Browse Tag

Resort Properties

Start the Week: A Little Known Name but Integral to Silverpoint

Welcome to the start of another week with Inside Timeshare, last week we ended with a report on yet another fraud that has come to light involving what we have dubbed The Litigious Abogados Family. This time they have used the website and name of a genuine law firm and using it for their own nefarious purposes, the genuine law firm is now well aware of the situation and has taken appropriate action. Today, however, we bring you a name that has not appeared often on our pages. It is well known among the clients of Silverpoint as this person has been an integral employee of many companies within The Limora Group for many years.

When it comes to the long drawn out story of Silverpoint and the many “fraudulent” products which they have peddled over the years, the main names to appear are always the CEO Mark Cushway, the owner of Limora Group, the late Robert “Bob” Trotta and the “Chinaman”, Kwang Boon Sim, Trotta’s financial guru. 

https://insidetimeshare.com/?s=exclusive+breaking+news

One name which has been left out is Diana Aitchison, who has had a very long association with the various companies linked with Silverpoint. Her positions have been varied and in most cases, it has been in senior management working closely with Mark Cushway.

Diana Aitchison

During all this time, Silverpoint was engaged in the sales of timeshare, a product which they completely turned on its head, from the initial “investment” packs of weeks to the culmination in deception, the “Company Participations”.

It is these “company participations” which are of most interest, as this is where Diana Aitchison’s involvement is questionable.

While with Silverpoint, which were actively promoting and selling the “Company Participation Scheme”, it was in fact Diana Aitchison who “signed off” the majority of the purchases.

To recap, this “scheme” replaced the “investment” weeks, where a “victim” purchased a series of weeks, usually 6 to 8 weeks with apartments attached. These were sold with the promise of a rental income, which would cover the maintenance fees, and after a two year period, they would be resold at a profit.

We know from all the court cases that this never happened.

The “company Participations” scheme was essentially the same product, but there was a twist. The “apartments” were registered as S.L. (Sociedad Limitada) or limited companies. The weeks were “shares” or as they call them, “participations” in this company, the same “promise” was made as with the “investment” weeks, an income from rental, and eventual “ownership” of the company, (this is the simple version, see link below for further information).

https://insidetimeshare.com/silverpoint-company-participations-is-timeshare/

Now, remember that Diana Aitchison signed off the majority of these deals, with her move from Silverpoint to Excel Resorts as Chief Operating Officer, she was now responsible for the administration of the “scheme”.

Excel is also a major part of The Limora Group, so in effect is the “sister” company to Silverpoint. Excel manages the resorts, Silverpoint sells them. So it was really a move from one branch to another.

When the “companies” are registered, the Administrators are listed as Excel Hotels & Resorts SA, Diana Joan Aitchison and the Only Partner is Silverpoint Vacations SL.

Talk about keeping it in the family.

When checking the company registration for one “company” Palm Beach Tenerife 077 SL, which was registered around 7 years ago, Diana Aitchison is listed as one of the administrators. The sector the “company” is registered in is “Real Estate or Similar”, a very large category.

It also gives a link to other companies with whom she is associated, one of these is Palm Beach Tenerife 117 SL. In this, she is the “Sole Partner” with Excel as the “Sole Administrator”. But it is also the other links that are of interest, which also brings up links with the “inactive” roles with other companies. Some of which are very familiar names indeed.

Company Record for Palm Beach Tenerife 117 SL, notice the sector.
This does bring up alarm bells, so why was she not suspicious?
The registered Address of Palm Beach Tenerife 117 SL
Positions held
Positions held now inactive
Information is publicly available using https://www.infocif.es/

Another link between Diana Aitchison, Mark Cushway and Kwang Boon Sim, is Vacation Finance Ltd, (link to Company House Register below).

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09726642/officers

This company is linked to the Finance Agreements brokered by Silverpoint for the sales of the “investment packs” and the “company participations”. They are also linked in these finance packages with HMC Finance, and all loans went through with Barclays Partner Finance.

