Gym cancelation debt was penalty rules judge

tomwakefield

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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.

On the flip side, they signed a contract to say they would pay for the service for a minimum specified period. The service is still available, they are just choosing not to use it. I think it's morally wrong that they are allowed to breach the contract and the gym just has to accept the lost income.

Flyboy152

Murtle wrote: »

Fair point, but she still has access to the gym and pregnancy doesn't mean she can't use it.

That is not relevant, she doesn't want access to the gym.

Flyboy152

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.

Why would a company want to cancel a contract that you had been paying for. They would only stand to lose the revenue.

tomwakefield

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Why would a company want to cancel a contract that you had been paying for. They would only stand to lose the revenue.

Whether they are likely to is irrelevant. They may want to and now they can.

Perhaps on a sim only phone contract some people have a deal and they no longer want to offer that deal as costs have gone up, making the deal no longer viable. Now, presumably, they can just terminate all existing contracts early without penalty.

mo786uk

Whilst it is not a binding decision - its still soemthing of a 'gamechanger' as it goes against most accepted principles.

What is means is that nayone can attempt to cancel a contract and only pay part of it. Obviously the county court may not agree with this decision but it could prove eprsuasive.

Alternativley the gym company coudl appeal but i daresay they wont wnat to rock the boat.

arcon5

I'm quite disappointed this woman won, it makes a mockery of legally binding contracts. If the gym was still made available during this time, she should have to continue with the membership. If this was the case, the amount they claim should not reflect their actual losses at all.

What I do wonder is how this will affect discounts received on membership based on contract length... for example, if they offer £50/ month for a 6-month contract or £40/month for a 12-month contract, if they then cancel at 6 months due to a change of cirsumstances (against the terms of the contract) then the gym has also lost the £10/month they would have otherwise paid.

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

That is not relevant, she doesn't want access to the gym.

Ofcourse it is relevant. This woman entered into a contract for a minimum term, to get out of this there really should be a valid reason -- not just she no longer wants it!

I don't want to be a BT customer anymore, if only we could all exit contracts because we have simply changed our mind.

Many people don't want to use the gym anymore -- infact many people signup in January and the novelty has worn off by the end of the month. There would be no members at this rate.

unholyangel

She didn't win though, she lost. It was only a "moral" victory in that the courts disagreed she should be held liable for the remaining 3 months and issued that 1 months notice was reasonable under the circumstances.

They wanted £111, she probably wound up paying £97 or there abouts. So saved herself £14 and cost herself 3+ years of hassle.

If i've got time later/tomorrow i'll try confirm this but I seem to recall that for a contract to be "balanced" (and therefore fair) then it needs to be of benefit to both parties. Clearly this wasnt a benefit for her.

For all we know there are other details behind the case, such as her pregnancy was high risk and/or she was advised by her doctor not to exercise during the first months or for the entirety of her pregnancy.

It wasnt as if she had just changed her mind. There were unforeseen circumstances. Although I guess if they werent using protect.....its not really unforeseen :rotfl:

unholyangel

Tried skimming through it but its late, i'm tired and the only thing that really jumped out at me was this:

Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their
form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate
interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the
consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised
penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for
doing something that would normally be a breach of contract

And this:
18.8.1 There is a clear risk of unfairness where terms put consumers at risk of
incurring contractual penalties that are more severe than is necessary to
protect the real interest of the supplier.

5.6 Cancellation penalties and charges. A term which says, or is calculated to
suggest, that inflated sums could be claimed if the consumer cancels the
contract is likely to be challenged as unfair. For example, a penalty for
wrongful cancellation that requires payment of the whole contract price, or
a large part of it, is likely to be unfair if in some cases the supplier could
reasonably reduce ('mitigate') his loss. If, for example, he could find
another customer, the law would allow him to claim no more than the likely
costs of doing so, together with any difference between the original price
and the re-sale price.

5.8 Disguised penalties. Objections under the Regulations to an unfair financial
penalty can apply to any term which requires excessive payment in the
event of early termination, or for doing anything else that the supplier has
an interest in deterring the consumer from doing. This includes terms in
contracts under which consumers agree to make regular payments for
services provided over a period of months or years, which state that they
may cancel, but will remain liable to make all the payments agreed.

arcon5

unholyangel wrote: »

She didn't win though, she lost. It was only a "moral" victory in that the courts disagreed she should be held liable for the remaining 3 months and issued that 1 months notice was reasonable under the circumstances.

They wanted £111, she probably wound up paying £97 or there abouts. So saved herself £14 and cost herself 3+ years of hassle.

If i've got time later/tomorrow i'll try confirm this but I seem to recall that for a contract to be "balanced" (and therefore fair) then it needs to be of benefit to both parties. Clearly this wasnt a benefit for her.

For all we know there are other details behind the case, such as her pregnancy was high risk and/or she was advised by her doctor not to exercise during the first months or for the entirety of her pregnancy.

It wasnt as if she had just changed her mind. There were unforeseen circumstances. Although I guess if they werent using protect.....its not really unforeseen :rotfl:

The article states they was awarded 1 month membership. She will have to pay £37. It also states she was awarded costs. So I imagine they was also awarded a portion of the collection agencies fee also, as the math here doesn't seem to add up.

I think she may have a valid reason had a doctor had a doctor advised her not to partake in excercise, but generally speaking I don't see why falling pregnant would mean you can't use a gym, simply go a little easier than you would had you not been pregnant.
And i'm guessing also that a small portion of pregnancys are genunely "unforeseen" :rotfl: