Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thanks for your kind words ,  its the procedural stuff i worry about   technical stuff that can affect outcomes because of my inexperience   skeleton arguments, to be done cost schedules informing court how long i think it will take etc.    for instance their solicitor has asked for some emails between me and my loan broker - well after disclosure. i havent disclosed these ( they are privileged) and i have written them in the privileged box - only three emails anyway   but should i just provide to him as i actually want to present in court myself , and letting them have them actually discloses  them so they become admissable  or ignore?   also costs- mine arent too high   but what is fast track going to cost me in a situation where i lose.   i know court fees capped at 1650 but what if their solicitor bill is 20k-    i have managed to include all the way through their failings of pre action haste to litigation letters offers to settle subject to costs- i would nt feel so bad if all i was fighting was the court claim amount.
    • Yes you can.....you appear to have a good understanding of the basic credit consumer law.....possibly impress the judge that you went it alone...plenty of Fast Track cases been fought and won by litigants here on CAG.   If you have the evidence...the argument....and the personality to convey .....go for it...think of the fees you will save not paying the barrister.
    • Hi FTMDave They initially requested £140 within 14 days. This has now gone to £182 after the initial debt collection firm took over (now back with CEL   The carpark had two options, pay-by-app and cash, we had n cash hence using the easier app. The app in the playstore has shocking reviews, im not the only one.   I wasnext going to get 'their hand' sent to me fromt he data controller, sending the following:   Dear Sir or Madam   Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) )   Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law  relating to myself. - All photos taken - all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier - A PDT machine record from 23/11/2019  of payments - A record of online payments made using the Google Playstore APP that day - all data held, all evidence they will rely on, and - a full copy of the PCN, NTK - a list of all PCNs outstanding against me and/or this VRN, and I will remind here that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.   If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month. If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.   Yours faithfully    
    • You need to read some more and then some.......costs are restricted in Small Claims Track....have a read of the above thread...same scenario...and its getting close to a hearing now....squeaky bum time for them.
    • OK, we can help you.   A couple of questions first.  You blanked out the amount they are claiming.  Can you tell us?  I bet they have added Unicorn Food Tax to their claim.   Also, can you remember if this was pay-by-app-only car park, or if there were other payment methods?
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Ashbourne Management Services Ltd - Contracts longer than 12 months


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3387 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......

Edited by pokinthruboxers
defamatory language not allowed here
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Edited by slick132
text in blue entered to show what it links to
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...