Now considering the length of time Diana has worked in this particular industry and given all the links that she has, it does make you wonder how she could not have known that what was going on was a fraud of epic scale, surely she must have had her suspicions?

We ask this question for one simple reason, the legal battles in the courts over the sales made by Silverpoint and formerly Resort Properties, have been going on for around 12 years. It may be longer, but it has been well known that a possible fraud was being committed and this is being borne out now in the courts.

What actually started this quick research into Diana Aitchison was information received by Inside Timeshare of her involvement with a charity, of which she has been a director since 2014.

Our informant was rather disturbed that she was involved, especially as a director given her links to one of the most investigated frauds in timeshare history, it was also the fact that a person with a link to HMC Finance was taking part in an event for the charity and is personally known to Diana.

It obviously made us think, surely with her involvement in companies which are being criminally investigated, an investigation which has taken on an international hue, her position as a director of a charity is untenable?

We leave you the reader to decide, but we know what our answer will be!

The story of Silverpoint is going to be with us for some time, as the results of the investigations become public, we are bound to find some very interesting twists to the plot. It might take a long time, but the truth will become known.

To end today’s article, we have just received information of another name of a genuine law firm that appears to have been used by our friends The Litigious Abogados Family. Further information on this will be published once the facts are established. WATCH THIS SPACE!

Translations

Danish

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=da&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

Dutch

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=nl&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

Finnish

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fi&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

German

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

Norwegian

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=no&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

Swedish

https://insidetimeshare-com.translate.goog/start-the-week-a-little-known-name-but-integral-to-silverpoint/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=sv&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

Start the Week: The Layman’s Simple Guide Supreme Court Rulings

Welcome to the start of another week with Inside Timeshare, over the past few weeks the rulings of the Supreme Court have been mentioned in many of the articles. These rulings have been simply explained in several articles over the years, but it is worth going over them again and explaining the main points of the law, which is the basis for all the contracts being declared null and void. We are seeing the results of this play out in various courts around Spain.

When Spain passed the Timeshare Law 42/98 in 1998 (updated with Law 4/12) which then came into effect on 5 January 1999, it should have come as no surprise to the timeshare industry, after all, it was totally unregulated and a free-for-all. The EU issued directives on the use, sale of timeshare and the protection of consumers, with the purpose that the directives were to be placed in each member state’s own domestic laws. The idea was to unify the rules for the industry Europe wide, so no matter where a consumer purchases they are all protected equally.

As is always the case with any new law, there is always debate on the interpretation of those laws, the timeshare laws were no exception. The industry employed teams of lawyers, with the Industry Trade Body the RDO at the head, all looking at how they will be affected and more importantly how they can manipulate the interpretation of those laws to their own advantage.

In a way, they were very successful at the start, the law did allow for timeshares sold before it came into force for those contracts issued before that date to be legal under the “Deed of Adaptation”. With any law, it cannot be enforced retrospectively, so this “Deed” allowed the timeshare resorts to continue those contracts under the old regime.

However, all new contracts sold and issued after 5 January 1999 would most definitely come under the new laws, a point the timeshare resorts decided to ignore, probably on advice (we say this tongue in cheek) from their own (expensive) lawyers. They interpreted the “Deed of Adaptation” in a different light to what the lawmakers had intended.

According to their way of thinking, as the “resort” was up and running before the law came into effect, then the “Deed of Adaptation” would cover all new contracts sold. They believed that it only affected new resorts and not existing ones, Anfi is a very good case in point, this has been the main basis for all their early appeals.

Consumers Beware!

It should also be said that the industry trade body, the RDO, (Resorts Development Organisation) appeared to back up this belief, even today the RDO still believe that the interpretation of the law is wrong!

At first, the timeshare companies were successful in arguing their point before the courts, after all, it was a new law, there was no real direction for the courts and judges to follow. It was basically down to them to decide on the evidence and interpretations presented to them.

