Browse Tag

Special General Meeting

anfi ariel view

Anfi Special General Meeting, The Vote is In.

As we reported in Friday’s Letter From America, Anfi held a Special General Meeting at the H10 Hotel in Meloneras, Gran Canaria, the subject was the change in contracts to bring them into line with the law.

There were three resolutions on offer,

Voting on Resolution 1

To establish occupancy periods for a maximum of 50 years duration, with an option to extend for further recurring occupancy periods of 50 years.

This will bring the contracts in line with the 50 year rule established in Spanish timeshare law, but it allows you to extend voluntarily to another 50 years.

Voting on Resolution 2

To limit the duration of the Timeshare Scheme to a maximum of 50 years.

The same as resolution 1 without the option to extend to another 50 years.

Voting on Resolution 3

Total change of Timeshare Scheme to adapt to Spanish Act 4/2012.

This adapts the contract to  “Rotational Enjoyment Rights” Anfi explains it thus:

“Every current holder of a membership certificate shall be allocated a number of rotational enjoyment rights, equal to the number of membership certificates they currently hold and which will entitle them to enjoy the same week of use as they currently hold”.

The preliminary results are as follows, (these are not confirmed):

Anfi Beach Club

Resolution 1

  • In the favour: 4342 votes
  • Against: 140 votes
  • Abstention: 34 votes

Result: Approved

Resolution 2

  • In the favour: 2750 votes
  • Against: 1696 votes
  • Abstention: 119 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Resolution 3

  • In the favour: 2750 votes
  • Against: 1657 votes
  • Abstention: 115 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Club Monte Anfi

Resolution 1

  • In the favour: 2604 votes
  • Against: 245 votes
  • Abstention: 38 votes

Result: Approved

Resolution 2

  • In the favour: 1106 votes
  • Against: 1629 votes
  • Abstention: 161 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Resolution 3

  • In the favour: 1105 votes
  • Against: 1635 votes
  • Abstention: 156 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Club Puerto Anfi

Resolution 1

  • In the favour: 2358 votes
  • Against: 131 votes
  • Abstention: 29 votes

Result: Approved

Resolution 2

  • In the favour: 1287 votes
  • Against: 1142 votes
  • Abstention: 88 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Resolution 3

  • In the favour: 1304 votes
  • Against: 1126 votes
  • Abstention: 86 votes

Result: NOT Approved

Resolution 1 has been accepted for all three resorts, which is:

“To establish occupancy periods for a maximum of 50 years duration, with an option to extend for further recurring occupancy periods of 50 years”.

So how does this affect you?

Quite simply it doesn’t, it will only affect new contracts, the owners club does not have the right to change a bilateral agreement that was signed between you and Anfi. It will only affect you if you agree to and sign the new contract. If you do not accept the new contract your existing one remains in force, which means your contract is still a perpetuity one, which is still illegal under Spanish timeshare law.

This obviously means that you may claim back the purchase price and have the contract declared null & void. For those who do have claims underway in court, this is crucial they do not sign, as it would then make the claim invalid.

It is obvious that Anfi want you to change, it will save them a lot of problems in the courts, but it is your decision, not theirs!

As more information comes in we will publish so you have the facts.

update bricks

Since publishing we have received the following facts from Canarian Legal Alliance, they have contacted us with these figures and the latest judgment:

On Friday 23 June the HIGH COURT in Las Palmas announced the latest sentence against ANFI, with the contract being declared null & void with over 10,000€ being awarded back to the client. This was for a contract in perpetuity.

These are real figures direct from the Canarian courts along with real payouts. They are real sentences which are all ready to be executed (naturally all these amounts and sentences can easily be verified as they are public record), with many of these sentences published as news on this website as they happened. (search Supreme Court, High Court and First Instance).

So far overall court achievements from CLA against ANFI

• pay-outs to our clients from ANFI cases so far 1.133.560,06 €
• won cases ( all closed and ready for executions ) in the Supreme Court , High Court , and First Instance Courts with orders against ANFI for payments are 3.269.547,02 €
• On top of this CLA has 323 live cases in court and 279 soon to be presented.

So contrary to the spin Anfi try to put on all this, the courts are finding for clients, with Anfi having to lodge the money with the courts. The truth is out there for all to see, not just against Anfi but other resorts as well.

letter from america

Friday’s Letter from America

Welcome to this week’s Friday’s Letter from America, today we publish part two from David Franks, Our Diamond Misadventures. But as usual we start with some news from Europe.

Today there is a Special General Meeting of owners from Anfi, they are being asked to vote for one of three resolutions. These are in order to bring Anfi contracts in line with the laws in Spain, which as we all know are being enforced rigorously by the courts, with almost daily announcements of contracts being declared null & void with all monies returned. As we mentioned in a previous article it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

After last weeks article was published there were yet more announcements from the courts, the first was against Palm Oasis (Tasolan SL), with the court declaring the contract null & void with the repayment of 31,577€, a very happy ex-owner indeed.

