The Lemon Fool

I disagree that there’s any discrimination there.
The discount ‘scheme’ was effectively closed to new members from a particular date. The scheme remains in operation for existing members. That’s not discrimination under any act though those who’d like to have joined it may think so, they’re just too late - the scheme is closed. The same as numerous pension and other benefit schemes.

The comparison to a Pension scheme has been flogged to death in our club, the simplest answer I've received is we are not running a pension fund, we are a golf club providing a paid for service and charging members different prices for the same service based on joining date.

The discount is £220 from 65 years old, members become honoury members at 80 years old. 15 years where the discount is available, a cost of an additional £3300 for anyone not a member prior to 2003, for exactly the same service.

It may not be discrimination, but its certainly unequal.

Thanks for your opinion.

I would argue that you're not discriminating based on age (which might fall foul of the Equality Act) because you can have two members of the same age but one is not entitled to the discount and one is - due to when they joined. The discrimination is purely on whether they joined before or after the benefit was withdrawn. That isn't (IMHO) covered by the Act.

I think the crux of the matter is this. The income from members green fees is used to, in part, subsidise the discount for pre 2003 members, in effect, post 2003 members are paying to subsidise a discount they are prevented from receiving.

It doesn't feel right. We had a vote on a proposal that was voted down by people in receipt of a benefit, that stopped people who subsidise that benefit receiving it.

Thank you.

Socrates wrote:I think the crux of the matter is this. The income from members green fees is used to, in part, subsidise the discount for pre 2003 members, in effect, post 2003 members are paying to subsidise a discount they are prevented from receiving.

It doesn't feel right. We had a vote on a proposal that was voted down by people in receipt of a benefit, that stopped people who subsidise that benefit receiving it.

Thank you.

That's how democracy works, even in private member clubs.

People voting with their feet (or others dying or otherwise moving on) ultimately changes that dynamic if argument alone doesn't work.

There is no age discrimination here AFAICT. The members who joined after 2003 have signed up for a contract that is less generous than people got if they signed up sooner. My wifes mobile contract provides more data than mine for a similar fee as she signed up for a different deal at a different time, so what? Nearly any service you could buy will also be enjoyed by someone else who got it at a better price than you by forming a contract at a different point in time. newer members who feel aggrieved can try and vote through amendments, or vote with their feet..... but to try and claim discrimination to push through what feels "right" to one party is disingenuous IMHO. IANAL

Socrates wrote:I think the crux of the matter is this. The income from members green fees is used to, in part, subsidise the discount for pre 2003 members, in effect, post 2003 members are paying to subsidise a discount they are prevented from receiving.

It doesn't feel right. We had a vote on a proposal that was voted down by people in receipt of a benefit, that stopped people who subsidise that benefit receiving it.

Thank you.

A friend of mine is involved with the Hurlingham club in Fulham (a solicitor and v longstanding member), in particular rewriting their rule book. You wouldn't believe how many classes of member there are with different rights etc. The sort of thing that can make older members very difficult is, for example, ownership rights. Any takeover of that club, even though a very remote possibility, would, I guess, be for well over £500m so those with ownership rights are reluctant to have them diluted.

You can look at this as the pre 2003 members allowed subsequent members to join on specific conditions. The new members did not have to join, but they did. Get over it!

What's the difference between a subscription organisation's op and life membership of, for example, the National Trust?

When I joined NT as a life member, I chose the 'one guest and myself'' option with no conditions attached. Cost £300.00. Not only if I wanted to do the same today, that option doesn't exist, but also joint life membership for two people, who are lifetime partners, living at the same address, one person 60 or over,.would cost £1895 (or joint life (no person 60+) £2250.00

The same principle applies to our local civic society: I joined as a life member cost £20,00 whereas now there is no life membership - I know why, I used to be its chairman - only annually at £10.