David Lloyd Gym Membership

naedanger

seoxpert wrote: »

Hi, I signed up for Davi Lloyd Membership a week ago and I called them today to cancel it. They are now asking for a valid reason, I told them I got a new job and can not commit to gym. They are now asking for proof of the new job???

Does anyone know the cooling off period for cancelling David Lloyd membership?

Thanks!!

The following is worth reading:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/changed-your-mind/cancelling-a-gym-membership/

In particular:
"The Competition and Markets Authority advises that a gym contract is unfair if it doesn’t let a member cancel because they’ve had a change in circumstances which means they can’t afford the membership." Therefore if you can show your change of job means you cannot afford the membership you should be able to cancel.

Also perhaps:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9470320.___Moral_victory____for_lawyer_in_gym_row/

Note the importance of giving notice, even with a valid reason.

NeilCr

unholyangel wrote: »

I believe I said that OP has no statutory right to cancel but that they can still cancel - just not without being liable for reasonable losses incurred by the other party and that the other party have a duty to mitigate their losses where reasonably possible (as is the common law in breach of contract situations).


Theres also been a court case - albeit small claims so no precedent - where a woman wanted to cancel her contract and they tried billing her the remainder of the minimum term. York county court decided that 1 months fees was reasonable instead and awarded that amount.

ETA: Should perhaps mention what the gym originally claimed was 3 months - and the judge felt that unreasonable so reduced it to 1 month.

I am happy, in this case, to be guided by organisations like Which and CAB. For example

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/im-trapped-in-my-gym-membership-is-there-anything-i-can-do

It seems to hinge on the reasons why the person wants to leave. In the York case (it appears) the gym member was pregnant. In this case the OP has a new job. Many folks I know use a gym quite happily when working. My gym opens from 6 am to 11pm and all weekend so there are ample opportunities for those who work to attend. And, given the short time before joining and wanting to leave the OP had to know the job was a possibility. If they thought it would effect their gym membership why not wait for the result

As Bris says no gym will turn away members. Plus, as those of us who use gyms regularly know the January "rush" soon stops as people realise what it means. The gym and classes fill up but by February it is back to normal as the new members give up on their resolutions and stay in bed.

In your scenario a whole lot of members could just leave in November - December each year which isn't realistic

As I said before DL seem to be trying to be helpful. I'd take the evidence of the new job to them and see what they say. Easiest first step

unholyangel

NeilCr wrote: »

I am happy, in this case, to be guided by organisations like Which and CAB. For example

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/im-trapped-in-my-gym-membership-is-there-anything-i-can-do

It seems to hinge on the reasons why the person wants to leave. In the York case (it appears) the gym member was pregnant. In this case the OP has a new job. Many folks I know use a gym quite happily when working. My gym opens from 6 am to 11pm and all weekend so there are ample opportunities for those who work to attend. And, given the short time before joining and wanting to leave the OP had to know the job was a possibility. If they thought it would effect their gym membership why not wait for the result

As Bris says no gym will turn away members. Plus, as those of us who use gyms regularly know the January "rush" soon stops as people realise what it means. The gym and classes fill up but by February it is back to normal as the new members give up on their resolutions and stay in bed.

In your scenario a whole lot of members could just leave in November - December each year which isn't realistic

As I said before DL seem to be trying to be helpful. I'd take the evidence of the new job to them and see what they say. Easiest first step

Nothing in that link you've posted contradicts what I've said. Again, I dont think you've understood what I've said.

5.14.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A
requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable
pre-estimate of the loss caused to the trader is one kind of sanction that is
liable to be considered disproportionate. Such a requirement may be void
to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.
However, (as the courts have recognised)
a term may still be considered
unfair independently of the common law, if it has a penal purpose or effect.
Other types of disproportionate sanction are considered in paragraphs
5.15.1 to 5.15.7 below.

