Different Pricing Structure within A Golf Club

[Socrates]

Hi

This looks like a first time poster, I couldn't remember my password for my previous user name (Vince) so had to re-register.

I'm a trustee of a golf club, we have encountered an issue regarding our current fee structure.

Prior to 2003 any members who reached the age of 65 and with 15 years full membership under their belt received a discount of £220 on green fees for the year. The £220 discount was at that time 50% of the green fee, it was then fixed at that amount for eternity due to the management committee becoming aware of the increasing number of members receiving the discount, they also passed a proposal stopping the discount for anyone joining the club after the year 2003, consequently we have received letters and a proposal to be brought to the next AGM to re-introduce the discount for all members fulfilling the requirement of 65 years old and 15 years of membership.

In effect, we have members 65 and older who receive the discount due to membership prior to 2003, and a growing number of members 65 and older who don't receive the discount.

The policy introduced in 2003 came about on the issue of affordability, however, the cost last year to apply the discount was over £20000, and under the current policy could still last a further 30 years, so I'm personally of the opinion that the unaffordability argument isn't a strong enough argument to stop the re-introduction of the discount for all.

I'm wondering if what the club did, inadvertently, by having a different fee structure for pre and post 2003 membership is legal, I don't expect anyone to bring a legal case against the club on this issue, I'm hopeful the members see sense and re-introduce the discount fully at the next AGM, but it would help if I and other members of the management had an understanding of the legality of a system that penalises members by virtue of them joining the club after 2003.

I hope someone can help.

Thanks

[dionaeamuscipula]

I can't see any issue. You are permitted to offer age related concessions on pricing under the Equality Act.

There is guidance here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-ac ... 0the%20ban

There is also a specific guide for private clubs (you can find this through a link from the page above). This includes a nearly directly applicable FAQ:

"My golf club offers membership categories that entail the same playing rights but at different price levels depending on the member’s age, will this still be lawful? Yes. Clubs can lawfully offer services at different prices depending on a person’s age. For example, a private golf club can charge an annual membership fee of £500 to those under 65, but a reduced membership fee for those 65 and over of £250, and a fee of £100 for those aged 80 or more."

It is also permitted to have different pricing levels dependent on length of membership. You may wish to revise the criteria slightly so that there is a more apparent differential between those pre- and post - 2003.

Having said that, if it was me, and given the length of time since the original change, I would be tempted to revisit the reasons why a discount was originally granted, why it was removed for new members, and what the club's member retention/attraction strategy is, and how this interacts with your older members needs and wants, and perhaps revise the pricing structure for all. Not least 65 no longer has much relevance in the UK since the normal retirement age is increasing and for people retiring now is 66.

[didds]

as an aside to dscunts for over 65, what is the take up rate of the GC? eg does it have many members joinng in their 20s and 30s or is the average age increasoing year on year as the current and any new memberships are of an older demographic?

IF there was a paucity of younger age take up, any funds (in effect) available for discounted memberships may be better used to attract younger members so that there is a future of the club as the older members stop playing/die etc ?

didds

[Socrates]

Hi, thanks for the replies.

I previously read that document, its still unclear if all things being equal, 65 years old and 15 years service, which is written into our constitution, is compatible with new wording added in 2003, stating that anyone joining after 2003, would not receive the discount, could it be a discriminatory, or not equal, to treat members either side of that dividing line differently.

Other points you raise are something we have discussed, our membership is full with a waiting list, the demographics are about 17% over 65's, we have discounts for juniors up until 21, students, and a structured fee between 21 and 25, this allows us to reduce the large increase between junior and full adult fee incrementally, done of course to encourage our juniors to keep playing when at that time of their lives they probably need every penny they earn, so far, our turnover of members isn't large. We are a well priced club when compared with other local clubs, our 5 year plan is fully funded, strong financials, so in a relatively decent financial position at this point.

The new membership over the previous 5 years has been a good mix of age ranges, we are losing women and finding it hard to encourage them to join the club, we find that women will come if they have family members playing, otherwise we don't get many, and trying to get them to participate on committee is impossible, we are still a male dominated club despite efforts to make it a welcoming place for everyone.

I'm still unsure of the legality of having a fee differential based on year of joining when everything else is equal, we could change the number of years required to access the discount, which would reduce the number of members eligible, but that seems a backward step when the original decision was based on affordability which with the benefit of hindsight has been found to be incorrect.

Thanks again

[didds]

or reduce the level of discount but include everybody over the age of 65? Or make that eg 67 (retirement age very shortly)

[Socrates]

You've read my mind, although I'm not the proposer or seconder, I'll be speaking for the proposal and suggesting a reduction on the discount to £200.

The members who'll attend the AGM will be mostly in receipt of the discount or due to get it shortly, and are entrenched in their attitude that they deserve it more, its affordable for them, but not for later members.

The changing pensionable age is something I'd previously considered, but I'll let others decide if they want to grasp that nettle.

The whole cost might be an additional £2000 a year to be fully inclusive on average, the natural turnover of over 65's should maintain our % of pensioners at around 18 to 20% of the membership, its nothing in the scheme of things, but we have some very determined old members who will fight to maintain the status quo, unless I can show them a legal requirement to include everyone.

Thank you.

[didds]

unless I can show them a legal requirement to include everyone.

Thank you.

flip it on its head.

Say you have asked legal advice (you have - you have asked for legal advice here ) and you have been told you cant create an age discrimination in this manner [1], so unless they can show it is 100% nailed as OK their discount will be removed

didds



[1] Didds says you cant create an age based discrimination in this manner

[Socrates]

I'm try be be diplomatic, not to enrage the herd, get them to vote with their heads and not their sense of entitlement

[scrumpyjack]

As a golfer myself, I am aware of the increasingly aged profile of members. There is also the fact that older members play more often because they are not working. So if anything their membership fee should be higher. I would be very wary of extending the benefit to more members. Most clubs have low membership fees for younger golfers obviously to try and attract them to join that club, not simply to get more people playing golf.

ps have you thought of combining any change with an increase in the mandatory bar advance charge? Our club recently increased the bar advance to £400!

