You might want to have a look at the below link.
Basically means, if you decide you dont like your gym after 3 months etc then you can stop paying the gym as there is no legally binding credit agreement to carry on.
That the gym cant pass you onto a debt collection agency or threaten to do so.
Might save somebody some money?
http://oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-...nforcement-current/ashbourne/ams-qanda#named8
“He ruled that the terms in Ashbourne's contracts that make the consumer keep on paying when they want to end their gym membership, are unfair. This is because he found Ashbourne used terms which lock the consumer in to lengthy minimum membership periods (usually 12, 24 or 36 months), when Ashbourne knew that many consumers stop attending after 2 or 3 months.”
“The judge ruled that it is unlawful to demand sums under contracts where the term is not fair, or the contract does not otherwise require it to be paid. Therefore Ashbourne should not be demanding the balance of the minimum period where the consumer wishes to terminate their gym membership.
He also ruled that it is unlawful to refer or threaten to refer consumers to credit reference agencies where the sum demanded is not payable because of an unfair term, or is simply a claim for damages, or it is disputed, or the reference is simply to put pressure on consumers to pay.”
“Ashbourne have already undertaken to the OFT not to send letters from a 'litigation department' that does not exist, or to make threats to take consumers to court when they in fact have no intention to do so. However where the term is unfair, neither Ashbourne nor anyone else, should threaten to take the consumer to court to enforce that term, because it is not binding on the consumer”
“Did the agreements involve credit?
A. No. The judge has given some guidance as to what constitutes a contract of credit. He found that in a case where the liability or obligation to pay is incurred at the outset, but is discharged in instalments, then this is credit. However, he found that Ashbourne were recommending contracts under which the payment fell due in stages as the contract was performed, and that these were not credit agreements.”
“12. Will this judgment automatically have a knock-on effect to other gym contracts?
A. The judgment only applies to contracts 1 to 13, drafted and recommended by Ashbourne. However, it should give other businesses in the sector which use similar terms an understanding of how a court would rule if the terms came before it. The OFT would expect businesses using any of the unfair terms to amend their contracts accordingly.”
“13. Will there be a read-across for other sectors offering this type of contract?
A. The ruling applies primarily to the gym sector, but some of the judge's rulings (such as on references to credit agencies, and unfair business practices) will be directly relevant to all sectors. Further, the judge's reasoning is binding on lower courts such as the County Court, and persuasive in the High Court, so it is important that traders using practices that may be similar to Ashbourne's consider their position, perhaps by taking take legal advice.”
Basically means, if you decide you dont like your gym after 3 months etc then you can stop paying the gym as there is no legally binding credit agreement to carry on.
That the gym cant pass you onto a debt collection agency or threaten to do so.
Might save somebody some money?
http://oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-...nforcement-current/ashbourne/ams-qanda#named8
“He ruled that the terms in Ashbourne's contracts that make the consumer keep on paying when they want to end their gym membership, are unfair. This is because he found Ashbourne used terms which lock the consumer in to lengthy minimum membership periods (usually 12, 24 or 36 months), when Ashbourne knew that many consumers stop attending after 2 or 3 months.”
“The judge ruled that it is unlawful to demand sums under contracts where the term is not fair, or the contract does not otherwise require it to be paid. Therefore Ashbourne should not be demanding the balance of the minimum period where the consumer wishes to terminate their gym membership.
He also ruled that it is unlawful to refer or threaten to refer consumers to credit reference agencies where the sum demanded is not payable because of an unfair term, or is simply a claim for damages, or it is disputed, or the reference is simply to put pressure on consumers to pay.”
“Ashbourne have already undertaken to the OFT not to send letters from a 'litigation department' that does not exist, or to make threats to take consumers to court when they in fact have no intention to do so. However where the term is unfair, neither Ashbourne nor anyone else, should threaten to take the consumer to court to enforce that term, because it is not binding on the consumer”
“Did the agreements involve credit?
A. No. The judge has given some guidance as to what constitutes a contract of credit. He found that in a case where the liability or obligation to pay is incurred at the outset, but is discharged in instalments, then this is credit. However, he found that Ashbourne were recommending contracts under which the payment fell due in stages as the contract was performed, and that these were not credit agreements.”
“12. Will this judgment automatically have a knock-on effect to other gym contracts?
A. The judgment only applies to contracts 1 to 13, drafted and recommended by Ashbourne. However, it should give other businesses in the sector which use similar terms an understanding of how a court would rule if the terms came before it. The OFT would expect businesses using any of the unfair terms to amend their contracts accordingly.”
“13. Will there be a read-across for other sectors offering this type of contract?
A. The ruling applies primarily to the gym sector, but some of the judge's rulings (such as on references to credit agencies, and unfair business practices) will be directly relevant to all sectors. Further, the judge's reasoning is binding on lower courts such as the County Court, and persuasive in the High Court, so it is important that traders using practices that may be similar to Ashbourne's consider their position, perhaps by taking take legal advice.”
