6 ms·

The best thing to do is issue a chargeback. You tell the credit card company that you 1) tried to cancel, and they wouldn't do it; and 2) you did not get any se

The best thing to do is issue a chargeback. You tell the credit card company that you 1) tried to cancel, and they wouldn't do it; and 2) you did not get any service from them since you tried to cancel. They have to pay you back AND THEY GET CHARGED an additional $20-$30 that your credit card company takes from them as punishment. Please don't abuse chargebacks unless the merchant deserves it, though.

joering2 8y ago
Maybe in Canada but in USA you have companies like "ABC Financing" (real name) that process majority of membership for most of the gyms I ever visited, including LA Fitness, Golds Gym, Balleys Total Fitness. The way it works (cause I tried) is that you call (or in bank to dispute membership) and guess what? they made you wait on the line/ in the branch until they contact ABC customer support that knows exactly what membership you have when you have it etc. They were even able to fax over my photo (!!) to the banker to prove it wasn't a fraud. I was actually quite happy because I need that kind of chargeback service for my companies when anyone can call (and does) and usually says "my child ordered this". Unfortunately banks will only work this way with merchants pushing hundreds of millions of dollars in memberships, as I was told by a friend of mine who works for Bank of America. I don't know in Canada, but in USA most membership programs are continue to be a cancer on our society (despite the fact its easier to dispute transaction than it was years ago) and most banks will help in this bad behavior because they don't want too many disputes for credit card companies they underwrite and represent.
- Rylinks 8y ago
  Will banks accept a faxed photograph to rebut a claim that the membership was cancelled?
flyGuyOnTheSly 8y ago
>The best thing to do is issue a chargeback. They had me sign over my direct withdrawal banking details the day I signed up. I regret doing that.
- fragsworth 8y ago
  Fucking assholes. I guess that's why we need these stupid laws.
  - kibibu 8y ago
    Don't let the libertarians hear you say that
    - smsm42 8y ago
      Charging people who do not need the service and not letting them cancel looks like fraud, certainly not a voluntary transaction of two willing individuals. I do not see any problem from the point of libertarian for the state to protect the right of a person who does not consent to a business relationship anymore to withdraw from it - just as it is true for any other relationship. Just as libertarians would not object to the laws allowing people to leave a job or divorce, they should not object - from purely libertarian grounds - to laws that allow people to dissolve business relationship without undue burden and involuntary money transactions. Now, if the gym in question would fully inform the person that they have nearly impossible cancellation procedure and obtained informed prior consent, that would be different. But that never happens.
      - clan 8y ago
        Made sense until the last paragraph and everything turned upside down. "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. If you think you're allowed just because you are a little smarter than us I would question your moral and welcome any basic consumer protection.
        smsm42 8y ago
        > "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? It depends. We can easily get into the sophistry of "what is understanding", "what's the nature of knowledge" and "how many gains of sand makes it a heap". But usually the most common, though definitely imperfect, test would be whether a random reasonable commoner would be able to understand it. I.e., if somebody is told "we have a contract for 12 months, for X dollars per month, if you want out earlier, you'd have to pay fee of Y dollars" and you say "yes, I agree" - that is voluntary transaction. If you are told "the price is X per month, don't worry about cancelling, it's easy" and then you have to jump through hoops and pay Y dollars because it was printed in unreadable font somewhere in the 2-inch pile of documents you've been given to sign - it's not voluntary, because average reasonable person wouldn't realize it. > Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. Neither it is in mine. There is, however, a wide area of situations where some consider it to be "taking advantage", while others, sometimes including the individuals supposedly being taken advantage of, consider it a free choice. I am against paternalistic approach which says some people can define for other people what's best for them and must protect them from voluntary transactions because it looks to the paternalists like "taking advantage". On the other hand, if it looks for everybody, including the participants, as "taking advantage", and involves hiding substantial information that alters the meaning of the deal, then it's not voluntary. I know it's a more complicated position than fits on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated, so there's no reason not to have complicated positions.

joering2 8y ago

Maybe in Canada but in USA you have companies like "ABC Financing" (real name) that process majority of membership for most of the gyms I ever visited, including LA Fitness, Golds Gym, Balleys Total Fitness. The way it works (cause I tried) is that you call (or in bank to dispute membership) and guess what? they made you wait on the line/ in the branch until they contact ABC customer support that knows exactly what membership you have when you have it etc. They were even able to fax over my photo (!!) to the banker to prove it wasn't a fraud. I was actually quite happy because I need that kind of chargeback service for my companies when anyone can call (and does) and usually says "my child ordered this". Unfortunately banks will only work this way with merchants pushing hundreds of millions of dollars in memberships, as I was told by a friend of mine who works for Bank of America. I don't know in Canada, but in USA most membership programs are continue to be a cancer on our society (despite the fact its easier to dispute transaction than it was years ago) and most banks will help in this bad behavior because they don't want too many disputes for credit card companies they underwrite and represent.

Rylinks 8y ago
Will banks accept a faxed photograph to rebut a claim that the membership was cancelled?

flyGuyOnTheSly 8y ago

>The best thing to do is issue a chargeback. They had me sign over my direct withdrawal banking details the day I signed up. I regret doing that.

fragsworth 8y ago
Fucking assholes. I guess that's why we need these stupid laws.
- kibibu 8y ago
  Don't let the libertarians hear you say that
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Charging people who do not need the service and not letting them cancel looks like fraud, certainly not a voluntary transaction of two willing individuals. I do not see any problem from the point of libertarian for the state to protect the right of a person who does not consent to a business relationship anymore to withdraw from it - just as it is true for any other relationship. Just as libertarians would not object to the laws allowing people to leave a job or divorce, they should not object - from purely libertarian grounds - to laws that allow people to dissolve business relationship without undue burden and involuntary money transactions. Now, if the gym in question would fully inform the person that they have nearly impossible cancellation procedure and obtained informed prior consent, that would be different. But that never happens.
    - clan 8y ago
      Made sense until the last paragraph and everything turned upside down. "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. If you think you're allowed just because you are a little smarter than us I would question your moral and welcome any basic consumer protection.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        > "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? It depends. We can easily get into the sophistry of "what is understanding", "what's the nature of knowledge" and "how many gains of sand makes it a heap". But usually the most common, though definitely imperfect, test would be whether a random reasonable commoner would be able to understand it. I.e., if somebody is told "we have a contract for 12 months, for X dollars per month, if you want out earlier, you'd have to pay fee of Y dollars" and you say "yes, I agree" - that is voluntary transaction. If you are told "the price is X per month, don't worry about cancelling, it's easy" and then you have to jump through hoops and pay Y dollars because it was printed in unreadable font somewhere in the 2-inch pile of documents you've been given to sign - it's not voluntary, because average reasonable person wouldn't realize it. > Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. Neither it is in mine. There is, however, a wide area of situations where some consider it to be "taking advantage", while others, sometimes including the individuals supposedly being taken advantage of, consider it a free choice. I am against paternalistic approach which says some people can define for other people what's best for them and must protect them from voluntary transactions because it looks to the paternalists like "taking advantage". On the other hand, if it looks for everybody, including the participants, as "taking advantage", and involves hiding substantial information that alters the meaning of the deal, then it's not voluntary. I know it's a more complicated position than fits on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated, so there's no reason not to have complicated positions.