5.14.3 Other kinds of penal provisions which may be unfair are clauses saying that
the business can:
 claim all its costs and expenses, not just its net costs resulting directly
from the breach;

5.14.6 Termination charges. A term which says, or is calculated to suggest, that
inflated sums could be claimed (or retained from prepayments) if the
consumer ends the contract is likely to be challenged as unfair. For
example, a charge for wrongful termination that requires payment of the
whole contract price, or a large part of it, is likely to be unfair if in some
cases the business could reasonably reduce (‘mitigate’) its loss. If, for
example, it could find another customer, generally, the law would allow it to
claim no more than the likely costs of doing so, together with any difference
between the original price and the resale price.

5.13.3 Where customers bring the contract to an end without any justification, and
the trader suffers loss as a result, they cannot expect a full refund of all prepayments.
96 But a term under which they always lose everything they
have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses
caused by the termination, is at risk of being considered an unfair financial
sanction – see paragraph 6 of the Grey List, discussed in paragraphs
5.14.1 of the guidance onwards.

5.13.5 Fairness is more likely to be achieved for such a term by ensuring that it
does not go beyond the ordinary legal position. Generally, where the
contract comes to an end because of the fault of the consumer, the
business is entitled to hold back from any refund of prepayments what is
likely to be reasonably needed to cover either its net costs or the net loss of
profit resulting directly from the default (see paragraph 5.14.3 below on the
need to avoid double counting). There is no entitlement to any sum that
could reasonably be saved by, for example, finding another customer.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

And the reason I'm saying you haven't understood is because you can still cancel without justification. Justification only influences the extent of your liability - not having justification will not stop you from cancelling.

Most contracts permit the gym to cancel or suspend membership/services without them being liable for costs incurred in certain circumstances - so it is a requirement to achieve fairness (and thus have a legally binding contract) to allow the consumer to cancel without penalty in certain circumstances as a contract needs to be equally binding on both parties.

They should also be offering a discount for accelerated payment of sums that have not yet fallen due.

Your gym might quieten down in february, mines doesn't quieten down till April. Although my gym lets you cancel with 30 days notice regardless of the reason or when your contract started. Not all gyms take advantage of their customers.

macca1974

I used to be a member at David Lloyds and it was a pain to leave, 3 full calender months notice I think. Glorious facilities though. I don't know anything about the fairness of contract stuff being discussed above, but a quick google of "david lloyd contract" brought it up and its pretty clear...

"15 Ending your membership early
15.1 Medical condition, loss of employment, insolvency, employment relocation, house move or
other changes in personal circumstances
a At any time you can end your membership if:
• you are suffering from a medical condition which means you are unable to use your club’s
sports facilities (this does not include pregnancy, but does include a medical condition that
arises during pregnancy);
• you lose your employment or are declared insolvent;
• you are being relocated in your employment to a location which is more than 10 miles from a
David Lloyd Leisure club;
• you are moving home to a location which is more than 10 miles from a David Lloyd Leisure
club; or
• we are satisfied that there has been a change in your personal circumstances, other than
11
those listed above, which means that it is no longer reasonable for you to use your club’s
facilities or to continue being a member.
b To end your membership for one of the reasons listed above, you must give us notice in writing in
line with A2b ‘Notice’. Your membership will end on the last day of the month in which we receive
your notice or your suitable evidence, whichever we receive later (see A2a ‘Notice’, second bullet).
c You must give us suitable evidence, but you do not need to provide this at the same time that you give us notice."

So maybe you might have a shot if your new employment is 10 miles away from the club? There T&C's seem fairly clearly written to me and I recall when I joined that you do sign up to a full copy of the contract, so isn't really that big a surprise.

Without wanting to sound judgemental, did you really join up to what is probably the most expensive gym in town whilst you were in your notice period at your previous job / before securing a new one, as that seems a bit of an odd move.

NeilCr

unholyangel wrote: »

Nothing in that link you've posted contradicts what I've said. Again, I dont think you've understood what I've said.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

And the reason I'm saying you haven't understood is because you can still cancel without justification. Justification only influences the extent of your liability - not having justification will not stop you from cancelling.

