Club's compensation package for lockdown 3.

[RichA]

I have never been a business owner, only an employee, but many of my friends own business of various sizes. I don't know any who are just looking to trouser more and more profit. Most are looking to pay off the money they borrowed to set up or expand and improve the business, often providing jobs in the process. Sometimes they put the profits aside to protect the business and its employees for when times are hard - like now.

 

[doublebogey7]

What income has the Club received from other sources?

No green fees.
No societies/corporate days.
No range fees
No bar sales
No catering

Only membership fees coming in to meet admin staff salaries, reduced greenstaff wages, other costs such as machinery servicing and repairs, course materials, rates and, if applicable, rent, insurances etc;

Maybe your Club had none of these costs although I think that is unlikely.

One thing is certain, they won't have had any income from the sources I listed.

I think the point Kenny is trying to make, is that there is no difference between a privtely owned (propriety) golf club and any other private service provider in legal terms, and therefore the owners have a legal obligation to offer a refund. Would you be taking the same view if we were talking here about a 2nd division ST, Rugby union ST, a flight, rented holiday accomadation, these also have costs which they have no been able to recroup during the pandemic and have just as much right to stay in business as a privately owned golf club. Whether or not an individual should choose to take such a refund is another debate all together, for me it would depend on how well I felt the owners looked after their members in the good years.

I am currently a member of a memeber owned club and have recieved a 6 week refund for the first lockdown, but nothing for the other 2 lockdowns. I am more than happy with that and would have accepted paying full fee's throughout as I know the money would be invested back into the club. Incidently the club managed to substanitailly improve their balance sheet (recent years have been loss making) during the first six months of the pandemic due to an increase in membership and active management of costs.

 

[RichA]

Things like flights, rail tickets and holiday accommodation have specific legislation or voluntary codes of practice that providers sign up to, where refunds for loss of service have to be guaranteed.
With any other kind of transaction I assume it's down to the written contract or whatever is implied by existing consumer law for the particular circumstances. I can't imagine many, if any, golf clubs or gyms factored compulsory closure for a global pandemic into their contingencies. They're probably as bemused by the situation as we are and are trying to figure out what to do to appease, compensate and keep their customers.
Maybe it's too soon to expect them to have come up with solutions. Not all clubs have renewal dates in line with the financial year. Mine is based purely on the date you first signed up.

 

[Kennysarmy]

I think the point Kenny is trying to make, is that there is no difference between a privtely owned (propriety) golf club and any other private service provider in legal terms, and therefore the owners have a legal obligation to offer a refund. Would you be taking the same view if we were talking here about a 2nd division ST, Rugby union ST, a flight, rented holiday accomadation, these also have costs which they have no been able to recroup during the pandemic and have just as much right to stay in business as a privately owned golf club. Whether or not an individual should choose to take such a refund is another debate all together, for me it would depend on how well I felt the owners looked after their members in the good years.

I am currently a member of a memeber owned club and have recieved a 6 week refund for the first lockdown, but nothing for the other 2 lockdowns. I am more than happy with that and would have accepted paying full fee's throughout as I know the money would be invested back into the club. Incidently the club managed to substanitailly improve their balance sheet (recent years have been loss making) during the first six months of the pandemic due to an increase in membership and active management of costs.

Exactly this.

How many would be up in arms had Sky Sports decided to take your January to March direct debits and in return provide no service.
Yes I understand a couple of green keepers might have cut a bit of grass in those few months!

 

[Kennysarmy]

I've emailed the owners quoting the government website, previously linked, to enquire if it's not applicable then why.
I'm almost more curious than anything else now.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Quite clearly you may have to go to a small claims court to argue your case and having done a number of cases myself the work needed to present the case, the stress etc wouldn't be worth £225 imo. I currently work in a leisure industry setting and even whilst everyone, but me, is 100% furloughed there are any number of bill's still coming in water, electricity, phone, insurance etc etc. so if there's no income I'm pretty sure that there will likely be a thumping loss at the year end. If, of course, they cant pay debts as the become due then they would probably call in administrators and lose the business so cash in bank is pretty vital

I personally agree that your bar credit should be refunded and fully understand your view on a private club compared to a member club but I'm in a member club who are making no concessions but if I were to leave I'd get nothing and personally see little difference as a member - I'm only a member as long as I pay, exactly the same as a limited company member. In fact all of our Club is run under the umbrella of a limited company, which is quite normal now, as I see it there is very little difference in the two different types of club except member clubs have more say over the day to day running

I certainly wouldn't make too much fuss and just go somewhere else as, at least, you can always go back if you find that the grass isn't greener.

Some Clubs had a massive income uplift when open this year and either broke even or made a profit.

 

[DanFST]

Some Clubs had a massive income uplift when open this year and either broke even or made a profit.

I'd imagine especially those who disregarded the members and opened up to visitors straight away.

Demand for golf was/will be super high. I know I spent at least 600 quid on tee times at a hotel course close to me.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The main point is simple

You have been offered a compensation package - the club have offered you a return for the fees you paid out during lockdown

The issue is you are choosing to leave the club so won’t be able to use that compensation package - that’s not the clubs fault

You just don’t like the compensation they have offered

 

[Blue in Munich]

I think the point Kenny is trying to make, is that there is no difference between a privtely owned (propriety) golf club and any other private service provider in legal terms, and therefore the owners have a legal obligation to offer a refund. Would you be taking the same view if we were talking here about a 2nd division ST, Rugby union ST, a flight, rented holiday accomadation, these also have costs which they have no been able to recroup during the pandemic and have just as much right to stay in business as a privately owned golf club. Whether or not an individual should choose to take such a refund is another debate all together, for me it would depend on how well I felt the owners looked after their members in the good years.