Consumers who tried to bring cases lost, the lawyers who they employed were not experienced in this field of law and had rings run around them by the experienced lawyers of the timeshare companies. What was put into place to protect consumers, was not working, everything was in favour of the industry.

The length of the contract, which was limited to a minimum of three years and a maximum of 50 years, was being defeated in the courts, the timeshare companies lawyers successfully arguing that the “Deed of Adaptation” covered this point.

Deposits being taken within the “statutory cooling-off” period were illegal but still being taken, this was hidden by various means, such as an “invoice” showing payment for accommodation, not linked to the timeshare sale. This was very common when the purchaser was moved into the resort to complete their vacation after purchase, usually as a way of consolidating the deal.

Tribunal Supremo Madrid

The very first case to make it to the Supreme Court was the Norwegian lady Mrs Tove Grimsbo, this was against Anfi. Her case began in the Courts of First Instance, and after many appeals to the High Court, it came before the Supreme Court which eventually made a ruling. Legal History had been made, the judges ruled her contract was illegal on this and other points, the “Deed of Adaptation” did not apply. Contracts over 50 years in duration were most definitely illegal.

The second important case to come before Spain’s Highest Court was Mrs Shirley Wilson and her case against Silverpoint /Resort Properties.

This particular case was one of the most difficult for the courts, there were many aspects that were unclear as to the interpretation of the law.

In the case of Mrs Wilson, she was sold “timeshare” as an investment, it was portrayed as not being timeshare but property or real estate. This would generate a rental income and a profit for her when finally sold, well, we all know the story of this particular scheme.

At first Silverpoint lawyers argued that she was not a consumer of timeshare but an investor in property, therefore the timeshare laws did not apply. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that what she purchased was indeed timeshare and not property. A very significant win for all consumers who purchased from Silverpoint.

Another very important ruling, in this case, involved the use of the timeshare, there was no week number or apartment number attached and the consumer had no right of use of these timeshares. Basically, there were points attached for any use within the resort system.

The Supreme Court ruled on this, citing Article 1.7 of Law 42/98, this reads as follows (Translated from Spanish):

“The contract under which constitutes or transmit any right, real or personal, for more than three years and on the use of one or more real time during a specified or ascertainable period a year on the sidelines of this law shall be null and void, owing be returned to the purchaser or transferee or paid any income considerations, as well as compensation for damages suffered.”

All we can say is no wonder there was confusion.

Basically what it states is that a timeshare must consist of a fixed week with a week number and an apartment attached which is available each and every year to the “owner”. With points or floating week, this right is removed and is a “right to use subject to availability”. Not really what you have paid for.

This was the first ruling on points and floating weeks, it established the precedent that unless the timeshare was a fixed week, with number and apartment, then it was illegal under the law.

So these two cases set the scene for the situation we have today, 130 rulings from the Supreme Court, squarely placing the law into jurisprudence. This is being followed closely by the Courts of First Instance and the High Court as we have been seeing with all the cases we highlight.

There are many other laws that a competent timeshare lawyer may use as well as the timeshare laws, these may be covered by Consumer Laws and Mercantile Laws, but these are on a case by case basis, so may not apply to all timeshare contracts. It is certainly a legal minefield.

Despite all the rulings and rejections of appeals made by the Supreme Court and the dismissal of appeals by the High Court, in accordance with the Supreme Court Doctrine, we still see timeshare companies making appeals. This is something that baffles all lawyers, consumers and forums such as Inside Timeshare, leaving us with the same old question “WHY?”

The only logical reason we can think of is “greed”, they have your money and don’t want to give it back and any method to avoid payment will be used. A very costly strategy indeed.

Greed or Stupidity?

Did you purchase a timeshare in Spain after 5 January 1999, is the duration longer than 50 years, is it points or floating week based, this includes fractional, did you pay any deposit within the statutory cooling-off period?

If you can answer yes to any of these, then you may have a valid case. For further information on this or any other subject on Inside Timeshare, please use our contact page and Inside Timeshare will get back to you.

