Ice rink 12 month contract

bod1467

frugal_mike wrote: »

It's reasonable to have terms that allow them to unilaterally change any term in the agreement and the price?

Yes ..... provided they also allow the consumer to cancel the contract if the proposed changes are to their detriment and they don't agree with them.

Which is what devil woman was alluding to.

andycris3107

The legal requirement is for any changes to the amount, date, or frequency of a direct debit to be notified at least 10 days prior to the change.

Changes to CCR in 2013 bring some other important rights. Specifically introduced to tackle gym memberships (but it is possible that these may also be applied to other contract service contracts such as this one) state that you must have the flexibility to freeze or cancel such contracts under certain conditions (such as if you move house or become unemployed).

Finally I would determine whether the rink has a shorter term contract or a trial period. Many gyms do not as they make a great deal of money from those who join and then don't go. At £140 a month that would be a hard pill to swallow. Just remember that MSE advises to compare contracts in terms of their total value, not their monthly fee. So this contract is valued at £1680

ThumbRemote

Nofixtabode wrote: »

5.1. We can change the agreement at any time. We will give you 14 day’s notice ofthis change in writing at the address you have given us.

Just what sort of a term is this? It basically says it makes no difference what you have agreed to, they can change it after the fact.

You thought you'd signed up for ice skating membership. Actually you've joined the foreign legion and the skating rink manager now owns your house.

andycris3107

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Just what sort of a term is this? It basically says it makes no difference what you have agreed to, they can change it after the fact.

You thought you'd signed up for ice skating membership. Actually you've joined the foreign legion and the skating rink manager now owns your house.

The quick answer is that they cannot change the core service. The UTCCRs state that :

A term is unfair if:

Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

'Good faith' means that you must deal fairly and openly with consumers. Standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs but must also take account of the interests and rights of consumers by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

Terms in consumer contracts which set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement.

Hermione_Granger

bris wrote: »

You don't half post some nonsense, that contract is perfectly reasonable and standard.

I think that the only nonsense is that someone who gives advice on a consumer rights forum thinks it acceptable that a company states that they can change any terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties concerned.

This is from the Government guidelines to the Unfair terms in consumer contracts legislation.

Schedule 2, paragraph 1, states that terms may be unfair if they
have the object or effect of:
(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.

10.1 A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract
after it has been agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under
strong suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced
only if both parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.

10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept
increased costs or penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely
to be considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that
way. A variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract
even though it was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments, if its
wording means it could be used to impose more substantial changes. This applies
to terms giving the supplier the right to make corrections to contracts at its discretion and without liability.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

You don't half post some nonsense, that contract is perfectly reasonable and standard.

:rotfl:

2.7.1 A term which could allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the
contract or any important obligation under it, at his discretion and without
liability, has clear potential to upset the balance of the contract to the
consumer's disadvantage. This applies not only to terms which allow the
supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the bargain altogether, but also to
those which permit him to suspend provision of any significant benefit
under the contract – see paragraph 15.4

3.2 A term binding customers to go on paying when services are not provided
as agreed is clearly open to even stronger objection than the exemption
clauses considered under the heading Group 2(g). That kind of term
excludes the supplier's liability to provide compensation for breach of
contract but does not prevent the consumer cancelling.
3.3 In general, clauses allowing a business some flexibility in the performance
of its duties under the contract can in principle be acceptable where they
specify the circumstances in which any contractual obligations may not be
observed – see, for example, paragraphs 2.7.2 and 2.7.3. But this does not
apply where the circumstances in question are effectively under the control
of the supplier.

6.1.6 Inadequate rights for the consumer. A term can also be unfair if it
undermines the consumer's legitimate cancellation rights. Clauses
frequently state or imply that the consumer cannot cancel the contract in
any circumstances, or only with the supplier's agreement. In law, each
party has a right to end the contract if the other commits a serious breach
of it. A term that purports to rule out all possibility of cancellation by the
consumer is potentially misleading and unfair.

10.1 A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract after it has been
agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under strong
suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced only if both
parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.
10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs or
penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely to be
considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that way. A
variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract even though it
was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments, if its wording means it
could be used to impose more substantial changes. This applies to terms
giving the supplier the right to make corrections to contracts at its
discretion and without liability.
10.3 Such a term is more likely to be found fair if:
(a) it is narrowed in effect, so that it cannot be used to change the
balance of advantage under the contract – for example, allowing
variations to reflect changes in the law, to meet regulatory
requirements or to reflect new industry guidance and codes of
practice which are likely to raise standards of consumer protection
(b) it can be exercised only for reasons stated in the contract which are
clear and specific enough to ensure the power to vary cannot be
used at will to suit the interests of the supplier, or unexpectedly to
consumers (see paragraph 11.5)
(c) there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation, and a
right for the consumer to cancel before being affected by it, without
penalty or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract.
10.4 A term which merely says that variations will only be 'reasonable' or will
only be made 'reasonably', is unlikely to be any fairer than one which
contains no such qualification, unless there can be little doubt in a
reasonable consumer's mind as to what sort of variation, broadly speaking,
such wording allows, and in what circumstances. Where the criteria of
reasonableness are vague, or clearly meant to include the best commercial
interests of the business, there will be scope for the supplier to change the
bargain unfairly to the detriment of consumers, simply on the basis that he
needs to protect his profit margins.

