My article explains how the committees got the MRL proposals passed.
Let me explain:-
We now have three confirmed reports as to how the voting system works at the following MRL resorts. These voting systems have delivered a resounding victory for the MRL induced proposal. It was these voting systems which were instrumental in ensuring that MRL won the vote they alone proposed.
The resorts under the control of MRL were:-
Elmers Court Country Club, Hampshire
Dalfaber Golf and Country Club, Aviemore
Forest Hills Trossachs Club, Aberfoyle-by-Sterling
Lochanully Woodland Club, Inverness-shire
Plas-Talgarth Health & Leisure Club, Powys
Leila Playa Club, Malaga
Villacana Club, Malaga (see conclusion)
Dona Lola Club, Malaga
We have other reports that MRL (who are managing other resorts fractional ownership resorts) are attempting to alter and/amend constitutions to facilitate changes. The benefit of those changes will of course be reported on when confirm to us.
Firstly the proposal is made to the clubs by MRL
In their capacity as an owner MRL propose amendments to the constitutions which underpin the timeshare ownership.
Those proposals make vast swathing amendments to the existing constitutions which in reality alters the constitution and the underling ownership of the resorts. The amendments give MRL full ownership of the property and the timeshare owners will lose their title and ownership of the resort (they bought into).
The new constitution maintains a committee to oversee the preservation of the resorts, however if MRL don’t like what the committee proposes (in the future) then MRL can and probably will object to any and all fresh proposals which furnish the consumers added rights over MRL.
To amend a contract/constitution it is enshrined in law that a consideration has to be offered and sadly in the MRL proposal it is NOT given. Quite the reverse they insist the consumer pay them. I am assures this will be laughed out of court if a defence to the action is ever raised by MRL. Owners and others believe that the MRL case will never see the light bulbs of a British court room. In contrast the TCA hopes it will.
The ballot and voting system you the British consumers were obliged to participate in was administered by draconian and North Korean style protocol and procedure which is as follows:-
Assume your home resorts has 6,000 weeks
There will be about 3,000 individual owners (as confirmed by research)
Average 2 weeks (per owners).
As the votes have been passed and counted we have carried out a brief independent survey and can confirm that when the votes were cast, some consumers were in favour of the changes promoted by TATOC as “Ground Breaking” and some voted against the reforms as expressed in the votes counted and published. The “no” voters where in the minority.
Ignoring the legal claims that you cannot change a clubs purpose without 100% of the vote, which is a very real and sustainable position to assume in this case. There exist as explained two camps and the voting appears to be in favour of the “yes” camp (the “yes” camp is in favour of the MRL resolution). The vote is critical and should be exposed so as to determine the hard cores facts and what happened in reality. Only after an evaluation of the voting system has been assessed can it be confirmed that the “yes2 vote won the day.
Firstly the above named clubs are Unincorporated Associations and they are led by committees who are empowered to represent the members of their particular clubs. Those committees must (not “ought to”) act in the interest of each and every individual member of the club.
In Truth each committee member has a legal obligation to do so and that obligation is imparted on them to act in the best interest of all members of the club.
In the event a committee and/or an individual member of that committee acts against a members interest then they will be held accountable for the wrong themselves and they will be joint and severable liable to any damages award the member recovers from a court.
In the event that the committee (as a whole) commits a wrong and let’s assume that the wrong was done in a committee members absence, then case law does not excuse their liability, as they will still be joint and severally liable for the actions of the club committee they serve on.
You are in short on the hook for your own actions and the action of the committee you sit on and it follows that you personal assets are at risk. That risk will be heightened if you avoid and/or mislead the court when the action is being heard
Last modified: 15th February 2016