Gym 'contract' dispute

ShabbyV

Was this truGym?

Yes. That's the one.

wealdroam

ShabbyV wrote: »

Is that sufficient? I pay giffgaff every month but I don't have a contract with them.

You may not have a contract with a minimum term with Giffgaff, but there is definitely a contract between you and them. They are obliged to provide the service in return for money. Same as with your gym.

Just don't suddenly stop paying your Giffgaff subscription without checking what you have agreed to, will you.

LilElvis

Ask the gym to see copies of the document you signed agreeing to the 30 day rolling contract.

wealdroam

ShabbyV wrote: »

Yes. That's the one.

Right, I can't guess which gym you have signed up with, but if it is Chatham Dockside, they say:

You can join pay as you go from £14.99pm plus £0 joining fee, on a 12 month contract or £19.99pm on a rolling monthly contract (which you can cancel with 30 days notice)

Caz3121

ShabbyV wrote: »

Last year I signed up to a gym.

It will boil down to what you signed
I think they would be better selling their "no contract" as a "no minimum term" or "rolling monthly contract"

DandelionPatrol

BigBopper wrote: »

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

As the 'contract' is headlined 'no contract', unless they actually gave you a written contract, I believe that you are entitled to rely on the description of 'no contract'.

So effectively, the requirement to give 30 days notice is non binding. Having said it is no contract, there has to be a minimal contract. All a court should do is interpret the 'no contract' with the barest minimum of terms to make a contract workable. So if you pay in advance, it is effectively PAYG and a court should not enforce 30 days notice.

Of course, if it goes to court, you would need to make the argument to the Judge as to the minimal interpretation of 'no contract' arising from the headline description.

Shall we see what he's actually signed up for before you start guessing?

He signed up to a 'no contract' deal. If it is 'no contract' deal, he has not signed up to anything. Plainly, there is nothing he has signed up to, no guess work on my part and a point completely missed by you

The concept of a 'no contract' deal is an oxymoron. So the options are

• There are conditions, in which case it has been misrepresented as a 'no contract' deal and OP should be let out of it without loss
• There really are no conditions, in which case the 30 day notice clause is not part of the deal

The general line of courts is to interpret doubt in contracts in favour of the party which did not draw up the contract.

SeduLOUs

Presumably, as you believe you have 'no contract', had you turned up to the gym the day after making your monthly payment to find the doors permanently locked, you would have been perfectly happy not to receive any sort of refund for them not providing the services that they had no contractual obligation to provide?

DandelionPatrol

SeduLOUs wrote: »

Presumably, as you believe you have 'no contract', had you turned up to the gym the day after making your monthly payment to find the doors permanently locked, you would have been perfectly happy not to receive any sort of refund for them not providing the services that they had no contractual obligation to provide?

As the 'no contract' deal was drawn up by the gym, I cannot see a court letting OP lose out in this way.

SeduLOUs

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

As the 'no contract' deal was drawn up by the gym, I cannot see a court letting OP lose out in this way.

It's blindingly obvious that there is indeed a contract in place, just no minimum term past the rolling 30 days payment periods.

My example was intended to illustrate that if OP genuinely believes that there is no contract, then there is no basis to expect the gym to provide services and that any payments made would simply be gifts.

DandelionPatrol

SeduLOUs wrote: »

It's blindingly obvious that there is indeed a contract in place, just no minimum term past the rolling 30 days payment periods.

My example was intended to illustrate that if OP genuinely believes that there is no contract, then there is no basis to expect the gym to provide services and that any payments made would simply be gifts.

Of course there is a contract. But as the deal is headlined 'no contract', OP is fully entitled to assume there are no conditions. Equally, OP is entitled to assume that he gets a month's gym for a month's money.

The 'no contract' headline is ridiculous, but as it is the gym's headline, it is the gym who have to live with the adverse consequences, not the OP.