11.7 A term which could allow the supplier to vary what is supplied at will –
rather than because of bona fide external circumstances – is unlikely to be
fair even if customers have a right of cancellation and refund. The
consumer should never have to choose between accepting a product that is
not what was agreed, or suffering the inconvenience of unexpectedly not
getting, for example, goods for which he or she may have an immediate
need, or a long-planned holiday, just because it suits the supplier not to
supply what was promised.

12.1 The OFT's objections to variation clauses generally are set out under Group
10. If a contract is to be considered balanced, each party should be sure of
getting what they were promised in exchange for providing the
'consideration' they agreed to provide. A clause allowing the supplier to
increase the price – varying the most important of all of the consumer's
contractual obligations – has clear potential for unfairness.
12.2 Any purely discretionary right to set or vary a price after the consumer has
become bound to pay is obviously objectionable. That applies particularly to
terms allowing the supplier to charge a price on delivery of goods that is
not what was quoted to the consumer when the order was placed. It also
applies to rights to increase payments under continuing contracts where
consumers are 'captive' – that is, they have no penalty-free right to cancel.
12.3 A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because is not
discretionary – for example, a right to increase prices to cover increased
costs experienced by the supplier. Suppliers are much better able to
anticipate and control changes in their own costs than consumers can
possibly be. In any case, such a clause is particularly open to abuse,
because consumers can have no reasonable certainty that the increases imposed on them actually match net cost increases.29

12.4 A degree of flexibility in pricing may be achieved fairly in the following
ways.30
• Where the level and timing of any price increases are specified (within
narrow limits if not precisely) they effectively form part of the agreed
price. As such they are acceptable, provided the details are clearly and
adequately drawn to the consumer's attention.
• Terms which permit increases linked to a relevant published price index
such as the RPI are likely to be acceptable, as paragraph 2 of Schedule
2 to the Regulations indicates, subject to the same proviso.
• Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers are
free to escape its effects by ending the contract. To be genuinely free
to cancel, they must not be left worse off for having entered the
contract, whether by experiencing financial loss (for example, forfeiture
of a prepayment) or serious inconvenience, or any other adverse
consequences.31

15.1 A term binding customers to go on paying when goods or services are not
provided as agreed is clearly open to even stronger objection than the
exemption clauses considered under Group 2(g), or terms allowing the
supplier to cancel at will – see Group 6. Those terms exclude the supplier's
liability to provide compensation for breach of contract, but do not require
the consumer to continue to perform his side of the bargain.

18.1.1 If a contract is to be considered balanced, each party must be subject only
to obligations which he or she has agreed to accept. Any kind of term
which allows the supplier to impose an unexpected financial burden on the
consumer gives rise to concern. It has an effect similar to a price variation
clause (see Group 12) and, like such a clause, cannot be considered an
exempt 'core term' because it does not clearly set an agreed price.

There bris, as always, I've backed up my viewpoint. I'd ask you to back up yours but you've never managed to do it before so I wont hold my breath.

foxtrotoscar_2

bris wrote: »

You don't half post some nonsense, that contract is perfectly reasonable and standard.

Interesting comment. How many other mainstream companies can you name that have such ridiculous (as those highlighted) terms?

unholyangel

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Interesting comment. How many other mainstream companies can you name that have such ridiculous (as those highlighted) terms?

You might be surprised. Big companies often break the rules just the same as small/independent ones.

British Gas, Microsoft and Sky have all been made to change/delete terms that were in breach of UTCCR.

timbstoke

Is it possible to join them online? If so, have a look for the same T&C's online. I'll bet a cup of tea and a hobnob that they don't mention your right to cancel within 14 days (edit: they don't). If they don't, then join online and you have the right to cancel at any time.

CCR Regulation 31:

(1) This regulation applies if the trader does not provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.
(2) If the trader provides the consumer with that information in the period of 12 months beginning with the first day of the 14 days mentioned in regulation 30(2) to (6), but otherwise in accordance with Part 2, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the consumer receives the information.
(3) Otherwise the cancellation period ends at the end of 12 months after the day on which it would have ended under regulation 30.

And a bonus clause in Regulation 36:

(6) The consumer bears no cost for supply of the service, in full or in part, in the cancellation period, if—
(a) the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, or the information on payment of that cost required by paragraph (n) of that Schedule, in accordance with Part 2, or
(b) the service is not supplied in response to a request in accordance with paragraph (1).

Plain english translation: Because they don't tell you you can cancel within 14 days, you can actually cancel within 12 months. And because they didn't tell you, they're not entitled to keep any membership fees already paid. Not that you would try and claim them back if you've been using the service, but it's a nice one to remind them of if they get annoying.

andycris3107

timbstoke wrote: »

Is it possible to join them online? If so, have a look for the same T&C's online. I'll bet a cup of tea and a hobnob that they don't mention your right to cancel within 14 days (edit: they don't). If they don't, then join online and you have the right to cancel at any time.

CCR Regulation 31:

(1) This regulation applies if the trader does not provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.
(2) If the trader provides the consumer with that information in the period of 12 months beginning with the first day of the 14 days mentioned in regulation 30(2) to (6), but otherwise in accordance with Part 2, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the consumer receives the information.
(3) Otherwise the cancellation period ends at the end of 12 months after the day on which it would have ended under regulation 30.

Good spot!

Sign up online and effectively you can use this clause to cancel whenever you like. They almost certainly would challenge this but the premise is sound and entirely clear. They have not read or adhered to the CCRs brought in last June.