time to talk1

Los Claveles: Opposition Press Release

Inside Timeshare has received the following press release from the Los Claveles opposition, we publish in the interest of neutrality, as we have said before, both sides must be able to voice their opinion.

You may not agree with the content, that is your prerogative, but it does call for all sides to come together and settle this dispute for the benefit of the club.

los claveles opposition logo

PRESS RELEASE

Los Claveles report a record surplus

While the dispute rages on, setting owner against owner, Señor Germán Castro, the Managing Director of WimPen has written to all Los Claveles owners with the latest set of accounts showing a record income and a record surplus.

He also offers an olive branch to owners and says, “We are also the first to want an AGM to be convened of all parties, so that everyone can be summoned and vote, and so that everyone can have the right to offer their candidature to become members of the Committee and propose agenda items, for the benefit of all Club members, so they can decide on their administrator and their future. WIMPEN will be the first to respect this decision, provided that everyone can freely and democratically exercise their right to vote and that an impartial external moderator is appointed to preside over said AGM”.

“This is exactly what we need,” says Roger Barrow, who heads up the working group opposed to the way the current committee are handling the dispute. “This is the only way to get a resolution to the dispute without building on the mounting legal costs for all sides. We believe the current chair and committee are leading us up a path to disaster, and we need a way out”

Sue Mackenzie, the working group’s accountant said, “Snr Castro reports that the reserves have grown 119% in the period 2013 to 2016, an astonishing result in these days of struggling timeshare resorts.  Ivan Pengelly’s decision to sell his shares to OnaGrup, who he judged were best placed to improve the community’s income, has been fully justified.”

“It is notable that in 2016 for the first time, it has not been necessary to make a provision for bad debts. Costs have remained level over the whole period, with the exception of the massive legal bill for legal; services and arbitration of over £100k of owners’ money, created by the committee’s actions”, continued Sue Mackenzie.

“With the exception of Los Claveles, all the other WimPen resorts AGMs have agreed a new 3 year contract for WimPen with an overwhelming majority” adds Roger.

So what happens now? A decision on the appeal is still awaited, and there are legal proceedings in Spain to be resolved. All this is going to take time and more expense. “Have owners approved these legal costs?” asks Roger, “On whose authority was this expenditure agreed? We need this full general meeting very soon, then we can all settle down again and enjoy our holidays at Los Claveles.”

Señor Castro ends his letter to owners wishing all a Happy Christmas and saying, “We ask you all to think of the Club and create a prosperous and positive future where everyone can enjoy their holidays, without conflict and in a friendly atmosphere.”

Inside Timeshare calls on all concerned parties to take heed and make the right decision to get together and discuss this matter and resolve it for the benefit of all club members. Only you can do this.

come together


33 Comments

  • Alex

    December 16, 2017

    What we need is for Mr. Barrow and his group who have no affiliation to the Official Club Los Claveles to read the CONSTITUTION and understand that if the Owners Register had been released at 2015 after a democratic vote as promised by Mr. Pengelly (and still hasn’t been released despite an AWARD from the Arbitrator) we would not have the current problems.
    I have tried to communicate with Mr. German Castro and without any response I have formal complaints to the Legal and Regulatory Authorities in Scotland.#See my open letter to Mr. German Castro:
    Dear Mr Castro,
    With reference to your recent letter dated 11th December 2017, you state in 2nd paragraph, quote: “ …the validity of the contract signed between the Club Los Claveles and Wimpen, the Arbitrator ruled, as we had already predicted, that the contract could not be cancelled unilaterally and that it was effective until March 2017” unquote, I suggest that this decision is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and therefore request that you copy me this statement from the Arbitrator so that I can take further action.
    3rd. Para; quote “ ..the Arbitrator recognises Wimpen as Founder Members”.
    At Club Los Claveles SGM 22/4/2017 and AGM 10/9/2017 Founder Members were removed from the Committee with a Constitution Resolution democratic vote and the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction on voting at SGM or AGM.
    The decision to terminate the Management contract with Wimpen was a democratic vote at the AGM 27th June 2015. Constitution Management Agreement Clause 11 “The Management Period shall forthwith terminate:- (c) if the Management Company shall have committed a breach of this Agreement and shall neglect or otherwise fail to remedy such breach (whether capable of remedy or not) within one (1) month of being required in writing to do so by the Committee of the Club and the Committee thereafter serves upon the Management Company a notice in writing summarily terminating the Management Period.”
    I experienced several “Breaches of Contract” where Wimpen refused to abide by the Constitution namely Clause 9 of the Management Agreement which allows any member of the Club to inspect the Records and Books of Account.