Links to past articles

2016

https://insidetimeshare.com/supreme-court-rulings-simply-explained/

2018

https://insidetimeshare.com/spanish-timeshare-laws-simply-explained/

2020

https://insidetimeshare.com/spanish-legal-history-the-story-of-the-supreme-court-rulings/

Links to early CLA Supreme Court cases

https://canarianlegalalliance.com/?s=supreme+court+2016

https://canarianlegalalliance.com/mrs-grimsbo-celebrating-with-cla-the-second-anniversary-of-the-first-ever-timeshare-ruling-from-the-spanish-supreme-court/

https://www.canarianlegalalliance.com/case-study-shirley-wilson-resort-properties/

https://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/tribunales/supremo-condena-empresa-variante-timesharing_1_1160134.html

https://insidetimeshare.com/supreme-court-rules-silverpoint-twice-one-week/

Start the Week: Timeshare How it Has Changed and What is the Future?

Welcome to the start of this week with Inside Timeshare, last week we had a look at “Finance Agreements” for timeshare purchases, all brokered by the very staff with a vested interest in securing the sale. An interest that can only be described as an “Unfair Relationship detrimental to the consumer”, a very valid point that was clearly shown in the article. (Links at the end). Today we begin to look at how timeshare has changed over the years, from a system that at the start proved to be quite popular, to one that has created many disgruntled owners/members. We also ask what is the future of timeshare considering how it has developed into the discredited system we have today?

The history of timeshare is rather vague with many claims as to where and who developed the first “timeshare resort”. Inside Timeshare first looked at this back in 2016, in A Short History of Timeshare, this was updated at the end of 2020, in A Brief History of Timeshare. The links to both articles are at the end along with the story of Anfi, as it does show very well how timeshare has changed.

When timeshare was first being developed in Europe during the 1980s, it was promoted as being very exclusive, you were buying a “share” in an apartment on a stunning resort. This share was for a number of weeks, from just one week to several, these were specific weeks with week numbers assigned. There was a choice of apartments from studios sleeping 2 to penthouse apartments.

Selling the “Dream” your own holiday home.

These weeks were divided into “seasons” High, Medium and Low, some companies used colours such as “Red Week” for high season. Obviously, the most popular times would be the high season, these tend to follow the major holidays such as Easter, Summer, Christmas and The New Year. These were also major school holidays, so they were very much in demand by families.

At the time the cost was considered high, with price dependent on season and apartment size. but it was marketed as a cheap alternative to owning your own apartment outright. Among those who could afford it, the idea was proving to be popular. Most “couples” started with a studio, upgrading as the family grew.

The medium and low weeks tended to be favoured by the more elderly, either the retired or those whose families had now grown and now with their own kids. Ideal, child-free resorts, time to relax and wind down, couldn’t be more perfect.

The cost of the annual maintenance fees depended on the number of weeks and seasons owned along with the type of apartment. But it must be said, most people agreed that they were fair and relatively low, but that was all to change.

For many years these “owners” enjoyed year after year at their home resorts, sometimes using the exchange systems for a visit elsewhere. Great friendships were created, there was a sense of community, you met the same people year after year, you also got to know the staff very well. It should be mentioned that the staff you all have come to know so well, have nothing to do with your membership. They are purely employed to look after your needs and run the resort on a day to day basis.

All appeared hunky-dory until the sales of weeks slowed down or ground to a halt, the main reason, they had run out of inventory they could sell, after all, they could only sell 51 weeks of each apartment. The sales of timeshare were too lucrative, there was a lot of money to be made, more sales would also increase the amount of revenue from the annual maintenance fees, (more members).

Enter one of the first and most profound changes to timeshare that has created the problems we see today.

Somewhere along the line, some bright spark came up with “points”, instead of selling a fixed week in a fixed apartment, transfer all owners to the points system, (at a cost I might add), making them “members” of a vacation club and not “owners”.

At first, this system was marketed very positively, removing the problem of being “tied” to a specific week or resort and the problem of “exchanging” if you were unable to travel on your specific weeks.

