Court rules in favor of Anfi customers

[Boss Man]

A new court ruling in Spain on the 27 of May 2010 is set to see an avalanche of timeshare compensation claims against developers, the ruling can now be used by European timeshare owners to seek compensation from illegal contracts signed after 1996 In Spain and its territories.

It is now thought that up to 400,000 contracts were made illegally after 1996, industry experts believe that timeshare compensation claims could reach 2,000,000,000 (Billion) Euro.

Magistrate D. Juan Carlos Socorro Marrero has ruled that a timeshare developer in Gran Canaria must pay back double the amount of the timeshare deposit taken within the cooling off period. In a case brought against Anfi Sales SL, part of the Anfi Del Mar Group in Gran Canaria the Magistrate commented The case of paying an advance instalment is in opposition to what is dictated in the law 42/1998, article 11, the second section of this mentioned rule permits the acquirer at any time to get back double the stated amount.

Anfi Del Mar reportedly one of the most largest and luxurious timeshare developments in Europe is now set for up to 10,000 new claims for timeshare miss-selling under the 1994 European timeshare directive. Anfi Del Mar, built by the Ling Group in Gran Canaria in 1989 and once owned by the largest travel agent in the world TUI is said to be in a state of panic at this ruling. TUI who own and operate several of the best known UK high street tour operators including Thomson were also responsible for taking illegal timeshare deposits at Anfi from 2001 to 2004.

At present there are over 200 live claims for timeshare miss-selling against Anfi Del Mar in the Spanish court system and with fresh claims coming in at a rate of 10 a week before this ruling, it is not known what affect this will have on the stability of Anfi Del Mar.

Under Spanish law, even if a property is sold on all debts and encumberments are passed to the new owners, so even if a timeshare property has changed its ownership, the new owners will still be liable for new compensation claims.

However in Tenerife in the last two years a number of timeshare developments have already been repossessed by the unscrupulous developers by way of inflating yearly maintenance fees, once seized they split the apartments up and sell on as real estate, this then circumvents this ruling, it is widely thought within the industry up to 200 developers operating out of Spain, Canaries and the Balearics are already moving to sell off timeshare resorts that have or will have actions brought against them.

Five out of the top 10 timeshare developers in Europe including Brand name companies have taken illegal deposits during the cooling off period and some as late as 2009 were still selling illegal contracts. In contracts shown to Claims Directive this year, one developer based in Mallorca, Spain is still taking illegal deposits even after this was outlawed in a 1994 European timeshare directive, that Spain adopted in 1996. The European timeshare industry does have a regulatory body, however 4 of its paid members are developers that have broken these laws previously, and until the regulatory body in place condemns these actions committed by their own members, there will not be a fair regulatory body representing timeshare owners in Europe.

Claims Directive and its sponsor believe that this new ruling gives power back to the timeshare owner, and because this ruling can be back dated on claims to 1996, it will give timeshare compensation to owners who never before had a chance of taking on large corporate brand developers.

If you have paid a timeshare deposit on or during the cooling off period after 1996, in Spain or its islands, you are now entitled to reclaim double your deposit, even if the company you purchased from is no longer trading, as long as the timeshare development still exists.

[partymonkey]

Could somebody clarify something for me here.    

I thought that Spanish law permitted the taking of a deposit in the cooling off period PROVIDED that the deposit goes to an independent third party and NOT the developer.    Is this correct ?

[PaulineKirby]

Party Monkey In answer to your question : NO

Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis.

12. Whereas the requirement on the vendor's part that advance payments be made before the end of the period during which the purchaser may withdraw without giving reasons may reduce the purchaser's protection; whereas, therefore, advance payments before the end of that period should be prohibited.

[partymonkey]

Thanks Pauline,

I'm a bit confused as this seems to conflict with the following chart....

http://www.timeshare.org.uk/europe.html

I've dealt with EU legislation generally in the past in my job (in the energy markets) and it does seem that member states are permitted a degree of 'interpretation' of the EU legislation.    I wonder if this is the case here with how the Spanish have interpreted the EU law ?

Cheers,

[PaulineKirby]

Hi yes and No is the correct answer,the link you supplied is out of date, much like all the information from the timeshare consumers.

The four main points to the EU Directive are:
Buyers must have a statutory minimum "cooling off" period of ten days from signing the contract.
The taking of deposits before the end of the cooling off period is prohibited.
Contracts must be in the language of the Member State in which the buyer lives.
Purchasers must receive all descriptive information concerning the property and their rights.

This is a better link for the directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0047:EN:HTML [nofollow]

[partymonkey]

Thanks Pauline for your efforts.

I've done a bit of digging myself and found the following website.

http://www.timeshareconsumerguide.org/legislation.htm

I think the pertinent section that relates to the Spanish law (almost at the bottom of the page) is as follows :-

Quote
Any advance payments by the purchaser to the vendor before expiry of the cooling-off period are prohibited. However, the parties can make contractual arrangements to guarantee payment of the deferred price provided that the vendor does not receive any payments (directly or indirectly) in the event of withdrawal by the purchaser. The purchaser has the right at any time to demand the return of an amount equal to twice any advance payment made to the vendor in contravention of the Law and can then choose either to cancel (within three months) or to affirm the purchase contract.  
Unquote

So, paying the developer a deposit in cooling off period is prohibited but it's this second element about 'contractual arrangements to guarantee payment of the deferred price' that makes me wonder if this is the 'third party' route.    