    Reply
    • Julie Lear

      December 17, 2017

      We have spent 2 and a half years listening to you and your committee spouting the constitution that you fail to follow yourselves! The alt group will never rest until it has a vote for every owner of Los Claveles and a chairman that will represent those votes and not over ride them or ignore them !

      Reply
      • Richard Burston

        December 19, 2017

        Julie,its good to see you would like a vote for all owners,just as the Committee would like to be able to contact all of the owners.Perhaps if those who have taken possession of the resort would comply with the arbitration orders and hand over the owners register we would both get the required result

        Reply
    • Julie lear

      December 17, 2017

      You say read the constitution Alex ! We do ! And we are on the third version of it this year ! With no perceivable change for the benefit of owners . The only beneficiaries have been the chairman and president who now seem to be able to be in situ indefinitely !

      Reply
      • Alex

        December 21, 2017

        Julie Lear as the 2014 Constitution was active at the time of Arbitration ALL my comments are with respect to that version. CONSTITUTION 2014 Clause 19.4 defines that the Club SHALL call a meeting and that it SHALL NOT be invalidated as a result of action by the Management Company which prevents ALL owners from receiving notices.
        If Wimpen abide by the Arbiter’s Awards and release the Owner’s Register to the Committee we can have a full meeting of ALL owners.

        Reply
  • Richard

    December 16, 2017

    Perhaps as Alex has suggested if Mr Castro and Mr Barrow and his colleagues bothered to read the Constitution and maybe even the Statutes and more so the Spanish Laws of Horizontal Property which Mr Pengelly was very fond of quoting they would maybe see the wood for the trees. Compliance with the Arbiters awards in particular handing over the members register to its rightful owners, the Committee, to enable what would truly be a fair and level playing field for communications to all owners (you will note in the press release Mr Castro has written to ALL owners) would surely have been a way to at least show some degree of co operation. What are they afraid of?
    So we can all see there has been no top up into the fund for bad debts, so what does that actually show? I am not convinced that irt shows no need but rather it shows Ona in a better light as improving income. It also shows how much repairs and maintenance went down and suddenly spiked. I also notice the security costs barely changed over the periods shown so who is paying for the large number of security personel that were present for a number of weeks after the resort reopened after closedown. Anyone can play with figures to make someone see what is required to be seen. On whos authority was this expenditure approved, read the Constitution Mr Barrow and also the minutes of the various SGMs and AGMs that have been held since Ona Grup laid siege to Los Claveles. It should also be noted from personal experience that when any of this UNofficial group of individuals that appear to have secretly ‘voted’ themselves into whatever positions they have dreamed up is challenged or questioned on an issue they have raised no answers are forthcoming. Bit like asking Ona Wimpen a question, you will wait a long time for an answer, just about as hell freezes over.

    Reply
    • Julie lear

      December 17, 2017

      I would like to suggest that the committee give every owner the vote and the ability to propose items for an agenda! Validate your mandate and put to bed this complete nonsense! Or does the problem lie with the fact that you do not have the confidence in your mandate to do this ?

      Reply
  • Roger Barrow

    December 17, 2017

    Nothing will be achieved by quoting disputed constitutions, disputed agms or disputed arbiter’s rulings and we are very disappointed to note that Alex (Lovatt?), Richard (Burston?), the anonymous Sid and other committee supporters seem unable to put these disputed arguments away and appear unwilling to sit round a table and talk.

    I urge the committee, accept Snr Castro’s invitation, invite Wimpen to constructive round table talks prior to holding a full and legitimate general meeting, including founder members, and allow the full membership to have a vote on the future of Los Claveles

    We will accept the validity of such a vote but, without it, the opposition group is not going away and our support will continue to grow. This is the only way forward.

    Reply
    • Chris Casey

      December 18, 2017

      Have you ever run for European office?
      It seems to be the Unelected European Commissions way of doing things that if they don’t like the result of a referendum that that constantly call for re-runs until they get the result that they want.

      Reply
      • Roger Barrow

        December 18, 2017

        At least the whole population had the opportunity to vote in the EU referendum, that is more than can be said of the membership of the Club Los Claveles. Why would you oppose holding a full general meeting to which every owner is invited to vote?