[didds]

ps have you thought of combining any change with an increase in the mandatory bar advance charge? Our club recently increased the bar advance to £400!

bar advance?

qu'est-ce c'est?

[scrumpyjack]

ps have you thought of combining any change with an increase in the mandatory bar advance charge? Our club recently increased the bar advance to £400!

bar advance?

qu'est-ce c'est?

You pay £400 up front each year and that goes as credit on a bar charge card. Use it over the next 12 months or lose it!

[Lootman]

ps have you thought of combining any change with an increase in the mandatory bar advance charge? Our club recently increased the bar advance to £400!

bar advance?

qu'est-ce c'est?

I guess that golfclub members have bad credit and so have to pre-pay their bar tabs. Too many doing a runner?

[didds]

You pay £400 up front each year and that goes as credit on a bar charge card. Use it over the next 12 months or lose it!

Im absolutely amazed that THAT is legal. In a time of drinkaware and where CAMRA beer festivals cannot promote over indulgence of drinking beer (beleive it or not), Im surprised that such a concept is ""OK". I suppose the answer is that people can get tea, coffee and soft drinks form the bar too.

didds

PS I am not suggesting that being drinkaware is "wrong"

[scrumpyjack]

You pay £400 up front each year and that goes as credit on a bar charge card. Use it over the next 12 months or lose it!

Im absolutely amazed that THAT is legal. In a time of drinkaware and where CAMRA beer festivals cannot promote over indulgence of drinking beer (beleive it or not), Im surprised that such a concept is ""OK". I suppose the answer is that people can get tea, coffee and soft drinks form the bar too.

didds

PS I am not suggesting that being drinkaware is "wrong"

Yes of course, most members spend it on coffee, tea or food. Most clubs have such an arrangement though usually much less than £400

[Socrates]

We have suggested a bar levy for every full member of £50, we try to encourage more members into the clubhouse, rather than being car park members, £50 was met with strong resistance.

I can't imagine the reaction asking members to stump up £400.

Thanks for the suggestions, but we still need legal advice on the original issue

Thank You.

[gryffron]

There are plenty of Pension schemes that are closed to new members. So people working alongside each other have different Pension arrangements. Same with mobile phone contracts. So having members that joined at different times on different contracts can’t be a legal issue.

The only issue I can see here is contractual. To change an existing contract requires mutual agreement.

Gryff

[Socrates]

An update to the original post.

We had our AGM two weeks ago, the proposal was voted down but gained more votes than I had expected.

The equality act was brought up to enhance the proposal, the constitution wording was thought to be in breach of the Equality act, I'll put both wordings below to see if anyone has an opinion.

Constitution Wording

Classes of Membership

15:14 Retired members, those being 65 and over; with 15 years membership are allowed a reduction of £220 on subscription.
15:17 Any members joining after 2003 will not be afforded the privilege of any reduction of fees.

Equality Act 2010 Wording

Part 7. Associations

Membership

101 (2)

An association (A) must not discriminate against a member (B)—
(a)in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service;
(b)by depriving B of membership;
(c)by varying B's terms of membership;
(d)by subjecting B to any other detriment.

The meeting was asked to determine the possibility, that the constitution is in breach of the Equality Act under section (a), (c) and (d).

Are we in breach of the act by denying access to a benefit to some members, are we in breach of the act by varying terms of membership and are we in breach of the act by subjecting some members to a detriment, namely, refusing a discount.

All opinions are welcome.

Thanks

[AF62]

To me it seems that when the discount scheme was introduced for those over age 65 (and with 15 years of membership), even allowing for the fact that the Equality Act didn’t come into existence for another 7 years, that even if it had been it then it would have been permissible as the Equality Act allows for age discrimination when it can be ‘objectively justified’, and a discount to over 65s (as with many elderly discounts) could easily be justified.

But the issue comes from the 2003 change that still has an impact today and so now falls under the 2010 Equality Act - how do you continue ‘objectively justify’ that benefit when some members receive it because of their age but others don’t?

Taking the example of two members with the same birthday who joined a couple of days apart, one the day before the change in 2003 and one the day after. Now they both turn 65 this year and one receives a discount and the other doesn’t.

That would seem to be a clear breach of the Equality Act as you couldn’t ‘objectively justify’ giving a discount to one member based on their age but not the the other who was the same age.

In fact you could have a situation of giving the discount to members younger than those other members it is being denied to - a 45 year old who joined in 2002 and is now 65 gets the discount, but an 80 year old doesn’t because they joined after 2003.

So for those over 65 not getting the discount then whether it is being denied a benefit under (a) or a detriment under (d) is debatable, but either way they are being discriminated against.

And if the discount was removed from all those currently receiving it then although some of those over 65 would undoubtedly argue it was age discrimination under (b), I would suggest it wasn’t as they were being offered no worse terms than those of any other adult age member.

[Socrates]

Thanks AF62

I'm of the opinion that we are in breach of the Equality Act, however, and this is significant from the point of getting the current committee to agree, every member of the committee and 3 of the 4 trustees are or will be in receipt of the discount under the current constitution.

I fear its going to take a challenge in written form from a disgruntled member to focus them, after which we should then secure advice from a legal entity, the varied opinions of committee members won't then suffice.

Thank you.

[AF62]

Or a campaign is organised to get sufficient numbers for the AGM to vote through a change, after all, anyone joining since 2003 should be in favour of a change either to grant it to them or remove it.