I am currently a member of a memeber owned club and have recieved a 6 week refund for the first lockdown, but nothing for the other 2 lockdowns. I am more than happy with that and would have accepted paying full fee's throughout as I know the money would be invested back into the club. Incidently the club managed to substanitailly improve their balance sheet (recent years have been loss making) during the first six months of the pandemic due to an increase in membership and active management of costs.

Do they; have they failed to provide a service, thus breaching their contract, or have they been prevented from providing a service by Government decree therefore leaving them unable to fulfil their contract? I think there's a huge difference there, and one that would doom any action against the club to failure; the only winners in sorting it out will be the lawyers.

 

[GB72]

Do they; have they failed to provide a service, thus breaching their contract, or have they been prevented from providing a service by Government decree therefore leaving them unable to fulfil their contract? I think there's a huge difference there, and one that would doom any action against the club to failure; the only winners in sorting it out will be the lawyers.

It is interesting as on that basis you could be looking at frustration as a legal solution and so no party should be penalised but each party should be returned to the position in which they would have been should the contract not have been entered into. Still points towards are refund. Not supporting that argument, just looking at it with a lawyer head on.

 

[clubchamp98]

The last thing we want is lawyers involved.

 

[chrisd]

Some Clubs had a massive income uplift when open this year and either broke even or made a profit.

We had a fair increase in membership but restrictions on the numbers of players allowed out, increased tee time gaps, no food drink, restricted societies etc etc hit income pretty hard, but extra membership certainly helped.

 

[chrisd]

It is interesting as on that basis you could be looking at frustration as a legal solution and so no party should be penalised but each party should be returned to the position in which they would have been should the contract not have been entered into. Still points towards are refund. Not supporting that argument, just looking at it with a lawyer head on.

Frustration crossed my mind too. The only thing might be the difficulty in determining the gaps where he could play and those when he couldn't, is there such a concept as a "partial frustration" as the contract has not been frustrated in its entirety?

 

[Kennysarmy]

The main point is simple

You have been offered a compensation package - the club have offered you a return for the fees you paid out during lockdown

The issue is you are choosing to leave the club so won’t be able to use that compensation package - that’s not the clubs fault

You just don’t like the compensation they have offered

Or the main point is simple.

Am I legally entitled to a cash refund or not?

 

[GB72]

Frustration crossed my mind too. The only thing might be the difficulty in determining the gaps where he could play and those wheels he couldn't, is there such a concept as a "partial frustration" as the contract has not been frustrated in its entirety?

Not sure as my contract law is a bit out of date. Worst case for a club is that the ruling is that the contract was for 12 months of golf, by failing to provide that, the contract is frustrated in its entirety and so a refund on the full year's fees is due. Sadly I suspect that it is only a matter of time before someone decides to challenge this in court and so clubs may be wary to do something to keep members on side rather than risk a prejudicial ruling, that or England Golf and the other national bodies may want to take the advice of a barrister now on likely outcomes.

 

[GB72]

The main point is simple

You have been offered a compensation package - the club have offered you a return for the fees you paid out during lockdown

The issue is you are choosing to leave the club so won’t be able to use that compensation package - that’s not the clubs fault

You just don’t like the compensation they have offered

I guess the argument is, again from a legal standing, is whether a package of compensation for the previous year that necessitates signing up for another year of membership is fair and equitable.

 

[chrisd]

Not sure as my contract law is a bit out of date. Worst case for a club is that the ruling is that the contract was for 12 months of golf, by failing to provide that, the contract is frustrated in its entirety and so a refund on the full year's fees is due. Sadly I suspect that it is only a matter of time before someone decides to challenge this in court and so clubs may be wary to do something to keep members on side rather than risk a prejudicial ruling, that or England Golf and the other national bodies may want to take the advice of a barrister now on likely outcomes.

Surely the contract would have an "act of god" clause in it ?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Not sure as my contract law is a bit out of date. Worst case for a club is that the ruling is that the contract was for 12 months of golf, by failing to provide that, the contract is frustrated in its entirety and so a refund on the full year's fees is due. Sadly I suspect that it is only a matter of time before someone decides to challenge this in court and so clubs may be wary to do something to keep members on side rather than risk a prejudicial ruling, that or England Golf and the other national bodies may want to take the advice of a barrister now on likely outcomes.

It might be called 12 Months Membership rather than 12 Months of being allowed to play golf any time, just for this reason

 

[chrisd]

I guess the argument is, again from a legal standing, is whether a package of compensation for the previous year that necessitates signing up for another year of membership is fair and equitable.

Interesting! I personally doubt the legality ( I am not a lawyer) of a contract that offers this but if a contract between Club and player is offered and renewed annually the owners surely could indicate that previous year members would be offered different terms than others who may be newly joining. Does a new contract have to be " fair and equitable " compared to a previous one?

 

[GB72]

It might be called 12 Months Membership rather than 12 Months of being allowed to play golf any time, just for this reason

No idea how it would pan out as it will be a while before any covid related claims start to hit the courts (ironically due to court congestion due to covid). My gut feeling though is that would not be the case as you would then need to define what you were entitled to for that membership and so not being able to use the course or facilities would imply that you received nothing. As I said, just hypothesising really but I suspect it will not be too long before a few people challenge memberships in court.