Woman Shocked by $587 Cancellation Fee After Joining Fitness First

A Fitness First member in Singapore faced a $587.50 cancellation fee after discovering that the gym’s AquaFit classes conflicted with her schedule and rheumatoid arthritis, Stomp reported on October 9, 2026. After intervention by the publisher, the gym agreed to waive all termination charges and pro-rated fees.

The Bottom Line

  • The Dispute: Member CK incurred a $587.50 termination penalty after signing a four-month agreement at the One George Street branch on September 10, 2026.
  • The Conflict: Advertised AquaFit classes for physical therapy fell outside her morning availability, which she dedicated to working and caring for her mother in a nursing home.
  • The Resolution: Fitness First contacted CK on October 9, 2026, acknowledging timetable discrepancies and waiving all fees, including a $164.50 pro-rated membership payment.

Why Did the Cancellation Cost Reach $587.50?

CK signed up for a four-month gym package at the One George Street outlet on September 10, 2026, after making inquiries about AquaFit classes through Facebook. According to the gym’s website, these classes are marketed as ideal for individuals recovering from workouts or physical therapy. Before executing the agreement, CK explained her limited morning availability to a gym consultant due to her rheumatoid arthritis and her routine of visiting a nursing home to care for her mother, who has dementia. The consultant encouraged her to sign up, assuring her that varied morning class timings would suit her schedule.

Another employee presented the membership agreement on an iPad, scrolling directly to the signature block without detailing the full terms, according to CK. When she inquired about termination penalties, she alleged a staff member told her that providing 30 days’ notice would prevent any issues. However, the available AquaFit sessions were subsequently scheduled exclusively for evenings and weekend afternoons, failing to match her stated availability. While she attended a slower Yin Yoga class, staff informed her that it was the final session of its kind offered at that centre.

Faced with classes that did not match her requirements, CK attempted to cancel the membership. The gym quoted her a termination fee of $235 for one month’s notice, alongside 50 percent of the $235 value across three remaining months, totaling $352.50. This combined with the notice period to yield the grand total of $587.50. In response, CK stopped her credit card payments to prevent deductions.

Fee Component Original Quote Final Resolution
Pro-rated Membership Fee $164.50 Waived
One Month Notice Period $235 Waived
Early Termination Penalty (50% of remaining 3 months) $352.50 Waived
Total Charges $587.50 Waived

What Do the Fitness First Membership Terms Stipulate?

Documentation seen by Stomp outlines specific restrictions tied to promotional gym packages. While standard agreements require a written notice of membership cancellation at least one calendar month in advance, promotional memberships tied to a single home outlet carry stricter financial obligations. A clause in CK’s contract stated that members signing up for promotional premier memberships agree to pay four full paying months to fulfill contractual obligations. Furthermore, early termination clauses mandate that cancellations within the minimum commitment period incur a penalty equivalent to 50 percent of the remaining value in the membership.

How Did Fitness First Resolve the Dispute?

Fitness First Singapore stated on October 9, 2026, that it takes member feedback seriously and maintains a commitment to transparent resolutions. Later that same day, CK confirmed that Fitness First had contacted her to reverse all charges. The gym acknowledged the discrepancy, telling her, “We acknowledge that the changes to the class timetable differed from your expectations when you joined and appreciate the opportunity to review your concerns.” The agreement included a complete waiver of the $164.50 pro-rated membership fee she had paid upon joining.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Photo of author

Alexandra Hartman Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief Prize-winning journalist with over 20 years of international news experience. Alexandra leads the editorial team, ensuring every story meets the highest standards of accuracy and journalistic integrity.

How Pacific Governments Use Social Protection to Cushion the Oil Shock