May/June 2012 my wife and I moved to a different suburb, and when we requested to change to a nearer branch we were advised to pay the outstanding contracts as a penalty (7/6 months) or wait for the contract to expire in order to change branches. Recently we received communication advising that the required visits will increase by 50% and will now be on a rolling 12 month cycle, otherwise our premiums will increase. My discontent with this is that you restricted (indirectly denied) our request to move to a closer branch, detracting from the convenience to access the nearest facility and now conveniently increase our premiums because of failure to meet the new amount of visits (1 month to catch up with a 50% increase for an annual volume?) required, whilst it was your own process limitations preventing us for 7/6 months of accessing a nearer branch, where reason would dictate a higher chance of increased gym visits since the distance to travel is way shorter. I've now dealt with 4 consultants, where 1 seemed to have the gist of things and provided me with a formal extension to August 2013 which was then retracted? Practice some intelligence and integrity if you can
0 comments