Gym chain LA Fitness has made major changes to its charges for members who wanted to take their children swimming after the Observer argued that it was breaching the terms of its own contracts.
As of June, children under four will be allowed to access its swimming pools for free, while a new national fee structure will mean parents know exactly how much they will pay for older children, regardless of which branch they use.
The gym chain, which is one of several under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) over its contracts, initially introduced an £8 a month fee per child in January for new members taking their children swimming at any of its clubs. Existing members would, however, continue to pay the charges imposed by their local clubs. Some charge nothing, but most charge at certain times for certain ages. Even within a club this can vary depending on when someone joins.
The new fees took some members by surprise. At one LA Fitness club in Warwick the management appeared to use the introduction of the £8 charge for new members as an excuse to put its prices up for everyone.
Nicola Conway and Nicola Small both signed up separately for gym memberships at the Warwick club in January. Both say they primarily decided to use the gym because it offered free swimming for their children. When Conway joined she was told this was for children under the age of six; Small was told it was under the age of eight. Both have two children, each aged three and five.
However, shortly after they had signed up for a year's membership, a notice appeared in their Warwick branch telling members they would need to pay a £3 swim fee per child over the age of four.
"We were verbally told one thing and signed up on the basis of that information, then were told differently," says Small. "I know there are others in the club all peeved about the same thing."
Conway says she signed up for a year only after being reassured by two members of staff on separate occasions that her children could continue to swim for free. "It's the only reason I took gym membership," she says. "The gym is not particularly well maintained, and while I accept this, when paying an extra £12 to £24 a month it quickly becomes uneconomical and undesirable. When we explained this was contrary to the information we have been told, the manager just kept repeating 'this is the policy'."
Both women asked the club to terminate their contracts on the basis that they had been misled, but both were turned down.
The Observer argued that it was unfair of LA Fitness to change it terms and conditions for existing members part way through a contract. Ewan Kirk, senior lecturer in law at Birmingham City University, agreed with us.
"Gyms have been in trouble with the OFT over their gym membership contracts – several have agreed to allow members new rights to cancel if their circumstances change," he said. "Although not directly related to this issue, the situation should be read in the context of this recent change to gym memberships and whether a gym has a solid case for insisting these people honour their 12-month commitment or not."
Three of Britain's biggest gym chains recently had to change their contracts to make it easier for people to cancel, after the OFT ruled their terms and practices were unfair. Bannatyne Fitness, David Lloyd Leisure and Fitness First were all forced to change their contracts in March after they were found to be making it difficult or impossible for people who were injured or made redundant to exit their gym agreements early.
Kirk added that if the incentive of free swimming for children under six was directly related to members – such as Conway and Small – taking out their membership, then they have a case for claiming that this is part of their agreement. However, it isn't possible to change terms of the contract after an agreement has been made.
"Certainly if it can be shown that this was a clear and important incentive, then the gym should be open to discussion with the affected members, rather than just a blanket insistence that they see out the remainder of their contract, particularly if it has only recently been signed," he added.
The gym chain has now decided to change its entire national policy on child swim charges. The £8 monthly fee added to a membership was for all children regardless of age. From June, those under four will be allowed to swim for free and the charge will only apply to children aged five to 15.
For those looking for occasional swimming, LA Fitness has agreed to a nominal charge per visit for children between five and 15, which is expected to be around £3. "Both these policies will be in place across all the clubs for 1 June," said a spokeswoman for LA Fitness.
Crucially, she added: "If, historically, children have been swimming for free we will honour that arrangement for the remainder of that member's contract."
Conway and Small have now both been allowed to see out the remainder of their contracts with no additional swim charges for their children.
"My husband and I will be keeping our contracts until the end of the initial term, but then we will take our business elsewhere," says Small.
LA Fitness is not the only gym chain to charge for children to access its facilities, and the new price structure it is introducing compares favourably with most of its rivals.
David Lloyd has been heavily advertising its gym offer for children in the past few weeks, which is for a 14-day trial for £14 per adult and £7 per child. The group introduced charges for children as young as three months in 2009, starting at £5 a month.
Bannatyne's charges £12.50 a month for under-12s and £15 a month for over-12s, while most Nuffield branches are free to under-fives, with child memberships ranging from an average £10-£15 a month after this. Virgin Active charges £5-£10 per month for children up to the age of two, depending on the club, and £10-£17 a month for three- to 16-year-olds. Fitness First does not allow children into its clubs.
