In OFT v. Ashbourne Management Services Ltd, the high court apparently ordered gyms to relinquish members from ongoing liability after their life circumstances change such as an injury or a relocation to a different area so that it is impractical for them to continue utilising that fitness club.
What provision or rule of law was this order based on?
It's not specifically about injury or relocation but more generally about early termination of a contract and it depends on the wording in the 'version' of the contract.
Gov.uk Ashbourne Management Services: unfair gym membership contracts:
... The Court held:
various terms of Ashbourne's standard form agreements are unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
In particular:
Terms in contracts 1 to 10 which required consumers to pay in full for the remainder of the minimum membership period if they wished to cancel during this period. This was both because the minimum term operated as a "trap" for consumers who overestimate the use they are likely to make of the gym, and also because the contracts unfairly gave Ashbourne the right to demand too much in payment;
Terms in contracts 11 to 13 which tie consumers in for more than 12 months. The judge indicated that if there is a longer period it would be unfair unless the consumer could give 30 days notice to cancel, and pay a modest sum in compensation. The court was willing to accept a 12 month minimum period in contracts 11 to 13 because they contain more circumstances in which the consumer can suspend or terminate their membership for stated reasons. ...
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
The judgment on Bailii - The Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1237 (Ch) (27 May 2011)
