Browse Tag

Supreme Court

Global Timeshare Legal Experts

Another company and website have come to the attention of Inside Timeshare, Global Timeshare Legal Experts, which are based in Dubai. Once again the claims made by this website do not appear credible at all just due to the fact of how long the website has been operating.

The website

was only registered on 8 May 2019 so is only just about 8 months old and is also due to expire on 8 May 2020. The owner of the website is also hidden through the use of a privacy protection company. As we often say these two factors should always sound the alarm bells.

The company itself is in Dubai with the address:

Suite 1901 Level 19 Boulevard Plaza Tower 1 Downtown Dubai UAE

The company has not shown on any company registration either in Dubai or elsewhere.

Telephone: +971 52 877 6964 (This is a Dubai mobile number)

Email: i[email protected]

According to the website they have won 600 cases and 120 Supreme Court rulings, they also claim that they have 16 specialists working for them, yet no mention of who they are. Well, all we can say to this is very impressive for a company that appears to be less than a year old and we know for a fact that Supreme Court cases are never going to happen that quick. We also know that there is only one firm law firm that has achieved any Supreme Court victories with 130 to date.

While checking over their website the Latest News section shows several cases against Anfi, Club la Costa and Silverpoint, which they are claiming to be their own clients. The problem is these are the very same news items that have appeared on the Canarian Legal Alliance website and have been confirmed to belong to cases brought on behalf of clients of Canarian Legal Alliance. Obviously just a cut and paste job.

The other point to their claim that these are their clients are the dates, for example in the link below the date given for this case is 1 February 2018, over one year before the company or website appears! Inside Timeshare leaves you to draw your own conclusions on that.

We have already identified one name associated with this company, Robert Saric, according to part of the contract (German Client) produced below he is based in Gran Canaria.

So Robert Saric with his company and website is attempting to entice timeshare owners to sign up for cases on the back of false claims in their news section which have basically been cut & pasted from another company. This is certainly a case of deception which timeshare owners do need to be aware of.

Robert Saric

Another name that has come to our attention is a gentleman called Herr Jansen, we have been informed that Jansen is working with Saric who apparently is his boss, but we also know that Jansen is taking on clients for legal action against their timeshare resorts.

From other information we have received he claims that he is overseeing the claims and working with Canarian Legal Alliance, having checked with CLA they have denied any knowledge of this person either working with them or passing on clients.

We have also been informed that Jansen has been in contact with a client of CLA and quoted 15,000€ for the legal fees when the cost of his case through CLA is only 6,500€!

We have also been informed that Jansen is also using CLA cases as his own.

According to emails received by our readers, Jansen is working with a company called Businex which according to their website and web registration details belongs to a company called Heidital Consultancy Ltd.

Businex is an internet marketing outsourcing company, so the question is why is Jansen using their address and email as they do not show any sign of being involved in timeshare litigation or claims?

Address on Jansens Email:

48 Burj Gate Sofitel Hotel Downtown Business Tower 7th Floor P.O. Box 8867 Dubai United Arab Emirates

The email also shows the same telephone number as the Businex website which is a UK number with a Northampton code: +441604300037

Email: [email protected]

The bank details which Jansen has sent for clients to pay which is the Noor Islamic Bank are:

FIRMENNAMEN: SOCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSULTING FZE

BANK: NOOR BANK

BANKADRESSE: DUBAI MALL BRANCH

IBAN: AE39 0520 0015 10770240037

SWIFT: NISLAEAD

One thing that is very certain both of these look extremely dodgy to us at Inside Timeshare, we have been in contact with CLA and they have asked that we publish the following statement.

If you have been contacted, signed up and paid any money to either of these companies or individuals to contact CLA, they will review your case against them and represent you free of charge in retrieving your money.