        Reply
        • Chris Casey

          December 18, 2017

          As a politician I am surprised that you misunderstood the history of the EU commission that I was referring to. Or was that deliberate?
          Let ONAgrup hand over the register, as they are lawfully required to do, and FNTC hand over the voting rights, as they are lawfully required to do, then I am sure we will have a full Club AGM with every club member invited to have their say. Or do you only want a meeting organised by your rules rather than the law?

          Reply
          • Roger Barrow

            December 18, 2017

            I dont know why you always feel the need to make this personal by referring to my job in politics. It is irrelevant and quite unnecessary.

            I represent the group that are opposed to the way the committee are handling this dispute. We want an full general meeting , where all owners are able to vote, with rules agreed in round table discussions by all parties, including founder members, before anything is handed over to anyone.

    • Alex

      December 21, 2017

      Mr. Barrow, as the 2014 Constitution was active at the time of Arbitration ALL my comments are with respect to that version. CONSTITUTION 2014 Clause 19.4 defines that the Club SHALL call a meeting and that it SHALL NOT be invalidated as a result of action by the Management Company which prevents ALL owners from receiving notices.
      If Wimpen abide by the Arbiter’s Awards and release the Owner’s Register to the Committee we can have a full meeting of ALL owners. I urge you to support the release of the Owner’s Register to the Committee so that a meeting of ALL owners can be held in compliance with the Constitution.

      Reply
  • Richard Burston

    December 17, 2017

    So out of curiosity who is going to invite all of these owners to this meeting and by what method. As it stands legally (that’s the bit Mr Castro likes to ignore it seems) no one can. Ona/Wimpen have no mandate from either the Committee or all those members of the Club who actually voted at a properly called AGM to call such a meeting so it would have no legal standing and the properly elected Committee cannot as Ona/Wimpen have failed to comply with the Arbiters rulings to hand over the data base to allow the Committee to contact ALL owners. This whole thing requires give and take from both sides however currently it seems the owners are doing all the giving, usually under duress when they get to reception on the resort and Ona are doing all the taking (illegally of owners monies)

    Reply
  • Roger Barrow

    December 18, 2017

    Oh dear Mr Burston, you continue to quote disputed arbiter’s findings and disputed AGM decisions. Like it or not, in the absence of a resolution of this dispute, WimPen are currently acting Administrator, and that will not change any time soon.

    If the committee would talk with them and agree to the suggested full general meeting, would discuss and agree the appointment of an impartial moderator and agree an agenda, Wimpen would send out calling papers to all owners. Of course an initial round-table discussion to prepare for the general meeting would require give and take on both sides. We in the opposition group would be willing to assist in enabling that give and take discussion. We would also support any democratic decision about the future direction and future administration of Los Claveles made by that meeting.

    Reply
  • Richard Burston

    December 18, 2017

    Please can you elaborate on disputed findings. There is no dispute about the standing of the Committee, that has been finalised by the decision of the appeal Judge as already announced. There is no dispute about Wimpens authority to do anything on behalf of the Club as even they concede to the fact their contract has expired.

    Reply
  • Roger Barrow

    December 18, 2017

    Very surprising you haven’t yet realised the findings that we or Wimpen dispute Mr Burston. We dispute the legitimacy of the constitution, we dispute the legitimacy of any of the recent AGMs or SGMs, we do not recognise the legitimacy of the committee without the founder members, we do not accept the legitimacy of the appointment of Snr Bulchard as administrator, we do not recognise your assumption of the outcome of the arbitration which have yet to be published. . . . if you continue to quote all these things absolutely nothing will be achieved. We just want to see constructive talks taking place between all parties and we will not give up our opposition until that happens.

    Reply
    • Richard Burston

      December 18, 2017

      Yes but who is we? Who you accept is totally irrelevant, it has to be the law that decides these things not you and it has already been decided in law who the Committee is and that at very least the SGM held in 2016 has also been determined as legitimate. It seems pointless to me that both parties have agreed to take part in an Arbitration procedure and then one of those parties keeps disputing its outcome. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it wrong. To my knowledge nothing of relevance has changed in the Constitution. I believe this conversation has now become pointless until the outcome of the appeal is known as we are just going to keep disputing the same thing.