Most contracts permit the gym to cancel or suspend membership/services without them being liable for costs incurred in certain circumstances - so it is a requirement to achieve fairness (and thus have a legally binding contract) to allow the consumer to cancel without penalty in certain circumstances as a contract needs to be equally binding on both parties.

They should also be offering a discount for accelerated payment of sums that have not yet fallen due.

Your gym might quieten down in february, mines doesn't quieten down till April. Although my gym lets you cancel with 30 days notice regardless of the reason or when your contract started. Not all gyms take advantage of their customers.

I completely understand what you are saying.

What I - and I think, others, was interested in was your assertion that the OP could approach DL with the suggestion that they only pay two months as the gym would cover the losses by the influx of new members in January.

So - let's try again - do you think this is a practical solution (of course they can try) as a lot of people could take this route in October/November. Have you any examples where this has actually happened because it does appear an easy get out?

I'm looking at 5.3 in this document

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284453/oft373.pdf

My gym offers both monthly and annual subscriptions. I think that's fair enough as long as the gym users take note of what they are actually signing.

unholyangel

NeilCr wrote: »

I completely understand what you are saying.

What I - and I think, others, was interested in was your assertion that the OP could approach DL with the suggestion that they only pay two months as the gym would cover the losses by the influx of new members in January.

So - let's try again - do you think this is a practical solution (of course they can try) as a lot of people could take this route in October/November. Have you any examples where this has actually happened because it does appear an easy get out?

I'm looking at 5.3 in this document

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284453/oft373.pdf

My gym offers both monthly and annual subscriptions. I think that's fair enough as long as the gym users take note of what they are actually signing.

It is much much much more complex than you're putting it across as. For starters, it really does depend on individual circumstances so there is no one answer fits all.

As for the link you've provided, not sure I'm seeing the relevance. It refers to closed memberships/places with a limited number of placements - which quite a few posters here have said doesn't apply to DL as they'll accept anyone who applies with no limitation on numbers.

However it still doesn't change what I've been saying from my very first post. OP may have no statutory cooling off period, they may not satisfy any contractual cancellation right or to cancel without liability for circumstances genuinely beyond their control - but it still doesn't stop the OP breaching the contract by cancelling without justification - it just means OP would be liable for reasonable losses incurred. That is not all losses incurred, just the ones reasonably incurred that cannot be reasonably avoided. If the gym want to claim an amount as a loss, they're going to have to prove that amount is the actual loss suffered and not just a figure plucked randomly.

Its the same in any breach of contract situation and just like we'd advise consumers they can only claim for actual losses/they have a duty to mitigate, so do the gym and they can't just sit on their hands and allow their losses to accumulate. Damages are not designed to penalise the party in breach (although usually the other party thinks it should be).

Just like if a supplier were to refuse to supply you under a contract you'd have to source somewhere else and if you found somewhere the same price/cheaper, you would have no claim against the original supplier even if they had breached the contract because you haven't suffered a loss from it.

NeilCr

unholyangel wrote: »

It is much much much more complex than you're putting it across as. For starters, it really does depend on individual circumstances so there is no one answer fits all.

As for the link you've provided, not sure I'm seeing the relevance. It refers to closed memberships/places with a limited number of placements - which quite a few posters here have said doesn't apply to DL as they'll accept anyone who applies with no limitation on numbers.

However it still doesn't change what I've been saying from my very first post. OP may have no statutory cooling off period, they may not satisfy any contractual cancellation right or to cancel without liability for circumstances genuinely beyond their control - but it still doesn't stop the OP breaching the contract by cancelling without justification - it just means OP would be liable for reasonable losses incurred. That is not all losses incurred, just the ones reasonably incurred that cannot be reasonably avoided. If the gym want to claim an amount as a loss, they're going to have to prove that amount is the actual loss suffered and not just a figure plucked randomly.