Then on Friday evening we were informed of another decision from the Court of First Instance against none other than Anfi! The amount awarded is a staggering 59,053€.

So far this week there have been another two against Anfi, another against Palm Oasis (Tasolan SL) and two more from the Tenerife courts against Resort Properties / Silverpoint. So it looks like those lawyers from Canarian Legal Alliance are flying.

The “fake” law firms from the Litigious Abogados family in Tenerife have another name added, a new Procurador going by the name of Daniel Marco Yariz. This Procurador is working on behalf of Abogados Amable & Garcia who we highlighted in Friday’s Letter from America on 12 May. Their documents to those who are not familiar with them do look genuine, especially those from the “courts”. They certainly are growing, the question is how much money have they managed to swindle from unsuspecting owners? (Search Litigious Abogados for all articles).

One of our regular readers has informed us that he has been banned from the forum timeshare talk, because he posted one of our articles about Mr Mark Rowe. Not surprising really, as it is owned by him. So the question is can you trust this forum?

So, now on with this weeks article from David Franks.

Our Diamond Misadventures

Chapter Two: Missouri Loves Company

By David Franks

travel

June 23, 2017

Once back from our two Vegas experiences – the vacation proper and the DRI ordeal as chronicled here:

http://insidetimeshare.com/fridays-letter-america-5/ –

my lovely wife and I resumed our mundane lives and occasionally perused the Diamond Resorts material in anticipation of our membership’s becoming active in 2016. After ignoring several email and phone offers for a “free” weekend resort stay, and realizing that a resort stay was inevitable, we decided to give a resort a chance and – God help us – we booked a weekend and the obligatory “New Member orientation presentation lasting approximately 90-120 minutes” at the Suites at Fall Creek in Branson, Missouri. This would not be too long a drive from our hermitage.

We arrived at the Suites at Fall Creek on Saturday, October 17, 2016. After a check-in that included an introduction to the concierge desk, we deciphered the map they provided and found the two bedroom suite they had hidden at the back of the Suites at Fall Creek property. Though it would pass for nice, with a kitchen I might have been able to get used to during a week’s stay, it wasn’t luxurious, and it didn’t alter our conviction that resort staying is not for us. We went out and drove around for a look at Branson, found a satisfactory restaurant, had an adequate evening meal and found our way back to our pied-a-terre.

We arose early for the 8 a.m. breakfast that was part of the presentation. The dismal breakfast buffet should have served ample warning of what was to come. After that unfortunate incident and being chatted up by friendly salespeople, the group dispersed and my lovely wife and I were ushered into the office of M. W. for our individual “orientation”. He was shocked – shocked! – that M. R. in Las Vegas had sold us such a small membership. He proceeded to tell us what we should have been told in Las Vegas: the membership was too small to accomplish what we wanted. But boy, did he have a way to fix that. (Just think! A tag team that works halfway across the country!) In the face of our complete – and reinforced – lack of interest in resorts, M.K. gave us the same assurances as we had received in Las Vegas: that between Diamond and Interval International we would have access to comprehensive travel services, discounted travel and a 20- or 30-cent point redemption value for all DRI and II services. We mentioned our liking for train travel, and he told us that Diamond was working on an agreement with Amtrak.

In addition to a reprise of the Vegas promises, we were offered the incentive of double bonus points with a purchase, which would put us at Gold membership level for two years so we could really put our membership through its paces. If we still didn’t like what they had to offer at the end of the two years, then we could sell our membership. There was no mention of the particular difficulty of reselling DRI memberships in the secondary market. Having looked at the figures for another assortment of membership packages, membership did not appear to be too good to be true; rather, as presented, it seemed a reasonable value: the redemption value of points at 20 cents was approximately equal to the maintenance fees. We selected a membership that brought us to the Silver level. We were told we would have a 30-cent point redemption value for all services for calendar 2016 and 2017, and 20 cents per point after that. The first two years seemed a good value, but the ability to resell was the clincher.

Among the blandishments proffered was a variety of “Dream Vacations” from which we could select one to try out Diamond’s expert travel service. We selected a Miami-and-cruise vacation for 7,500 points.

About fifteen minutes after filling out credit card applications, my lovely wife and I were each miraculously handed a Diamond Resorts-branded MasterCard issued by Barclaycard US. I say “miraculously” because issuance was based on our assertion as to the value of half of our liquid assets – a figure they could not have verified in the time they took (this was on a Sunday), and a formula I’ve never seen used anywhere else. I guess our credit scores helped. And “miraculous” because the two cards covered the entire remaining cost of the new slab of membership.