Cheers,

[arkwright]

An Official Response from RDO (Resort Development Organisation) to the Press Release of 15 June Timeshare Industry in Spain is set to collapse
Published by Go Timeshare on 15/06/2010

 Contrary to the statement made by Claims Directive, a company that claims to represent timeshare owners interests, the timeshare industry both in Spain, the rest of Europe and USA as well as other international territories is extremely robust.

Some of the worlds biggest hotel brands operate within the timeshare industry, such as Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, Disney and Four Seasons. Timeshare owners recently reported high levels of satisfaction with their timeshare  87% overall were satisfied or extremely satisfied according to a report by The Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute at the Nottingham University Business School.

The survey also reveals that there are 1.5 million owners in Europe, 48% of whom own in Spain, where there are 345 resorts. Furthermore, 3.2 million was generated by the industry in 2007 alone, 957 million of which came from timeshare sales.

 

The assertions of fact made by Claims Directive are incorrect and misleading. There are categorically not 200 live claims for timeshare miss-selling against Anfi Del Mar.The assertions of fact made by Claims Directive are incorrect and misleading. There are categorically not 200 live claims for timeshare miss-selling against Anfi Del Mar. In fact, only 3 court rulings have been made, one of which was in favour of ANFI Group and in the other 2 cases, the company is required to return only the deposits paid and not, as claimed, double the amount. Both rulings are subject to appeal by ANFI Group.

We understand that Claims Directive was set up by a former manager at ANFI Group who no longer works with the company. Furthermore, Claims Directive sells a holiday club called Voyager  RDO considers holiday clubs to be one of the biggest threats to the reputation of the timeshare industry as a whole. Many timeshare owners report that they have been enticed to presentations under false pretences, perhaps having been told they can join a class action scheme, but are then persuaded to sign up for a holiday club membership they did not want in the first place

[PaulineKirby]

An official response will be made regarding the RDO statement in due course, including factual evidence.

Claims Directive

[partymonkey]

Thanks for this Arkwright.  I've had a look at the RDO website and have taken the following from their front page...

Quote
Claims Directive does not clarify that Spanish law only prohibits taking of deposits for timeshare sales when deposits are received between the purchaser and the seller
Unquote.

So it would appear that deposits during cooling off are acceptable in Spain providing it's paid to a third party escrow type arrangement

[Calvin]

That's how I have always read it. In Spain, 10 days cooling and a deposit can be taken in the name of a third party as long as the vendor does not receive anything until after the 10 days.

There are new laws being implemented but not until 2011 which, hopefully, will stop some of the rogue antics but....... we shall have to wait and see how much

[martyboy02]

Hi Yowl

Latest from GC. Anfi lose another case this morning (21/06/2010).
My heart bleeds for the poor Anfi staff. NOT. Lets hope the cases keep coming and then Anfi might realise what it is like to be on the recieving end of a raw deal, but in this case it will be justified and lawful. Justified and lawful probably arn't in the Anfi dictionary!!

See Yowl

[martyboy02]

Hi Yowl

Please see

http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12221

for Anfi's news letter response to the RDO and Free Press release. (What aload of tripe it is, what else would you expect from Anfi)

See Yowl

[kitkat]

Hi
Just joined the site and  am very interested to read about the Anfi court case and mis selling .We bought in 1999, advised it would be an investment etc etc and even taken back to where we were staying by taxi to get our credit card from the apartment safe to pay the deposit there and then! Trouble is I've no idea if the deposit went to a third party or not for the cooling off period. Has anyone any advice on how to find out or taken any steps to follow up with any action? Would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks

[SOCRATES]

Hi,

The truth is that in the 1  year that these court cases started Anfi only had to pay the deposit back twice in a case due to the lack of Anfi. In the higher court they will win this as well. There are now 4 results and the latest was again completely in the favour of Anfi. (Sentencia 25 July 2010 / 0001182010).

I have lost a lot of money so far (reclaimgc), but I will make sure that I will get it back as we are starting a court case against them for fraud. If anyone wants to join me please contact me.

[martyboy02]

Hi All

I asked Socrates for more information. Nil reply to date. Could be a Bogus Poster, even an Anfi agitator.

See Yowl

[SOCRATES]

Hi Martyboy02,

I had a problem with my internet connection thats why I could not reply earlier.

I told you before to motivate your personal reasons why you need contact details of my lawyer as you could be a Bogus poster or even an Reclaimgc agitator.

[arkwright]

quote:Originally posted by SOCRATES

Hi Martyboy02,

I had a problem with my internet connection thats why I could not reply earlier.

I told you before to motivate your personal reasons why you need contact details of my lawyer as you could be a Bogus poster or even an Reclaimgc agitator.

Hi SOCRATES,

I don't think Martyboy is a bogus poster or has anything to do with Reclaimgc. As for the agitator bit, you could have a point there.[][]