Clients dissatisfied with their dealings with a weight-loss company have been advised to seek legal advice and consider lodging claims with the Disputes Tribunal.
But exactly who the "other party" in a tribunal hearing might be is not clear.
This week, dieter Shirley Kerr said she wanted the personalised weight-loss programme she signed up for with Sureslim or her $990 fee back, after she abandoned the programme because of the sudden departure of Otago franchisees John and Heather Earnshaw in mid-January.
In a letter to Otago clients, Sureslim NZ director Robyn Neil said Sureslim NZ was "forced to terminate" the Earnshaws' franchise because they had breached their legal obligations.
She also said clients would be looked after remotely from Invercargill until a new Otago franchisee was appointed.
The Earnshaws said that letter, and the fact the franchise was taken away from them rather than them closing down, meant clients' concerns were with Sureslim NZ.
But a Ministry of Consumer Affairs adviser said yesterday clients might be able to seek compensation from the Earnshaws.
Joanne Kearney, a senior consumer affairs adviser based in Christchurch, said clients should take legal advice on whether their Sureslim contract was with the national organisation or with the Otago franchise.
Mrs Kerr has a receipt which shows she paid her money to the Sureslim Wellness Clinic, Earnshaw Properties and Investments, trading as Sure-slim Otago.
The receipt would appear to be "clear evidence" Mrs Kerr's contract was with the Earnshaws, not Sureslim NZ, Ms Kearney said.
However, business arrangements which involved franchises and parent companies were complicated, and clients needed to establish the legal position of the other party to their contracts.
Three other people affected by the Earnshaws' departure contacted the Otago Daily Times yesterday.
Two had similar stories to Mrs Kerr, having signed up and paid in full late last year, but not wanting to be looked after from Invercargill.
Theresa, who did not want to give her surname, said she had been trying to get $600 back from the Earnshaws since 2006.
After paying the part fee, she was unable to start the programme because she was told she had to pay the entire $990 fee up front first and could not afford it.
After asking for her money back for several months, she suffered a serious leg injury which occupied her time and she "gave up".
Theresa said she rang the Earnshaws again in January after being told they were no longer the Sureslim franchisees, and was told by them to direct her concerns to Ms Neil, who told her her dispute was with the Earnshaws.
Theresa said she also planned to go to the Disputes Tribunal. "I think I have lost my money, but I will give it another try."