Sounds great, flexibility and an increase in the number of resorts and types of apartments available. The more points you “owned”, the more choice you have, well, so they said.

More members than weeks, simple.

The one downside which was not envisaged at the time by those “owners” transferring to the points system, was the problem of “availability”. The more members that join the club, the more of a problem getting what you want. It’s a simple problem, more members than weeks available, and you still have to pay the maintenance fees!

There were more schemes all of a similar nature, floating weeks and then fractional, the latter being a points-based product under the illusion that you “part-owned” an apartment. But, you had no rights of use to the “purchased” apartment.

This was one of the main “investment” pitches of timeshare sales, the illusion of “investing in property”. Resort Properties, later known as Silverpoint took this to a whole new level.

All of these schemes and their associated contracts have been deemed illegal by the law and ratified by rulings from the Supreme Court.

With the problems of availability, there was also another problem faced by many owners/members, that is getting out of it.

There comes a point when it is no longer viable to have the timeshare and the associated annual costs, but as we have seen handing back your membership was not as simple as you were told when you purchased. The most common was “we will buy it back for what you paid” as if that would really happen!

All this has come to a head over the past 10 years or so, especially in Spain where most timeshares were sold, the enactment of the timeshare laws in 1999, which the developers ignored, gave consumers a way out and many have used it to great effect.

But this isn’t the only nail in the coffin of timeshare as we know it.

With all the bad publicity, along with the changing ways in which we now book our vacations, timeshare sales began to slump drastically. The number of sales reps was reduced, in some cases the “cold lines” (“punters or UPs” brought in from the street by OPCs which was traditionally the largest source of new members) were closed, leaving only “in-house” reps. The OPCs were struggling to get new people to the presentations, those that did go, tended to be what the reps called “gift hunters” or just plain “time wasters”, (well, for the rep, no sale, no pay!”).

Even before the restrictions caused by Covid, we watched as “sales decks” were closed and the reps laid off, one of the largest was Diamond Resorts Europe, making all but a handful of sales reps redundant. Club la Costa also ended their sales, making redundant many workers and closing down the sales companies. Silverpoint has folded, albeit for more serious problems than just the sale of illegal contracts, and now the news of two Anfi companies involved with sales being placed under “Administration”.

So where is timeshare going in Europe?

That is a question only the developers can answer, we can only hazard a guess. Timeshare, as we know it today, is gone or on the way out, the schemes we have today are no longer viable, and in Spain are mostly illegal. We may see a return to the old system of fixed weeks, fixed apartments, restricted by numbers and not the free-for-all that we have today. Timeshare may just become once again the mark of vacation luxury, attracting a smaller clientele who want a certain standard of vacation, rather than the mass market of package holidays.

There are some small independent resorts that have remained true to the original idea, with a very good and loyal client base. In many cases the children of the original owners who now have their own families have taken over the “ownership”, keeping it in the family so to speak.

The idea of timeshare is a good one, the biggest problem with it has been the greed of the mainly, large developers, turning it from an exclusive more luxurious way to holiday into a massive money-making conveyor belt.

It is going to be very interesting over the next few years to see where timeshare in Europe and especially Spain ends up, we doubt that it will end completely but a massive revamp is definitely required. This is not just in the running of it, but, more importantly how it is sold. What do you the readers think, answers on a postcard, please!

If you would like further information on the legal rights of timeshare owners who purchased in Spain and if your contract is illegal, please use our contact page and Inside Timeshare will get back to you.

Links to the mentioned articles

https://insidetimeshare.com/short-history-timeshare/

https://insidetimeshare.com/a-brief-history-of-timeshare/

https://insidetimeshare.com/?s=anfi+the+story+behind+the+news

https://insidetimeshare.com/timeshare-loan-agreements/

https://insidetimeshare.com/timeshare-sales-and-finance-agreements/

https://insidetimeshare.com/?s=anfi+the+story+behind+the+news