web analytics

Timeshare, holiday products and the selling of them, appears to be fraught with problems. These problems can be generated by the selling practices, constitution amendments, rule changes, jurisdictional applied practises, unfair terms and a variety of different laws and authorities. There are very few individual cases that are the same.

In a timeshare, the voicing of problems is commented on and by a variety of competing bodies. Each has an opinion, however definitive advice [which everyone seeks] should be sought from an independent legally qualified and licensed practitioners.

In matters of discord, resort seller will defend their product, issue many statements in support of their product and create many websites stating what can only be described as one-sided opinions. These selling resorts are supported by a variety of other institutions who create advice centres, are servants of the industry and can again be one-sided advisers.

Equally a consumer who is at odds with resorts, express their opinion, discuss their problems on forums and for the purpose of seeking cogent advice so as to assist them in contemplation of what action to take [if any]. Again these are one-sided opinions.

Taking advice can be a risky business as many rouges exist who seek to “over-egg the pudding” with claims of the unlosable case in exchange for large fees.

Selling timeshare is also fraught with problems as many resellers claim they can offload timeshare fast when they cannot. One such report suggested that only 1 in 400 timeshare sell. Some, unlawfully charge fees for services in contravention of E.U. regulations whilst other bait people and then switch the purpose of the attendance leaving the consumer paying unexpected charges.

Other consumers avoid advice centres website and choose to seek advice from forums. In doing so, they expect free legal advice and direction from independent sources who are knowledgeable. Most, however, are neither licensed nor regulated. When in receipt of what consumer belief is independent advice, they can act on it, leaving them with a failed case and incurring substantial costs.

Consumer buyers who act on poor advice do inherit financial risk when pursuing compensations claims and/or exits. It is worthwhile to check all the advice given so as to meaningfully consider all the risk of a non-meritorious claim as not to do so, could prove costly.

Presenting a claim to the courts should be considered against the interruption of quite an enjoyment of your life. No matter who represents you and no matter how much money you can throw at a case, all litigation attracts worry. It’s only when the rewards offset that worry that litigations should be contemplated.

In the many discussions consumers have with the industry, they can exaggerate the potential liability whilst consumer of forums appears to avoid warning of the potential adverse liabilities of a failed case.

Noteworthy in, timeshare is “Timeshare Talk”. On many occasions, it has been used by consumers and to seek initial advice or be signposted to others for more particular advice. The forum did attract a huge amount of visits and was littered with good, reasonable and independent moderators.

Many of those moderators were wise and adopted a social mission to assist those who needed initial advice. In fact, in the past, the site was assisted by named paralegals, UK solicitor’s, Spanish lawyers, registered consumer associations. an ex-judge/barrister, an ex-citizens advice Governor and long-time authors of weekly Timeshare news magazines.

All sang from the same hymn sheet, tendering free advice on particular issues and in fulfilment of principled social responsibility.

Some legally educated people [on the site] were able to sift through the issues applying reasoning and issue real and considered advice. Alas, many have left after the new owners have taken control, changed the terms and conditions, moderated threads and deleted the conversation. The site may not now be as independent as it was.

In principle when published advice is found on forums or websites the author usually stands behind the advice and the statements expressed. If they use fake un-transparent identities obvious concerns should be apparent.

Explaining this, if a forum is of any real value to a consumer, the moderators will ensure that consumer misadventures are kept to a minimum so that the site retains a good name.

Mistrust and misinformation’s can only serve confusion.

In respect to the Timeshare talk forum, it can boast of many successes, as many rouges have been discovered, identified and ridiculed. Forums can also attract many unscrupulous organisations and individuals. Some con men deem it appropriate to covertly hide their real names, the people they represent and splatter allegations and poor advice all over bog sites in an effort to gain some credence.

Recently it came to our attention that a matter was raised on timeshare talk and in respect to an article which was authored and published by TESS. Predominantly TESS published its position concerning a liable case and referred in the article to publicly accessible documents. As the defendant in the case has persistently had a continuation of their unruly actions TESS believed it necessary to publish what is believed to be the truth. In expressly doing so, it could have the effect of reducing the Defendant’s liability and temper the continual liable. This article will not be retracted, will remain for public viewing, is appropriate and will mitigate the damage the defendant is causing.

Lurking around many blog sites are struck off solicitors, jailed thieves and fraudulent traders, hoping to pick up commissions for ill-conceived arguments.

Legal Kanevil is a timeshare troll who hides behind a pseudonym, peddles a warped view in the hope that the effects the reputation of others. This legal nobody sought to advance a smear against TESS in the complexed area of Sub-Judice.

To assist him with an education, the Sub-Judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court and guidance is available, is based on UK law and was written in January 2009. In essence, one litigant might scupper other chances of either effectively actioning a claim or defending a claim and such matters can be determined as a contempt of court.

That said in Civil proceedings the Sub-Judice rule becomes active when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland when the parties’ pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.

In the matter which was reported on by TESS, no trial has been set and the case is still under management. That being so Legal Kanevil is entitled to his opinion however that opinion is completely wrong and may be the reason why he hides his true identity.

To assist further, both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published by active legal proceedings.

In the case reported by TESS, there will be no jury, no witnesses have been correctly identified and a high court judge will be appointed not a lay judge.

This is not the first time that the toll has attempt to slay someone with his vile and lacklustre advice. Just recently he attempted to kill off the good name of an ex-deputy court judge and ex-citizens advice moderators who both have contributed much to the consumer world. One has to wonder why the site permits such an individual to scupper the site credibility.


Posted on: 6th May 2016