California Fitness Saga - Long List of complaints

[Celicar]

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.

I don't think CASE expects the consumer to accept any offer and close the case. They may facilitate communication to and fro and maybe even give their views when asked, but I don't think there is any such expectation.

 

The thing is companies are not beholden to CASE and there is already a very comprehensive and entrenched set of laws governing the setting up and running of companies and businesses. They are limited liability entities. Any suggestion that such rules applies, except when it comes to consumers then all bets are off and all business owners have to sell all their assets, mothers and the clothes off their backs to repay all consumers, may just make the running of business not viable. Of course there are those who from Day 1 start a business with the intention to defraud, but I believe the large majority of businesses are set up with the intention to keep running and the owners will try to do so, to be eyeball deep in debt is not something that the business owners do not want as well. 

[Nicfoo]

Then don't waste money and time. Come to MCF post the problem, we can give the same advice FOC. Throw in some humour and entertainment as well.

 

Just remember to do a search before starting any new threads... or else sure get one in the backside from @Radx @Jman888 etc...

 

Before giving advice, make sure there is no agenda, otherwise later get public statement need to remove and keep the thread somewhere...LOL

[Acemundo]

I don't think CASE expects the consumer to accept any offer and close the case. They may facilitate communication to and fro and maybe even give their views when asked, but I don't think there is any such expectation.

 

The thing is companies are not beholden to CASE and there is already a very comprehensive and entrenched set of laws governing the setting up and running of companies and businesses. They are limited liability entities. Any suggestion that such rules applies, except when it comes to consumers then all bets are off and all business owners have to sell all their assets, mothers and the clothes off their backs to repay all consumers, may just make the running of business not viable. Of course there are those who from Day 1 start a business with the intention to defraud, but I believe the large majority of businesses are set up with the intention to keep running and the owners will try to do so, to be eyeball deep in debt is not something that the business owners do not want as well. 

 

for your para 1, I will say I disagree having seen 2 cases happen before.  but of course, they not be overall indicative I do agree.  but I remember reading somewhere about their mission statement being to mediate which effectively means they are less concerned over consumer rights than they are towards bringing a closure to 2 disputing parties.

 

for your para 2, I am not suggesting to undo everything in the companies act etc.  but there is a legal principle called lifting the corporate veil for cases of fraudulent misrepresentation which ought to have been called into play in some of the more extreme cases.  and also I feel an insurance or bond would be good starting point to have these businesses implement to deal with such problems.  even though I am writing in this California thread, I actually feel this case is less severe compared to other cases I have seen or read.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Acemundo

[Vratenza]

 

Not simpur.....

Before giving advice, make sure there is no agenda, otherwise later get public statement need to remove and keep the thread somewhere...LOL

 

[Celicar]

for your para 1, I will say I disagree having seen 2 cases happen before.  but of course, they not be overall indicative I do agree.  but I remember reading somewhere about their mission statement being to mediate which effectively means they are less concerned over consumer rights than they are towards bringing a closure to 2 disputing parties.

 

for your para 2, I am not suggesting to undo everything in the companies act etc.  but there is a legal principle called lifting the corporate veil for cases of fraudulent misrepresentation which ought to have been called into play in some of the more extreme cases.  and also I feel an insurance or bond would be good starting point to have these businesses implement to deal with such problems.  even though I am writing in this California thread, I actually feel this case is less severe compared to other cases I have seen or read.

I have not personally experienced CASE expecting the consumer to accept the proposal, but in those situations I suppose the alternative is for the consumer to decline and then proceed to small claims. In situations when the company is already in trouble, there will be no easy solution or good option.

 

As for lifting the corporate veil, I don't think it is something that CASE can do.

[Acemundo]

I have not personally experienced CASE expecting the consumer to accept the proposal, but in those situations I suppose the alternative is for the consumer to decline and then proceed to small claims. In situations when the company is already in trouble, there will be no easy solution or good option.

 

As for lifting the corporate veil, I don't think it is something that CASE can do.

para 1- that already speaks for how effective is Case.

 

para 2 - not in my wildest imagination would i suggest to Case to do that.  the problem is industry wide not something just an issue with Case.  even if so, i also know this is beyond their powers.

[Nicfoo]

 

Not simpur.....

 

Simple mind produce simple words...LOL

[Kar_lover]

I agree it is arrangement between card users and bank, not the merchant.  my point is, credit card is a medium for transactions these days.  if they don't operate to be in line with the consumer laws, then it is just a loophole.  a gun is a medium for assailant to kill victim.  if the gun laws don't make sense (like it is in usa), there will be lots of unwarranted killing even if you have the best laws governing just the assailant and victim.

 

I don't think it's the bank's job to protect the consumer. The bank is merely a payment facilitator, i.e. "help" the consumer buy a high ticket item on instalment plan which he would otherwise not afford. The purchase decision is the consumer's own. Ergo, any RISK associated with the purchased item (or service) is the buyer's. If i bought a $10k TV set on 3yrs instalment but the tv spoil after 1 year then how? Can't be blame the bank right?

