Banned over late $8 fee 
MY HUSBAND and I signed up for lifetime memberships with California Fitness in 2006 and we paid $3,000 each. We patronised the gym regularly until last year when we became irregular because of work commitments. When we tried to use the gym this year, we were told that our memberships had been revoked because we had not paid the annual administrative fee of $8 on time last year. Imagine our shock on learning that our combined membership value of $6,000 had been thrown out of the window because of late payment of a small administrative charge. When we signed up for the membership, the salesperson did inform us of the annual $8 administrative fee but did not give the remotest indication that our membership would be revoked without notice if we failed to pay it within a certain deadline. When we called California Fitness' head office here about it, a receptionist heard us out and promised to get back. After just 10 minutes, she telephoned to inform us that the fitness club's Hong Kong head office, which is authorised to make such decisions, had rejected our appeal. When we tried to reason with her, she brusquely replied that the decision was final and we could complain to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) if we were dissatisfied. We remain baffled. We were not apprised of the serious repercussions arising from late payment of the administrative fee when we signed up. Even if that were so, surely the gym should only require us to settle the fee before proceeding to use the facilities, which is a common practice in other establishments. What is the nature of a life membership like the one California Fitness sold us which pivots on the timely payment of an administrative charge of comparatively negligible value compared to the price of the life membership? Were our memberships revoked because we no longer offered fresh revenue? Charmayne Lim (Ms)
MY HUSBAND and I signed up for lifetime memberships with California Fitness in 2006 and we paid $3,000 each. We patronised the gym regularly until last year when we became irregular because of work commitments. When we tried to use the gym this year, we were told that our memberships had been revoked because we had not paid the annual administrative fee of $8 on time last year. Imagine our shock on learning that our combined membership value of $6,000 had been thrown out of the window because of late payment of a small administrative charge. When we signed up for the membership, the salesperson did inform us of the annual $8 administrative fee but did not give the remotest indication that our membership would be revoked without notice if we failed to pay it within a certain deadline. When we called California Fitness' head office here about it, a receptionist heard us out and promised to get back. After just 10 minutes, she telephoned to inform us that the fitness club's Hong Kong head office, which is authorised to make such decisions, had rejected our appeal. When we tried to reason with her, she brusquely replied that the decision was final and we could complain to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) if we were dissatisfied. We remain baffled. We were not apprised of the serious repercussions arising from late payment of the administrative fee when we signed up. Even if that were so, surely the gym should only require us to settle the fee before proceeding to use the facilities, which is a common practice in other establishments. What is the nature of a life membership like the one California Fitness sold us which pivots on the timely payment of an administrative charge of comparatively negligible value compared to the price of the life membership? Were our memberships revoked because we no longer offered fresh revenue? Charmayne Lim (Ms)
