Gymnastics Academy’s venue swap leaves parent without refund

Last November I signed up my daughter for three gymnastics sessions over the school summer holidays at The Gymnastics Academy, lured by a promotional offer that meant the whole lot was paid for up front. It felt like a tidy little plan – three afternoons of flips, tumble mats and a break from the usual homework grind.

Fast forward to June and an email landed in my inbox confirming a session at a venue I’d never chosen. My first thought was that someone had hacked my account. A quick reply to the academy’s customer‑service team set off a chain of explanations that left me more confused than reassured.

According to the reply, the original site I had booked had shut down, so they had moved the class to another location and, to top it off, altered one of the dates I’d selected. None of this had been communicated to me before the change – the email was the first I heard of it.

The new venue was a considerable trek from home, involving a bus change and a walk that would add at least thirty minutes to each journey. The substituted date clashed with my work schedule, meaning I would have to scramble for emergency childcare on three separate working days. I asked politely for a refund, but the academy pointed me back to the fine print of their booking terms and said I was not eligible.

The response did acknowledge the “frustration and inconvenience” caused and apologised for any confusion, yet it stood firm on the legal stance that the contract – which I supposedly signed online – gave the academy the right to alter dates and venues. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate that specific terms‑and‑conditions page, and the website’s current T&Cs make no mention of such a provision.

Consumer‑rights specialist Gary Rycroft of Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors warned that a clause allowing a trader to unilaterally change fundamental parts of a contract – like when and where a service is delivered – could be deemed unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2025. “Just because a term is written down doesn’t make it enforceable if it puts the consumer at a clear disadvantage,” he said.

The academy, via its lawyers, counter‑argued that I had actually entered into a contract with a separate legal entity that owned the now‑closed venue, and that the relevant operating company’s T&Cs did contain a right to make such changes. They even claimed a Primary Authority Partnership with Trading Standards gave their terms a stamp of approval.

Since I had paid by debit card, I pursued a chargeback through my bank. The bank credited the amount back while it investigated, warning that the academy could dispute the claim and potentially reclaim the funds. In the end, the academy did not contest, so the money stayed with me – a small consolation after the scramble for last‑minute childcare.

While I’m no longer out of pocket, the episode highlights a wider issue: many leisure providers rely on opaque terms that can be changed at a moment’s notice, leaving consumers to shoulder the inconvenience. If you find yourself in a similar spot, remember you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2025 and the option of a chargeback if a provider refuses a fair refund.