 

It is not unusual for companies to go bankrupt (esp in these times). Anyone buying an extended contract should do so with their eyes with open. By signing on a package you are enjoying savings but you also accept the risk in return. The risk that you may end up not using the gym often enough to fully realise your "savings" or in this unfortunate case, total loss of use. There are no guarantees in life (unless you pay for it). Maybe i am kiasu but I have always refrained by buying packages myself. I rather pay "ala carte" each time. For gym membership, i buy in blocks of 6 months (mine is a no frills gym that doesn't require long term packages. They even have 3 months packages). It's not that i have no sympathy for the customers or that i support California Fitness. But i just dislike that people expect to be constantly sheltered. It's like investment. When make money all happily keep the gains. When suddenly a Lehman happens the same people start blaming everyone for everything. Where there is opportunity for gain, there is also opportunity for loss.

[Acemundo]

I don't think it's the bank's job to protect the consumer. The bank is merely a payment facilitator, i.e. "help" the consumer buy a high ticket item on instalment plan which he would otherwise not afford. The purchase decision is the consumer's own. Ergo, any RISK associated with the purchased item (or service) is the buyer's. If i bought a $10k TV set on 3yrs instalment but the tv spoil after 1 year then how? Can't be blame the bank right?

 

It is not unusual for companies to go bankrupt (esp in these times). Anyone buying an extended contract should do so with their eyes with open. By signing on a package you are enjoying savings but you also accept the risk in return. The risk that you may end up not using the gym often enough to fully realise your "savings" or in this unfortunate case, total loss of use. There are no guarantees in life (unless you pay for it). Maybe i am kiasu but I have always refrained by buying packages myself. I rather pay "ala carte" each time. For gym membership, i buy in blocks of 6 months (mine is a no frills gym that doesn't require long term packages. They even have 3 months packages). It's not that i have no sympathy for the customers or that i support California Fitness. But i just dislike that people expect to be constantly sheltered. It's like investment. When make money all happily keep the gains. When suddenly a Lehman happens the same people start blaming everyone for everything. Where there is opportunity for gain, there is also opportunity for loss.

 

let me reiterate, my point is not about asking the bank to make good to the customer nor blaming the bank.  my point is the authorities introduced the cooling-off period for good reasons.  but if they want to see it achieve meaningful effects, they have to start to put some measures into the bank or through MAS into the banks.  lest we forget, property purchases is also a transaction entirely between the bank and the purchaser.  but when government want to control ppty purchases through loan requirements, they still have to pass down the rule and through MAS, get the banks to help enforce the rule.

 

regarding your second para, I also feel the California Fitness case isn't so blatant and perhaps have little choice but to stomach the loss.  but I differ in not joining the chorus of calls for not signing packages or opting for a no-frills gym.  My main reason for so calling is

 

1) there is economic justification for economies of scale for signing on package deals.  the merchants have to cover fix overheads, the customers get discount for pledging to cover the fix overheads

2) alternatives with same class merchant- there are really not so many alternatives if we consider that such practices are mostly industry wide.  the same class of gym or spa that offers ala carte charging are very few and in most likelihood, end up paying much more for the customer.

3) alternatives with different class merchant - some may say there is a choice between going to no-frills gym vs California fitness.  but the reality is the no-frills gym isn't a reasonable alternative for California Fitness.  example no-frills gym doesn't offer classes but some attend gym to join the classes

4) inelasticity of demand - actually some times there is difficulty in switching also because of the comfort level with the particular service person's skills or bonding.  for example, for a gym it could be with the particular personal trainer or for spa it could be the particular masseuse

[Celicar]

I agree it is arrangement between card users and bank, not the merchant.  my point is, credit card is a medium for transactions these days.  if they don't operate to be in line with the consumer laws, then it is just a loophole.  a gun is a medium for assailant to kill victim.  if the gun laws don't make sense (like it is in usa), there will be lots of unwarranted killing even if you have the best laws governing just the assailant and victim.

I think this analogy with a gun is flawed.

 

In the case of the gun, the medium (gun) is controlled by the wrongdoer (assailant).

 

In the scenario at hand, the medium (credit card) is controlled in the first instance by the victim (customer).

 

I agree with Kar_Lover, consumers here have a tenancy to want the best of all worlds. They want the upside but expect there to be no downside, or expect a third party to cover them for the downside. Someone will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day, I don't exactly see it as entirely unfair or inequitable if the party that enjoyed the upside has to bear the brunt of the downside. 

[Acemundo]

I think this analogy with a gun is flawed.

 

In the case of the gun, the medium (gun) is controlled by the wrongdoer (assailant).

 

In the scenario at hand, the medium (credit card) is controlled in the first instance by the victim (customer).

 

I agree with Kar_Lover, consumers here have a tenancy to want the best of all worlds. They want the upside but expect there to be no downside, or expect a third party to cover them for the downside. Someone will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day, I don't exactly see it as entirely unfair or inequitable if the party that enjoyed the upside has to bear the brunt of the downside. 

it is an extreme example but I wouldn't say it is exactly flawed.  the ability to control both the gun and the card differs greatly for differing parties.  for the case of the gun, the victim's ability to control the gun is much diminished because the assailant has the far better control or because he fires the gun first.  similarly, it is the merchants who engaged the bank's service first before they have even found their customer. 