You can contact CLA via the contact page on their website or

Telephone: +34 928 18 50 28

Email: [email protected]

German Translation

https://translate.google.es/translate?hl=en-GB&tab=rT1&authuser=0&sl=en&tl=de&u=https%3A%2F%2Finsidetimeshare.com%2Fglobal-timeshare-legal-experts%2F

Do I Have a Claim in the Spanish Courts?

Inside Timeshare receives many emails asking the question  “is my contract illegal and do I have a claim?” Usually, this has come about because they have been cold called by one of the many claims companies and so-called law firms which have proliferated over the past couple of years. Many have been told that they do have a claim when in fact they don’t, they either purchased before the change in the timeshare laws or they do have a legal contract. Today Inside Timeshare explains simply what constitutes a claim and what does not.

We start with when the timeshare laws came into force, the law was passed in December 1998 and came into effect on 5 January 1999. Before this date the contract duration was not an issue, perpetuity contracts were legal, after this date contracts for timeshare had to be of a duration of between 3 years minimum and 50 years maximum.

Many timeshare operators thought they could get around this using a “Deed of Adaptation” which they had to file with the Land Registry. Filing this deed of adaptation ensured that any sales made prior to 5 January 1999 were not impacted by the new laws. It only applies to sales made after that date. What the operators believed was that as the resorts were in existence before that date then they could carry on as before. They believed it only applied to new resorts or rather that is what their lawyers probably told them. Anfi tried to use this argument before the Supreme Court ruled that any contract signed after this date was subject to the law.

Another factor to be considered is the taking of deposits within the 14 days cooling-off period, which was forbidden by the new law 42/98, this also included the taking of any payment by a third party such as a trust. Some sales decks tried to get around this yet again by not showing a deposit on the paperwork but issuing an invoice for “accommodation”, usually when the purchaser was persuaded to move straight into the resort to secure the sale. The courts regard this as a payment to a third party.

In the beginning, timeshares were sold as fixed weeks and fixed apartments, you were guaranteed your week in the apartment assigned to your purchase. The resort could not “rent” it out, (unless banked) it was yours. They could also only sell 51 weeks in each apartment and each sale had to be registered with the land registry. The law recognised that these fixed weeks were a tangible and contained substance, you actually owned something.

We then saw the emergence of the points and floating weeks systems where you did not purchase a specific week in a specific apartment but became a member of a club. You owned nothing but membership with a right to use subject to availability. This is rather like joining a gym or a golf club, you pay your annual fees but you are not guaranteed the time when you want to use the facilities, it is subject to availability.

The Supreme Court ruled that the timeshare law 42/98 covered this system as it lacks anything tangible or anything of any substance, it was just a promise. They, therefore, ruled that these contracts infringed the law and the contracts are illegal. (This has also included Fractional and Company Participations)

With the points and floating week systems, the problem is a simple one, there are more members than weeks available, hence the most common complaint of all “nothing available for the dates you want”.

So to recap the basic criteria for a claim is:

  • The purchase must have been made in Spain after 5 January 1999;
  • The contract is over the permitted 50-year duration, i.e no end date is known as perpetuity;
  • Contains floating weeks or points systems which also includes fractional and “investments” (this includes the participation scheme);
  • Any payments made within the 14 days cooling-off period, this is extended to 90 if other infractions such as any of the above are present.

So if your contract does not contain any of the above then the chances are you will not have a claim.

It is also a fact that the contract must still be active and that all maintenance fees are paid to date. If the contract is cancelled then no claim can be made through the courts, they will not accept the case, this is a ploy that is being used by many of the dubious companies that have emerged. It is also a fact that any arrears in maintenance fees will have a very negative effect on any claim, the timeshare company will appeal to the court that there is no case as the owner/member is now in breach of contract.

It is also important to know that until the case is actually and formally accepted by the court then maintenance fees should be kept up to date. Again Inside Timeshare has received many emails where clients have been told to stop paying as soon as they sign up for a claim, this has then resulted in the timeshare company winning the case on the ground of breach of contract by the member.