Its the same in any breach of contract situation and just like we'd advise consumers they can only claim for actual losses/they have a duty to mitigate, so do the gym and they can't just sit on their hands and allow their losses to accumulate. Damages are not designed to penalise the party in breach (although usually the other party thinks it should be).

Just like if a supplier were to refuse to supply you under a contract you'd have to source somewhere else and if you found somewhere the same price/cheaper, you would have no claim against the original supplier even if they had breached the contract because you haven't suffered a loss from it.

Okay to close this down because it is like wading through mud

I take it when you said this

"Now with that in mind, perhaps point out to them that we're approaching new year resolution time - usually a gyms busiest time of the year hands down which means they can't really claim losses beyond the end of december as they'll have plenty of new customers to offset the losses caused by your cancellation. Meaning you shouldnt really be paying more than 2 months (this month and next months"

you were suggesting it as a gambit. Not sure how that would work in practice because, unless the OP tells us otherwise, I take it that they paid a full year up front so DL have their money and have likely heard this one before. And the OP signed up to this contract, apparently, in the knowledge that they may soon get a job that would preclude them from using the gym - they could have gone for the three month "trial" subscription - slightly more expensive per month but not such a risk. Note if anyone does go for the three month option read the small print about cancelling

Don't get me wrong. I have little time for DL but they appear to be acting reasonably at this stage by asking to see confirmation of the job. As I have said surely the best and easiest first step is to comply with the request and see what they say

The link was about mitigation. It says that where there is a closed membership with a waiting list then it is easy for a gym to mitigate. It isn't necessarily so with open membership. I was using it to attempt to get you to be more specific than general - and to see if you thought your suggested approach for the OP had any "real" basis. Given your comment about individual circumstances I am guessing not

unholyangel

NeilCr wrote: »

This is like wading through mud.

This is what you said

"Now with that in mind, perhaps point out to them that we're approaching new year resolution time - usually a gyms busiest time of the year hands down which means they can't really claim losses beyond the end of december as they'll have plenty of new customers to offset the losses caused by your cancellation. Meaning you shouldnt really be paying more than 2 months (this month and next months"

I am trying to understand whether you think this is a practical solution. (Or whether it's a try on which is fair enough) And whether you have any concrete examples of this happening. Of course no one size fits all and I may well be reading you wrong but you appear to be giving a clear steer that the OP shouldn't pay more than two months - and, indeed, that it applies to a number of gyms (busiest time of the year etc)

I get what you say about mitigating loss and I completely agree that it is complex.

I have little time for the way DL operate. But the OP (I think anyway in the light of any further information) elected to take out an annual membership when there was a possibility that they would be getting a job in the very near future that precluded them from attending the gym. In addition I believe that DL offer an initial three month "trial" membership at an increased monthly fee which looks as though it might have been more suitable (note if anyone takes this out read the small print about cancelling)

In the light of that (as I have said on a number of occasions) DL seem, at this stage, to be acting reasonably in asking to see proof of the job.

Yes you're right, it is like wading through mud. But that isn't what I said, its part of what I said and the very fact the paragraph starts with "now with that in mind...." really ought to make it clear that the paragraph has context and cannot be quoted independently.

I've done it too previously - focused on one part of a post and misunderstood what it meant because I wasn't reading it in context.

As with any advice on here, its only a practical solution if it works. Theres no magic button that makes a retailer give in - even if you have the full weight of the law behind you. However I've found cutting to the chase & being firm but polite works wonders for all but the most stubborn of retailers. I've actually been rather surprised a few times - expecting an argument/refusal from the retailer only for them to agree with no fuss.

If I were OP, I'd be going through my contract very carefully to see if there is anything in there I can use. And no, I wouldnt take out a membership knowing or suspecting I might not be able to complete it, but I'm not too bothered about it as it doesn't have any bearing on OP's situation and its not like OP can hop in a time machine and change it.