California Fitness Saga - Long List of complaints

[Kb27]

When business is failing and the owners planning to close shop, the last thing they want to do is to announce to the customers and employees, way before hand.

 

Carry on as usual as if everything is per normal.

 

Stop paying for rent, utilities and other bills is the first thing to do. Salaries may be delayed, employees CPF not paid. But collect money from customers as usual.

 

Then drop the bomb.

[Wt_know]

yup. it's SOP that the next morning, door is shut and a notice is pasted on the door.

it's an overnight job ...

 

When business is failing and the owners planning to close shop, the last thing they want to do is to announce to the customers and employees, way before hand.

 

Carry on as usual as if everything is per normal.

 

Stop paying for rent, utilities and other bills is the first thing to do. Salaries may be delayed, employees CPF not paid. But collect money from customers as usual.

 

Then drop the bomb.

[Locknload]

Not to say I like CASE or side with CASE, but honestly, what do the members expect CASE to do in this situation?

 

Sh!t has already hit the fan, why is CASE expected to have more power than the members when it is the members themselves who go and buy/renew the memberships and so the contractual relationship and the agreed terms are between members and California Fitness?

 

The nature of CASE is that during peacetime the things they do are thankless, then when things go south, consumers expect them to perform miracles. Of course it is not nice to lose money or not get what you paid for, but to blame CASE for not getting back what you demand you should get back, honestly I think is not really fair. 

I don't think they 're blaming CASE for biz that go bump in the night, it's not getting what they paid for is the issue here and there's a thing called seeking redress!

[Kb27]

yup. it's SOP that the next morning, door is shut and a notice is pasted on the door.

it's an overnight job ...

 

 

Typical exit strategy.

[The_Bear]

I don't think they 're blaming CASE for biz that go bump in the night, it's not getting what they paid for is the issue here and there's a thing called seeking redress!

Isn't this a case of biz going bump overnight, therefore the consumers are not getting what they paid for?

[Donut]

Whatever it is, our SG law favours companies and business. Since when we have consumers rights and protection?

[Celicar]

I don't think they 're blaming CASE for biz that go bump in the night, it's not getting what they paid for is the issue here and there's a thing called seeking redress!

I don't dispute the desire to seek redress, but when the expectation is that CASE should be the one seeking redress, that is what I have an issue with. I think CASE has a lot of room for improvement, but at the same time, it has become a convenient punching bag.

[Locknload]

Isn't this a case of biz going bump overnight, therefore the consumers are not getting what they paid for?

Both exactly, hence consumers are seeking redress through CASE.

[Locknload]

I don't dispute the desire to seek redress, but when the expectation is that CASE should be the one seeking redress, that is what I have an issue with. I think CASE has a lot of room for improvement, but at the same time, it has become a convenient punching bag.

Agree that Case has a long way to go towards protection of consumer rights hence the consumers go to them to seek redress, although it's not a given that they'd get their monies back in full as staff wages / CPF and other creditors have priority in this case.

 

Analogy would be that one cannot expect the cops to prevent one's loss of possessions if one did not practice diligence in keeping it secure but if the perpetrator is caught, one can go to the courts to seek justice, not necessarily the loss.

[Blackyv]

When business is failing and the owners planning to close shop, the last thing they want to do is to announce to the customers and employees, way before hand.

 

Carry on as usual as if everything is per normal.

 

Stop paying for rent, utilities and other bills is the first thing to do. Salaries may be delayed, employees CPF not paid. But collect money from customers as usual.

 

Then drop the bomb.

Should categorize such sop as fraud or scam and jail the owner who do that.. raise that law and thing will change...

[Jman888]

I don't dispute the desire to seek redress, but when the expectation is that CASE should be the one seeking redress, that is what I have an issue with. I think CASE has a lot of room for improvement, but at the same time, it has become a convenient punching bag.

CASE is quite redundant, you need a strong consumer protection law which case doesn't act as one. However it is goos for cheating case but not much for companies clising down.

[Vratenza]

They should stop allowing packages to be sold unless there is a recourse mechanism in place.

 

Ina  imaginary world scenario, if Gym A wants to sell packages worth $2000, Gym A will need to have some insurance bought or a gym association/governing body guarantee for that $2000. In the event of a default, the person who bought the package has a hassle free discourse.

 

It might push up the cost of the packages but in the first place, packages  and non-package single session price differences are arbitrary....mainly to push the consumer towards buying the package to lock in their loyalty and opportunity to up-sell during the package duration.

 

 

 

[Weez911]

Just don't buy package deals lor.

[Mustank]

Should categorize such sop as fraud or scam and jail the owner who do that.. raise that law and thing will change...

Won't one lah

[Celicar]

Agree that Case has a long way to go towards protection of consumer rights hence the consumers go to them to seek redress, although it's not a given that they'd get their monies back in full as staff wages / CPF and other creditors have priority in this case.

 

Analogy would be that one cannot expect the cops to prevent one's loss of possessions if one did not practice diligence in keeping it secure but if the perpetrator is caught, one can go to the courts to seek justice, not necessarily the loss.

You are largely right, except I think the closer analogy is that when one's house is broken into, one cannot expect the police to get back every cent they lost for them.

CASE is quite redundant, you need a strong consumer protection law which case doesn't act as one. However it is goos for cheating case but not much for companies clising down.

I think when companies close down, no matter how strong the law, you also cannot squeeze every single cent claimed out. Otherwise the company won't be faced with having to close down. I am sure you also understand the standard feature of a company being of limited liability, which facilitates businesses. Consumers have to be more savvy and weigh the risks and rewards. Law can only do so much.

[Kb27]

CASE is quite redundant, you need a strong consumer protection law which case doesn't act as one. However it is goos for cheating case but not much for companies clising down.

 

CASE is for AWARENESS ONLY.

 

Don't expect them to do much of anything.

[Acemundo]

I don't dispute the desire to seek redress, but when the expectation is that CASE should be the one seeking redress, that is what I have an issue with. I think CASE has a lot of room for improvement, but at the same time, it has become a convenient punching bag.

 

while I have nothing against what you said about case, I feel the dispute resolution approach adopted by them is quite lopsided.  they adopt a mindset of being a message forwarder (ie just forward the comments from consumer/merchant to merchant/consumer) and trying at very best to persuade both party to accept any offer of resolution tabled even if it is marginalizing the consumer.  if a merchant makes a scandalous offer, they will also expect the consumer to accept the offer and close the case.  end of day, any rogue merchant will still not be penalize in any way , not even censured.

 

admittedly that may be the best case can do given its limited legal powers.  any improvement can only come from the case in consumer laws or rules governing the merchants.

[13177]

Just don't buy package deals lor.

Some deals difficult not to buy package if you want to continue using it in long term basis, like gym and facial.