I gave a brief outline of the article written in a Leading Norwegian Business Paper Kapitalen, this outlined the number of cases against ANFI. On 31st March Canarian legal Allianceposted the full article on their website, in the original Norwegian and a translation in English. It makes very interesting reading.
Since publishing the article on the history behind the Supreme Court Ruling, it has come to our attention that the RDO published on 18th March 2016 a piece in support of ANFI. This in itself is not surprising as ANFI is a fully paid up member to this old boys network.
The RDO stated that, ANFI sought clarification about the length of the contracts from the Property Register and Notary Head Office. According to the RDO these two offices believed that the “pre-existing ANFI schemes were correctly adapted”.
Well this flies in the face of the Supreme Court Judgements. I know who I believe.
It goes on to say that ANFI will respect the rulings but will now charge those ex members for their stays at ANFI. What is the RDO playing at? Have not these holidays already been paid for with respect to the maintenance fees that have been paid over the years?
Are RDO and ANFI misinterpreting the Spanish Civil Code about the returning to both parties “the things that constituted the subject matter of the judgement” (direct quote from RDO article).They go on to say the cost that the ex-owner will have to pay will be calculated by the rate it would cost to stay in similar five-star hotels. Apparently this has been calculated from data provided by the University of Las Plamas.
Also how does ANFI believe they can suddenly go from being a Timeshare resort to a Hotel, surely the licences that govern these establishments prevents this from happening. This is something that I will need to verify.
The RDO goes on to state that from this data it proves that timeshare represents good value for money as the cost would be more than that paid for the timeshare. How this can be true beggars belief, did the University not take into account the years of maintenance paid? It makes me wonder who commissioned this study and what parameters were given.
The last paragraph of the piece goes on to warn anyone that they will be liable for this cost if they take any action against ANFI. Another scaremongering tactic from the industry trade body the RDO, in order to protect an industry that for too long has had its own way.
According to the Norwegian financial periodical Kapitalen published this month (Kapitalen 4/16) there are more than 400 timeshare owners with ongoing claims against ANFI worth around 11,600,000€. With around 257 active cases in the courts awaiting a decision, these claims are worth approximately 6.8 million€. These are not figures that can be ignored, no wonder the RDO and ANFI are putting the boot into the owners.
The story of Mrs Tove Grimsbo the Norwegian lady who´s case made legal history is a long and drawn out one.
It all began in 2001 when she and her late husband attended a presentation with ANFI Sales SL, they were persuaded to purchase and signed a contract for a timeshare at ANFI. They paid a deposit of 700€ by credit card on the day. Their contract was also in perpetuity which means it was never ending and would be extremely difficult for them to extricate themselves from it.
After her husband died Mrs Grimsbo was lumbered with the ever increasing maintenance fees, with no foreseeable way out of the contract. She went to the Lawyer Miguel Rodriguez Cabello, a native of Arguineguin who practices there. Sr Cabello along with other members of Canarian Legal Alliance researched the law and found that Mrs Grimsbo did have a case.
Miguel Rodriguez Cabello
The lawyers duly began litigation and won the case at the Court of First Instance in Maspalomas. Anfi took this to appeal, they lost the case at the High Court in Las Palmas. Once again Anfi contested the decision, taking it to the Supreme Court in Madrid. After much legal argument the Supreme Court unanimously found for Mrs Grimsbo.
The news of the ruling broke on 1st April 2015. Legal history had been made.