to getting pregnant I can't afford to pay it back, should the contract become null and void?
Why couldn't she just stick to what she signed up for? It wasn't that she wasn't aware of what she had agreed.
I was sick for a month, should I ask for a month fee back? No, thought not.0 -
A mortgage is different as you have already had the loan. With the gym, you haven't yet had the last 3 months of use. Chalk and cheese.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
halibut2209 wrote: »A mortgage is different as you have already had the loan. With the gym, you haven't yet had the last 3 months of use. Chalk and cheese.
Fair point, but she still has access to the gym and pregnancy doesn't mean she can't use it.0 -
Kind of different for phone contracts/mortgages.
For one......the price of the phone will be built in to your contract. And most companies do offer a reduced cancellation charge (or at least used to). If you were charged the full amount as standard then they would have to prove that it was a genuine pre-loss estimate. If it was.....the charge would stand. The only reason this was technically a victory is because it was not a genuine pre-loss estimate.
With mortgages.....well I think that rather explains itself.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
hmmm, still don't agree with her not paying it! A contract is a contract and should be adhered to.
yeah, bad example using mortgage0 -
unholyangel wrote: »Kind of different for phone contracts/mortgages.
Sim only contracts?
Presumably this means that companies can now cancel our contract at any time without warning providing we've had everything we've paid for to date, and we can't insist on it carrying on until the agreed end. Otherwise we would be in the situation where one person can cancel the contract without penalty and not the other, which I think would be considered an unfair term.Competition wins: Where's Wally Goody Bag, Club badge branded football, Nivea for Men Goody Bag0 -
tomwakefield wrote: »Sim only contracts?
Presumably this means that companies can now cancel our contract at any time without warning providing we've had everything we've paid for to date, and we can't insist on it carrying on until the agreed end. Otherwise we would be in the situation where one person can cancel the contract without penalty and not the other, which I think would be considered an unfair term.
Sim only contracts you'll likely have cheaper prices than PAYG and free minutes/texts/whatever in exchange for a monthly fee.
You could end up worse off if the company were to bill all your usage at normal PAYG rates
Although I agree about it being unbalanced.....contract providers can terminate your service in certain circumstances without penalty. One could argue that to not allow consumers to cancel in certain circumstances without paying the full amount is unbalanced in comparison.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
tomwakefield wrote: »While those that want to go end up paying increased costs.
Losers all round then. Except for that one woman.
I wonder if this would apply to all service contracts then? Phone contracts? Internet? Utilities?
The point is, the ones who don't want to pay for something they aren't using shouldn't be penalised and expected to pay for nothing. If others want to be ripped off, well, to some extent, that is their look out.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards