monday

Start the Week

Welcome to the first article of the new week, over the weekend the debate on Los Claveles has seen the opposing views getting rather heated and personal.

One reader who is an owner at Los Claveles has sent in the following response to the article published on 30 November. Inside Timeshare has agreed not to publish the writer’s name and abide by his wishes.

His response is well written, it lays out his view on the situation in a clear and precise manner, giving a very good opposing argument.

Response to The Opposition View

The “Press Release” submitted by Mr Barrow, who is a director of the WimPen Holding Company at Las Casitas and has a long term family association with Mr Pengelly, is deeply flawed and highly questionable regarding the title “Los Claveles Club” which is a misrepresentation of the Official “Club Los Claveles” as defined in the Club Constitution. It takes no account of the unique ownership structure, governance and committee-led stewardship of the resort over many years that has resulted in the resort being financially strong, in sharp contrast to other former WimPen resorts. Without going into all the details, Mr Pengelly’s handling of the sale of the Los Claveles management contract to Onagrup is widely recognised as having been lacking in judgement and consideration for the owners, and disrespectful to their elected representatives in the weeks following the sale. Since then, Mr Pengelly has presided over flagrant abuses of statutes and constitutional frameworks  governing the community of owners at Los Claveles; disregarded a petition calling for his resignation and a vote of no confidence in him at the 2016 Escritura Community AGM, which he refused to accept (as a result of which ALL the owners left the room, except for 3 owner couples, calling the meeting illegal). In addition Mr. Pengelly has practised non-compliance with arbitration orders and awards; turned a blind eye to the physical assault of the Club President and intimidation of Club Members by an Onagrup employee; condoned false accusations of fraud being made by Onagrup to the Spanish Police against the Club President and Chairman; and allowed the unlawful sacking of long term staff members. As a result, his once decent reputation in the timeshare industry is now in tatters.

For the record, the notice of termination given to WimPen for Club Los Claveles on 31 March 2015 was not a “knee jerk reaction” as described by Mr Barrow but a considered decision precipitated by the arrogant attitude of Onagrup to the Club Committee and a flagrant disregard of the Club Constitution regarding rental policy.  It was a unanimous decision by elected committee members in response to the representations made to them by hundreds of concerned owners in the 2 months following the sale to Onagrup, and was also supported by the Escritura owners’ representative. Mr Barrow’s representation of this decision being based on the Club Chairman’s casting vote is wildly inaccurate and misleading. The notice of termination made provision for Club Members to have the final say at the subsequent AGM in June 2015. This was heavily influenced by the contribution of one single owner, a commercial lawyer by profession. He raised such fears in the minds of those attending that they would become personably liable for damages in a breach-of- contract claim from Onagrup that many changed their mind and voted not to risk that eventuality. Otherwise, the vote would have been much more conclusive in favour of the termination. This same owner subsequently changed his views and has since given his support to the committee. Regardless of this the view of Onagrup that it still held the management contract for the resort only came about because it combined the votes of both Club and Escritura owners despite the vote being taken separately. .

The issue here is not with the committee, as Mr Barrow would have owners believe. It is with WimPen, Onagrup and a minority of owners that he is now representing who are not prepared to accept the democratic constitutional process of governance of the resort. They refuse to accept that every effort was made by the Club Chairman to negotiate with Onagrup. even going to the lengths of travelling to Barcelona to meet with Onagrup senior management, prior to the members democratically voting at the SGM of January 2016 to take the dispute to arbitration because Onagrup would not agree to abide by the Club Constitution.

The situation now is that WimPen, i.e. Onagrup, is appealing the arbitration.  And much like Mr Barrow and the self-elected members of the protest action group he is leading, WimPen has taken it upon itself to illegally carry on managing Club Los Claveles without a contract which expired on 2 May 2017, claiming that it has a right to do so while the appeal is being heard. This is not so. Meanwhile, the Club Constitution is being completely disregarded by both Mr Barrow and WimPen in advocating that members should pay their maintenance fees to an illegal agent who has no contract to manage Club Los Claveles. This same agent is sending threatening letters to members who have followed the Constitution and paid their maintenance fees to the Club, refusing access to their accommodation until they pay again and blocking RCI members’ exchanges.

Marilyn Fry, who has a close, long term tie with Mr Pengelly and family, also seeks to mislead by failing to explain that owners who do not follow the Club Constitution and deliberately pay their maintenance fee to WimPen automatically place themselves in conflict with the rules governing their membership of the Club and risk being suspended. However, the Club Chairman has simply reminded the tiny minority who have taken this course of action that they are in breach of the Constitution, that they have an outstanding debt to the Club and that they have therefore placed their membership of the Club at risk. A similar tiny minority have placed themselves in the position of paying their maintenance fee twice, i.e. once to the Club and a second time to WimPen simply because they took it upon themselves not to follow the committee’s instructions, or its process for overcoming WimPen’s illegal demands for gaining access to their Los Claveles accommodation.

Equally misleading is her statement about secrecy and censorship. The committee is bound by the rules of arbitration and is therefore restricted in what it can and cannot communicate to Club Members. No member has been banned from the owners’ website, and the normal rules of moderation apply to Los Claveles social media groups. A tiny number have been suspended for failing to comply with these rules.

The solution that is supported by 90% of the 971 members of Club Los Claveles who voted at the 2017 AGM, a record high number, is for WimPen to abide by the Club Constitution and Arbitration orders and awards, and to withdraw from the management of the Club, along with the Trustee FNTC, a company that was dismissed in 2012 but also refuses to go. This will allow the members to regain control of the Club, appoint their chosen Administrator, Trustee and management service providers, and restore the loyal staff who were wrongfully dismissed under Mr Pengelly’s watch. Only then will the resort return to peaceful normality, and continued prosperity and enjoyment for the owners.

As this article was being prepared for publication, Roger Barrow sent in the following, Inside Timeshare publishes this in order to try and keep a neutral and balanced stance.

LAS CASITAS AGM:

Dear Charles

Its a good news story for those Los Claveles owners who are interested and remember the days of happy AGMs where owners have full control, with healthy, friendly debate and a great get-together in the bar the evening before.

  1. Administrators report – Approved
  2. Accounts for year to Aug 2017 – Approved
  3. Budget and proposed 3% increase in fees ( first increase for 3 years)  – Approved
  4. President re-elected
  5. Reintroduction of Owners’ Representative – Approved
  6. Appointment of Wimpen for a further 3 years – Approved
  7. Bar Franchise offered further 3 year contract – Approved
  8. Charges for more than one WiFi connection – Approved
  9. Acceleration of upgrade of Lounge/Dining room – Approved
  10. Replacement of baths with walk in shower – Approved

Four different resorts approved new 3 year contracts for Wimpen at AGMs this weekend

Regards

Roger Barrow

As you can see, there does seem to be a very wide difference of opinion between the other resorts as well as the differing opinions at Los Claveles. Inside Timeshare will continue to publish articles showing the opposing views, especially those with a clear and precise argument.

As we were preparing for publication, the following news came in from Madrid:

The Supreme Court has once again ruled in favour of a former UK client of Silverpoint, this court has once again ruled as per their previous judgements.

In this case the court has awarded back over £45,000 plus legal fees and interest, also declaring the contract null and void. This is the 77th ruling made by Spain’s highest court and leaves no doubt that the interpretation of law 42/98 is correct.

If you need any help or advice on any timeshare related matter, Inside Timeshare is here to provide it. Contact Inside Timeshare and we will point you in the right direction.


6 Comments

  • Roger Barrow

    December 4, 2017

    the Los Claveles Opposition Group consider anonymous posts cowardly and we will not respond to people that don’t have the courage of their convictions.

    Reply
    • Alex Lovatt

      December 5, 2017

      Roger, why do you insist on using “Los Claveles Club” in your “Press Release” title?
      I believe that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead owners as the Constitution identifies the official title as “CLUB LOS CLAVELES” in the Definitions, Clause 1 of the Constitution and there are general internal references to “Los Claveles Club Constitution”.
      Mr. Barrow, you have no authority to pretend to be part of the Club in an official capacity, or, in fact, in any capacity, so please stop using “Los Claveles Club” to promote your presentations.

      Reply
  • Timeshare Insider

    December 5, 2017

    Inside Timeshare has removed a comment by “Sid Thirkell”. This comment was deemed inappropriate as it named someone and accused them of a criminal offence. Comments such as this will not be tolerated. Inside Timeshare understands why some will want their identity hidden but accusations of this nature by hidden identities will be referred to the authorities for investigation.
    We welcome comments and the submission of opinions for publication, to foster debate to resolve a serious matter. Please remember this publication has a world wide audience, do not let yourselves down with childish and offensive comments or criminal accusations.

    Thank you
    Inside Timeshare

    Reply
  • Alex Lovatt

    December 5, 2017

    I concur with the above In the Rresponse to the “Opposition View”. this recent “Opposition View” Press Release may accusations from Mrs Fry quote “With owners who criticise or oppose the committee’s actions banned from the owner’s website and social media, which is heavily censored”. As an admin of the Facebook sites with over 500 members and I can confirm that that only a very small number have been removed (not blocked) for not abiding by the Group Description. These owners where contacted using Facebook Personal Message in an attempt to justify their actions prior to being removed.
    The Facebook Groups are Closed to protect contributors from unauthorized access.
    The Group Description implicitly identifies that any member who copies Posts or Comments to non-members will be removed. Removed members have all been guilty of deliberately copying posts to the detriment of the author.

    Reply
  • Janis Jones

    December 7, 2017

    I cannot understand why it is a problem for some people that a statement or contribution to a written debate is given anonymously. Is that the only bone of contention? The content of the correspondence is the only important factor and if you do not agree with the content then offer your opposing view. It is completely irrelevant to an online debate, where we are all unknown to each other except by the title ” Owner” , whose name is attributed to any contribution, as you are still at liberty to offer a response. The bone of contention must be shown to be a disagreement solely of the content contained within the statement or letter, otherwise it should be assumed that there is complete agreement with everything contained within. (Name provided!)

    Reply
    • Timeshare Insider

      December 7, 2017

      Thank you Janis, You do make a very valid point. It is also understandable why some feel they want to be anonymous, especially in the light of some of the past events.

      Reply

Leave a Reply