In respect to past timeshare owners.
Existing timeshare owners will note other have left and given up their rights to the timeshare they held.
Why because the maintenance fee were too high.
They also left owing the club money. In exchange for that debt the club committee (at the time) accepted the timeshare back in exchange for the debt. This is transaction is a swap; an asset for a liability and is common in all commercial transaction.
Therefore you “the club members” have written off a debt you are owed, but you have gained an asset your committee believes has a corresponding value.
So where is that asset?
Has the committee permitted another to own those thousands and thousands of timeshare weeks which rightfully belong to the club members?
Where are they?
All you consumers know where they are. And you the consumers, tell no one what’s Happening?
Who is liable?
In Scotland England Wales and northern island this authority tells you. It’s the committee member who permitted it.
Case report
Paula Rachel Armitage -v- Richard Nurse; Dudley Thomas Bowman Stammers and Brian Arthur Stammers (the Personal Representatives of Arthur George Stammers, Deceased); Margaret Lambert McleodFlatman (the Personal Representative of Keith Flatman, Deceased, S [1997] EWCA Civ 1279; [1998] Ch 241; [1997] 2 All ER 705; [1997] 3 WLR 1046
19 Mar 1997
CA
Millett LJ
Trusts, Torts – Other
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage “unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud”. Held: The trustee was under no liability in absence of any dishonest intention. Millett LJ criticised the existing law. Care was needed when applying concepts relevant to the tort of deceit to a breach of trust because breaches of trust were of many different kinds. An exemption clause could exclude the trustee from liability for loss and damage to the trust property “no matter how indolent, imprudent, lacking in diligence, negligent or wilful he may have been, so long as he had not acted dishonestly”.
Millett LJ held that a fraudulent breach of trust: ‘simply means dishonesty. I accept that formulation put forward by Mr Hill on behalf of the respondents which (as I have slightly modified it) is that it connotes at the minimum an intention on the part of the trustee to pursue a particular course of action, either knowing that it is contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries or being recklessly indifferent whether it is contrary to their interests or not.
It is the duty of a trustee to manage the trust property and deal with it in the interests of the beneficiaries. If he acts in a way which he does not honestly believe is in their interests then this is acting dishonestly. It does not matter whether he stands or thinks he stands to gain personally from his actions. A trustee who acts with the intention of benefiting persons who are not the objects of the trust is not the less dishonest because he does not intend to benefit himself.’
There is substantially more to come however ever I am sure by now you realise that the company who sorts these committees out and the committee members themselves have a problem and you the consumers should be address the knowledge gained with them. The industry police (timeshare task force) we will address when we have more time, however their advice is don’t listen to communicate with or read matter addressed by us (the TCA), the entire industry advices that you talk to TATOC (they set up the committee’s). You should make up your own mind.
For more information regarding this article or assistance in any other timeshare related issues please contact the TCA on 01908 881058 or email: info@TimeshareConsumerAssociation.org.uk