What would be the claim?

  • Double the deposits paid within the 14 days cooling-off period, the balance only if paid after, this is the minimum claim amount. If paid within the cooling-off period then double that as well. (All double if 90 days invoked), this is the maximum claim amount.
  • Added to the claim will also be the return of legal fees (this is at the judge’s discretion), but also legal interest is paid from the time the case is presented to the court.
  • Maintenance fees may be added to the claim, but again it is the judge’s discretion if the judge awards there return.
  • Declare the contracts null and void.

So that is a simplified version of the law and what you would be claiming, each case is done on an individual basis and has to be presented to the court as such. There are no “class or group actions”.

It should also be pointed out that this only applies to timeshare purchased in Spain or its territories, other countries have their own laws and at present, we do not know of any cases in other timeshare hotspots such as Portugal or Greece. We do know however that there is a case being brought by Canarian Legal Alliance against a timeshare operator in Malta using a local law firm. More news on this as we get it.

If you think you have a contract which infringes the law and may be illegal, then please use our contact page and Inside Timeshare will get back to you. Know your real position and options before you sign with any firm that calls and makes the offer of a claim, doing your homework will save you money in the end. 

Latest Court News

Today Inside Timeshare highlights some of the latest news from the courts in Spain, courtesy of Canarian Legal Alliance. As we know they are the leading law firm in timeshare law and litigation with many victories to their credit including now 130 rulings from the Supreme Court.

We begin with the latest ruling from the Supreme Court, this case involved Diamond Resorts Tenerife Sales SL, which is a subsidiary company of Diamond Resorts International.

After a lengthy process of appeals by Diamond, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the client, with their contract being declared null and void and the return of over 19,000€ plus double the deposit which was taken within the statutory cooling-off period. The court also awarded the client back their legal fees and legal interest.

In another case against Diamond at the Court of First Instance Granadilla de Abona, Tenerife, the Judge has decided not to proceed with a full trial, he will issue his sentence in due course. This will be based on the documents and the contracts which as we know clearly show that the sale was made in breach of the timeshare laws.

We have seen many of the judges in the courts of Gran Canaria foregoing the full trial and issuing judgements at the pre-trial stage for some time now, with many more judges at the courts of Arona, Tenerife are following suit in cases involving Silverpoint.

It is obviously good news for the clients as it has the effect of cutting down the time it takes to bring a case to a conclusion and also saves the clients from having to travel to attend the hearings. Hopefully, more courts will be following this lead as the cases are purely based on the contracts which are in breach of the law.

Marriott Marbella Beach Resort

We now move to the Costa del Sol and the latest victory coming from the Court of First Instance Number 6 in Estepona.

This case involves Marriott Vacation Club with the judge declaring the contract null and void, citing the 130 Supreme Court rulings the judge ruled that the principal cause to nullify the contract was the “lack of an end date” on the contract. As we had stated previously, contracts under Spanish law should be for a maximum of 50 years.

The ex-timeshare owners were also awarded over £24,000 including the return of their legal fees plus legal interest.

In July last year Inside Timeshare published the fact that Marriott admitted they were losing in the Spanish courts and set aside around $16.3 million to cover the litigation expenses.

https://insidetimeshare.com/marriott-admit-losing-in-spanish-courts/

Going back now to the beginning of the month, Canarian Legal Alliance had a total of six rulings in favour of their clients, these were against Anfi, Silverpoint and Diamond Resorts. Once again the common denominator is that both the First Instance Courts and the High Courts are using the rulings made by the Supreme Court.

All contracts were declared null and void and the total awarded to clients is in excess of 204,000€.

If you purchased a timeshare after 5 January 1999 and would like to know if your contract is illegal and if you have a valid and viable claim, or you purchased from any of the companies featured on Inside Timeshare, then please use our contact page. Inside Timeshare will then get back to you and explain what options are open to you.