Personal Trainer 'licence' with club owner not signed

Ridge125

Hello,

My gym is claiming that a personal trainer I used that worked at their premises is self employed, and by virtue of the fact they have a licence agreement in place stipulating this fact the club is implying they are not involved with a claim I now have against this PT.

I have now seen the licence, and whilst it's contents certainly seems to imply the PT is an employee by stating must they charge clients what the club decides and must advise of absence etc this all looks very much like he is an employee, the main issue is that this licence is not only invalid from a date perspective, but it is also not signed by the PT!!

Does this therefore mean the PT was in fact an employee, despite other pointers suggesting otherwise. The Club certainly advertise the PT's as being 'theirs' and the PT's are all wearing Uniforms with the Clubs logo, so it all seems very dodgy to me and would seem to introduce complications for both he PT and the Club re defining who is responsible, as the Club has a duty of care to me as the client under the Owners Liability Act 1957, as does the PT under his contractual obligations having agreed to start training me, but failing to complete a PARQ and or producing a PTP.

Any advise much appreciated.

[Deleted User]

It's not uncommon for PTs to be self employed, regardless of uniforms or how they are marketed.

What's more important though is what your contract for personal training says and who the parties are.

Ridge125

I appreciate the fact that PTs can and often are self employed, but my point is that the club are referring to the licence in order to wash their hands of the issue I now have with the PT (no signed contract with the PT by the way), but the licence is not signed by the PT, so therefore removing any 'get out of jail free' clauses they may have been relying on

MalMonroe

It's a bit like hairdressers - they can hire a chair at a hair salon but they remain self-employed whilst also sometimes wearing the same kind of overalls and using the same reception and pay facilities as employed staff. 

My niece has an online job where she has to abide by all the rules of the establishment, whilst still retaining her self-employed status. She likes it because she's not tied down and they like it because she's no bother! (i.e. she sorts out her own tax/NI and isn't paid for holidays or sick leave).

If you can't claim against the place where he works, you will have to claim against the trainer himself. If there is any doubt about whether or not he's self-employed, the true facts will emerge during the course of any enquiry.

You could contact Citizens Advice to find out how to bring such a case.

Grumpy_chap

Ridge125 said:

Hello,

My gym is claiming that a personal trainer I used that worked at their premises is self employed, and by virtue of the fact they have a licence agreement in place stipulating this fact the club is implying they are not involved with a claim I now have against this PT.

I have now seen the licence, and whilst it's contents certainly seems to imply the PT is an employee by stating must they charge clients what the club decides and must advise of absence etc this all looks very much like he is an employee, the main issue is that this licence is not only invalid from a date perspective, but it is also not signed by the PT!!

Does this therefore mean the PT was in fact an employee, despite other pointers suggesting otherwise. The Club certainly advertise the PT's as being 'theirs' and the PT's are all wearing Uniforms with the Clubs logo, so it all seems very dodgy to me and would seem to introduce complications for both he PT and the Club re defining who is responsible, as the Club has a duty of care to me as the client under the Owners Liability Act 1957, as does the PT under his contractual obligations having agreed to start training me, but failing to complete a PARQ and or producing a PTP.

Any advise much appreciated.

It can be common for PT's to be self employed yet also present as part of the gym brand.

In many ways, the agreement between the gym and the PT is irrelevant.  What matters is who you have a contract with - is that something you are able to verify?  It should be straightforward if you have a written agreement about the programme of PT that you have purchased and / or it may be covered in the membership agreement with the gym.

I am unsure what the acronyms PARQ and PTP stand for.

It may help if you set out some details of the reason you feel there may be a claim (against either the PT or the gym or both), particularly as you mention Owner's (I assume Occupier's) Liability Act.

Manxman_in_exile

I suspect that this isn't a contract issue but a PI negligence claim.

I suspect the OP is trying to establish whether the gym may be vicariously liable... 

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

I suspect that this isn't a contract issue but a PI negligence claim.

I suspect the OP is trying to establish whether the gym may be vicariously liable... 

In that case, there will be a Solicitor involved who will be able to very quickly establish form the documents the OP has whether vicarious liability is likely to succeed.