      Reply
      • Roger Barrow

        December 18, 2017

        Instead of reverting to the law and spending huge amounts of owners’ money on legal fees, which, whatever the outcome, will still leave owners divided, why wont you and the committee agree to Señor Castro’s very reasonable invitation to have a full general meeting of all parties? Then we can get this dispute resolved once and for all, and save owners a lot of expense and heartache!

        Reply
        • Chris Casey

          December 18, 2017

          Why is it that every time facts are quoted you want to just ignore the law and want to try instead to replay history until you get what you want.

          Reply
          • Roger Barrow

            December 18, 2017

            Because nothing will be achieved and the community will always be divided, until the different sides get round a table and talk constructively.

          • Dennis thirkell

            December 18, 2017

            The commmittee broke the law when all owners were not involved with all the decision that have been made in the last 3 years it like asking 10% of the country to vote and forgetting the other 90% but I’m sure you know all this . Let’s sort it out for all owners and not the few as you seem to think it is

  • Dennis Thirkell

    December 18, 2017

    We can quote we can argue as much as we like in nearly 3 years we’re are we . Roger barrow as it the nail on the head let get round the table and sort then hold a meeting or this dispute will continue and none of us want this to continue do we the blame game as to stop like it or not owners are fed up

    Reply
    • Richard Burston

      December 18, 2017

      Dennis as usual you are incorrect, the Committee broke no ‘laws’ and complied with that dreaded Constitution. It doesn’t matter which version of the Constitution you wish to use the requirements are the same and were complied with.

      Reply
    • Alex

      December 21, 2017

      Mr. Thirkell, the Committee did NOT break the law. How many times have I quoted the CONSTITUTION? Wimpen are at FAULT for ALL owners not being formally contacted and sent Calling Papers for SGM and AGM. CONSTITUTION Clause 19.4 was introduced into the initial CONSTITUTION by Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd to protect owners from unscrupulous Management Companies and to allow Meetings to be called by the Committee.
      The CONSTITUTION does NOT permit the Management Company to call a meeting.
      see; Clause 19.4:
      “The accidental omission to give notice of a meeting to, or the non-receipt of notice of a meeting by, any person entitled to receive notice shall NOT invalidate the proceedings of that meeting and accidental omission shall include an omission which was deliberate but which arose out of or was connected with an honest but mistaken view of law or fact by any officer of the Management Company or the Club”

      Reply
  • roger barrow

    December 18, 2017

    How will this all end? Well, whatever the outcome, Los Claveles will end up with a bitterly divided community while a bunch of lawyers will be a whole lot richer. For goodness sake, let’s just talk, let’s just have this full general meeting with an independent moderator and resolve this.

    Reply
  • Chris Casey

    December 18, 2017

    It appears that Roger Barrow somehow blocks replies in sub-threads when he feels that he has said enough to have the last word so I will need to reply here.
    You asked why I referred to your occupation as a politician – as I was discussing political decisions I thought that entirely relevant.
    You asked how we could have a meeting of all club members and I told you how.
    This however was not good enough for you and you now say that you want the ex-employees to have a say on the rules for that meeting. Very open!

    Reply
  • Roger Barrow

    December 19, 2017

    All I and the rest of the opposition want is a full general meeting, also with founder members, where every owner can vote and we will respect that decision.

    it is no good trying to intimidate me. I do not intend to continue this unnecessary argument so don’t bother replying.

    Reply
    • Alex

      December 21, 2017

      Mr Barrow, you need to apply pressure to Wimpen to release the Owners Register to the Committee as directed by the Arbiter. Then we can have a meeting of ALL owners.

      Reply
      • Roger Barrow

        December 21, 2017

        Does that include founder members?

        Reply
        • Richard Burston

          December 21, 2017

          Please clarify who exactly are the founder members as far ad you are concerned please.

          Reply
  • Chris Casey

    December 19, 2017

    I struggle to see any intimidation on any comment from me here so I absolutely refute that claim. Constantly repeating false claims do not make them true, no matter how nice they sound.

    Reply
  • Richard Burston

    December 19, 2017

    So it appears that around 12 owners wish to overturn the mandate given at a properly called meeting to the Committee to remove Wimpen/Ona without even the opportunity for the Committee to properly canvas ALL of the Club Owners and give them their official side of the story. That strikes me as more than just a little one sided. Even in the hottest of political battles the monster raving looney party gets to communicate with all of the electorate.

    Reply

Leave a Reply