The terrible twins of timeshare based in Tenerife are before the UK courts again and in this case, consumers are circumventing the litigation in Spain and running headlong into the Banks which have supported them over the years.
Many will recall that “Sandy Grey” was a thorn in the side of these two timeshare resort managers and after construing the “crimes share” website he personally eviscerated them “day in, day out” and “year in, year out” and for alleged acts they perpetrated against consumers.
Today, we learn that Barclays Bank consumer credit arm “Clydesdale Financial Services” now being pursued for more than £1.5m by over 106 consumers and over the mis-selling of timeshare schemes. The consumers are alleging that the products sold were misrepresented, that damages should flow and to the consumers who acquired them.
At the helm of Silverpoint is Mark Cushway who was elected to that position By Bob Trotter who constructed Resort Properties. He was the subject of a denunciate in Spain, which alleged Fraud. Both Resort Properties and Silverpoint have been slain on many occasions in the Spanish Courts and for mis-selling timeshare contracts.
That petition was quashed, however, prior to the quashing TATOC [financially supported by Silverpoint and Resort Properties] in preference to the consumers support, hung their hat on Mr Cushway. Noteworthy is TATOC is controlled by Harry Taylor and managed by Mark Caldicott.
The group of complainants we report on today, all bought fractional shares in what was described as holiday homes in countries including England, Spain, and Tenerife and between 2006 and 2014. The sales were via the timeshare clubs managed by “Resort Properties” who is now known as Silverpoint.
It’s a fact that Silverpoint Vacations took over Resort Properties and their inventory, in or around 2011 as High Court documents have been uncovered.
The complainants have explained, Timeshare consumers were induced to attend presentations by Resort Properties and Silverpoint, by way of an offer of a free week’s holiday in a resort they controlled.
The clubs then recommended that the consumers borrow money by way of loans provided by Clydesdale which would fund the covert timeshare deals. The 106 consumer members explain “the details of the deal were not clear” and “they were rushed into signing the documents” by Silverpoint.
Many of the consumer, featured in their claims rely upon “collective fact evidence” Each stating that they were told the timeshares were an “investment” that could be “easily resold”, “for profit” and “the forward sales” would be helped by the clubs. These claims mirror’s the testimony of claimants TESS retains and therefore appears accurate.
The consumer group also claim Resort Properties and Silverpoint informed them they could rent out their timeshares to meet their repayments to Clydesdale, and that the loan could be paid off by selling their investments.
The complainants affirm together, the clubs misled them, cost them money, harmed their credit ratings for which they are entitled to damages.
The court papers say: “Representatives of [Resort Properties] and [Silverpoint] were well aware from extensive experiences in dealing with timeshares that the timeshares were not readily saleable at all nor would they deliver a profit and were not an investment.”
Many of the complainants say, “they were not informed that they were entering into a credit card agreement, nor that there was a variable interest rate“.
The consumer in this group, says the clubs blamed problems selling the timeshares on factors like the recession for not achieving the timeshare resales.
The 106 complainants further allege, the timeshare clubs then encouraged them to buy further timeshare products chasing their tail and in pursuit of trying to recoup the initial losses created by the alleged mis-selling. Many bought more expensive timeshares in a set of resorts called ‘Club Paradiso’.
A leading timeshare solicitor at Edwin Coe says “the group is targeting Clydesdale under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974” [the Act]
That act grants creditors a “like for like” claim against those banks which prop up the timeshare resorts sellers, therefore consumers can extend their claims and redress, against banks, should they believe that they have been mis-sold.
At present, the pitch offered by Clydesdale banks is that they deny the claims and says the lack of detail is “embarrassing”.
The lender’s legal response says the claims rest on verbal representations and the exact details are not quoted by the 106 claimants.
Further, Clydesdale says many claims are too old to be brought, that “Limitation” of claiming is an issue, and that the laws of the countries the timeshare properties were based in should apply, not the law of England and Wales.
Clydesdale also denies the Consumer Credit Act now applies to it, as the licensing system the law founded ended when the FCA took over consumer credit regulation from the Office of Fair Trading in 2014.
The lender also says the “claimants” contracts fully explained the deals they were getting into and that it does not owe a duty of care to the claimants.
A Barclays spokesman says: “We do not comment on ongoing legal cases.”
Silverpoint did not respond to requests for comment.
Posted on: 21st March 2017