If you have a contract with Ashbourne Management Services Ltd (AMSL) with a minimum contract period of longer than 12 months, it may be unfair according to the High Court ruling in the case brought against AMSL by the OFT in March 2011.

You can use the OFT page here to identify which type of AMSL contract you have - http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/ashbourne/

If you have an unfair contract, we want to know so this information can be made available to the OFT.

The High Court ruling was handed down in May and the High Court's Enforcement Order was made against AMSL in August.

Despite this, AMSL have continued to seek payments from gym members who had contracts for longer than 12 month. We believe this is wrong.

AMSL have tried saying either :-

1. They can still enforce payments for the first 12 months of a 2 or 3 year contract.

2. That the contract is actually not for 36 months but is for only 12 months, when this is not the case.

Please let us know if your have a contract longer than 12 month where AMSL continue to demand payments.

In appropriate cases, we will tell you who to contact at the OFT, so they can consider if further action against AMSL is needed.

If they (AMSL) are now saying they are hounding members for twelve months 'contracts' rather than thirty six, then how do they explain that their monthly harassing letters are for demands for three years payments? Surely alll that anyone who disputes the claim that they now are only seeking a years payments needs to do, is produce any of the numerous' threatograms' they will almost certainly have received, demanding three years payment?

I finally saw them off in February after approximately twelve months of harassment. They were demanding a full three years payment from my wife, despite her having provided medical evidence from her GP that clearly stated she was unable to use the gym; and this after her one and only session!! We exchanged many letters where I asked these shysters to provide evidence of contracts and was 'ignored' except for demands for ever increasing amounts!! In the finish it was only when I found the name of their firm of solicitors, one Williamson & Sodden,(thanks to the intervention of my local trading standards officer) that I secured confirmation that her 'contract' had been cancelled and they would no longer pursue the 'debt'!

I urge anyone still being harassed by these people not to give in...dispute everything and keep records and traceability on all correspondence and do not negotiate over the phone with them under any circumstances.Edited!!

NB: My apologies for any 'defamatory' remarks, this company annoy and harass decent people and it is my personal experience that they are economical with the truth and will use any means to elicit money from people.......

A generic search for more info on Judge Kitchins ruling, threw up this very interesting link to the High Court's Order against AMSL...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-enforcement/ams/order.pdf

Seems to set out to Ashbourne what they CAN NO LONGER get away with!!

So take heart folks.....

Hi Pokin and thanks for the link.

Because this is a High Court Order, it can be quoted as relevant to any gym contracts where similar issues arise.

You are welcome Slick. I am fortunate in the fact that my wife was able to provide medical evidence to allow her to finally have her 'contract' cancelled, but the dealings with AMSL were unpleasant and unnecessary and it has left me with a desire to see them get exactly what they deserve................nothing from anybody!

Their own 'greed' at trying to tie gym customers into three year contracts, has surely cost them dearly! Especially now that the High Court has found these 'contracts' to be illegal and unfair. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch....so if you are still being harassed by these clowns, then take heart and don't be intimindated by thier demands and threats. Just remind them of this order!

I notice that too date many others beside those in dispute with Ashbourne are posting their 'battles' on the forum...I am sure that the ruling against Ashbourne would carry 'weight' in any subsequent legal argument(s) against these companies and I have looked further into the ruling...

This link details how the High Court hearing heard before The Rt Honourable Judge Kitchin and between the OFT v Ashbourne Membership Management Ltd was decided and how those legal 'decision's were reached.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1237.html

It is long and protracted but is well worth a read for points of law and examples when compiling an argument, in my opinion. Hope it helps someone who is being harassed by these companies.