Desk

M.K. gave us his personal cell phone number, and told us to think of him as our “concierge” if we ever needed anything – the third concierge we acquired that weekend. He also asked us to give him a good rating with Diamond, as he had never received a complaint from a client. With breakfast, “orientation”, selling, credit card applications, additional enticements, contract paperwork, and being left alone in M.K.’s office for awkward periods, the ordeal took over seven hours.

The next morning we were able to flee the premises with little disruption or delay and enjoy a fine drive home.

Important points so far:

meeting

  • Again, the 20- or 30- cent exchange value of points, for all types of travel, was the only value mentioned in the presentation.
  • Again, convenient, discounted travel was emphasized.
  • Again, the availability and advantage of comprehensive travel service through Interval International was emphasized.
  • The last time I talked to Amtrak, they knew of no arrangement with Diamond Resorts.

∙ ∙ ∙

If you are a Diamond member, here is the link to our Advocacy page on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/DiamondResortsOwnersAdvocacy/

advocate 1

Thanks to David for your contribution and also to Irene Parker for the editing, we are certainly getting a great team of contributors together. OK, mainly from across the great lake, if you have a story you would like to share, contribution are welcome.

When we have some news from the Special General Meeting being held by Anfi, we will share that with you. In the meantime have a great weekend.

fridaycat

truth next exit

Anfi CEO’s Letter to Members: Desperation or What!

In a letter to members of Anfi, the CEO Jose Luis Trujillo, looks like he is getting desperate. In this letter he states several “facts” which if you have been following the story of the legal battles involving this company, will find rather hard to believe.

He rambles on about the sales activities of some law firms, none have been named, that they are being aggressive, as if the Anfi sales techniques are not aggressive. That members want Anfi to help them get out of court cases instigated by these law firms.

Well, hang on here, if those people didn’t want to sign up for legal action, why did they, surely they were not subject to the same techniques used on timeshare presentations?

Also, unlike a timeshare, clients are employing the services of the lawyers, and as such can withdraw at any time.

 

He states in one paragraph, “We are sorry that these law firms have been harassing you”, as if in timeshare, clients are never harassed to continually upgrade.

He goes on to state that in addition to “aggressive” sales methods, prospective clients are not being told the truth. Wow, that is the pot calling the kettle black! Anfi not losing cases, so where has all this news come from that they have lost?

As for not trying to fool anyone, what about all the promises made when on the sales presentation, promises which never materialised, promises which clients subsequently found out where false? A typical one heard so often from many readers is the “promise that Anfi would buy back your week at the price you paid, when you no longer need it”! No what they then do is place it on the resale market for a pittance.

tribunal supremo

As for the Supreme Court stating “Anfi acted in good faith when selling perpetuity contracts”, somehow this does not seem possible as this court has continually enforced Article 3. On Duration which clearly states that the contract should be no longer than 50 years. So why would the court declare “acting in good faith” when law 42/98, which they are upholding says different?

This once again reiterates Anfi’s belief that those learned Judges at the Supreme Court misinterpreted that very law! It is quite clear 50 years is the maximum duration, so how could that be misinterpreted?

If this was the case, why is Anfi holding a Special General Meeting on 23 June with a ballot to change contracts to comply? Does this statement by the CEO mean the opposite?

As for the legal fees going up, according to our sources this is a fabrication. From what we have been told by lawyers and clients, the fees paid at the start have never gone up, no matter how long the case lasts. In fact, one only need to ask Mrs Tove Grimsbo, whose case took many years and was the first Supreme Court ruling.

Another point is that clients only have to attend court if Anfi demand it, that said it is their right to do so. But what is the reason behind that? Simple, to prolong the case, to cause disruption and stress to the claimant, all in the hope they will withdraw.

Another “scare tactic” is Anfi state once again that the Supreme Court has accepted the principle that any client whose contract is declared null & void should compensate Anfi for the holidays they have taken over the years of membership. We at Inside Timeshare have never heard of this from the Supreme Court, so show us the written proof from the Supreme Court.

The whole letter is a deception from a CEO whose company is losing millions of Euros for past transgressions of the law. An attempt to divert attention from the known facts that they are losing, the fact that since the very first Supreme Court Ruling in March 2015, they have had a massive 34 made against them! As far as we are aware not one Supreme Court ruling has gone in their favour.

At the end of the day it is your choice, take legal action or not, keep your timeshare or not, it is more of a choice than when you were first coerced into purchasing!

Just read the many article about Anfi published here, they give you the full story from over the years, right up to the debacle that is Tauro Beach!

Inside Timeshare leaves it to you the reader to decide who is actually telling the truth.

Gandhi truth

Right click the following images and open in new tab for enlarged copy.

a  anfi2