 

we like to say the credit card is controlled by the individual but in the bigger scheme of things, the banks are eager to do business and more likely to conveniently disregard the less obvious arrangements that are not in the cardholder's interest and for which the card holder would not have the might or the sophistication to change such arrangements.  there lies a great disparity in ability to control the proceedings (not about the ability to walk away from a transaction) between the individual vs the bank and the merchants.  I would more appropriately analog-ise as the banks as being the guns and the credit card is just the bullets for the simple reason that a credit card is useless without an issuing bank much like bullets are useless without a gun.    through a skilled manoeuvre, the bullets will still kill the holder of the bullet.

 

hee....if you read through my posts, I also say the same for your para 4.  my asking for improved practices is not so much as I am supporting the consumers as a whole but is merely suggesting the governing body to put their money where there mouth is - make their cooling-off period rule be relevant and meaningful.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Acemundo

[Locknload]

I think this analogy with a gun is flawed.

 

In the case of the gun, the medium (gun) is controlled by the wrongdoer (assailant).

 

In the scenario at hand, the medium (credit card) is controlled in the first instance by the victim (customer).

 

I agree with Kar_Lover, consumers here have a tenancy to want the best of all worlds. They want the upside but expect there to be no downside, or expect a third party to cover them for the downside. Someone will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day, I don't exactly see it as entirely unfair or inequitable if the party that enjoyed the upside has to bear the brunt of the downside. 

End of the day, it's still caveat emptor on the consumer to deliberate and consider whether the upside is worth the downsides, especially on packages paid upfront, although having the cake and eating it is what's foremost in the minds of consumers.

 

It's more the unscrupulous estabs like those in Sim Lim which many will choose to give a wide berth now vs one restaurant in HV that had a package but informed me that they'll be closing down to utilize the vouchers and it was Lamb Shank overdrive for me in a week, lol.

[Acemundo]

End of the day, it's still caveat emptor on the consumer to deliberate and consider whether the upside is worth the downsides, especially on packages paid upfront, although having the cake and eating it is what's foremost in the minds of consumers.

 

It's more the unscrupulous estabs like those in Sim Lim which many will choose to give a wide berth now vs one restaurant in HV that had a package but informed me that they'll be closing down to utilize the vouchers and it was Lamb Shank overdrive for me in a week, lol.

 

haha at least they are ethical to tell you and you get to enjoy your lamb shanks nonetheless haha..

 

don't get lamb-pooned haha

[Vratenza]

Imagine California is as ethical and gave a month notice to members..... you see a lot of super buffed up members walking around within that month...

 

End of the day, it's still caveat emptor on the consumer to deliberate and consider whether the upside is worth the downsides, especially on packages paid upfront, although having the cake and eating it is what's foremost in the minds of consumers.

 

It's more the unscrupulous estabs like those in Sim Lim which many will choose to give a wide berth now vs one restaurant in HV that had a package but informed me that they'll be closing down to utilize the vouchers and it was Lamb Shank overdrive for me in a week, lol.

 

[Mnns]

Imagine California is as ethical and gave a month notice to members..... you see a lot of super buffed up members walking around within that month...

 

Or maybe sale of soap went up for that month at nearby shops  lots of soap dropping in the toilet.

[Acemundo]

Imagine California is as ethical and gave a month notice to members..... you see a lot of super buffed up members walking around within that month...

 

actually it is very much driven by how solvent is the company before closing down.  I very much suspect that @locknload 's lamb restaurant are still solvent and merely closely down as part of change in business plan or direction.  they are able to honour their obligations. 

 

a company closing down due to insolvency probably won't have the luxury of so doing as they will have even less to pay the secured creditors like CPF, Banks if they honour their obligations to unsecured creditors like customers.  take note that directors may still get sued by secured creditors like CPF and banks even if the company is wound down.

[Jman888]

actually it is very much driven by how solvent is the company before closing down.  I very much suspect that @locknload 's lamb restaurant are still solvent and merely closely down as part of change in business plan or direction.  they are able to honour their obligations. 

 

a company closing down due to insolvency probably won't have the luxury of so doing as they will have even less to pay the secured creditors like CPF, Banks if they honour their obligations to unsecured creditors like customers.  take note that directors may still get sued by secured creditors like CPF and banks even if the company is wound down.

 

 

the restaurant warn their customer is because they have balance food and beverages in the store or cold room, rather serve them out instead of waste it. They could still be have many outstanding of rental and accounts payable which they have no intention to pay.

[Acemundo]

the restaurant warn their customer is because they have balance food and beverages in the store or cold room, rather serve them out instead of waste it. They could still be have many outstanding of rental and accounts payable which they have no intention to pay.

 

haha that is also possible.  but i really hope that is not the case cos that would mean their raw ingredient for food are few weeks to few months old......haha

 

anyway for outsiders, we can only guess.