web analytics

The Various Club La Cost Personalities


Club La Costa has created many timeshare products, however, today we discuss two of them. These 2 products were created by CLC Resort Developments Limited (003262V) whose registered office is located at  33 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LB.

IN RESPECT TO; – CLC Vacation Club Ltd [VC Club] this is an incorporated Limited by Guarantee (without share capital) Co Registration Number SC184002 and its registered office is 1 Exchange Crescent, Conference Square, Edinburgh EH3-8UL.

IN RESPECT TO; – The Fractional Ownership Club [FO Club] this is an unincorporated club with a constitution and its office is not disclosed but presumed to be located at the Founder Members office 33 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LB.

IN RESPECT TO – CLC Resort Management Ltd, this is an incorporated Limited Company Co Reg no 003261V and its Registered Office is located at 33 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LB and its function [amongst other things] appears to be, to manage both the VC Club and the FO Club.

The two products [Club memberships] are sold by a collection of CLC Supplier Merchants, all of which operate from Holiday Resorts controlled by the “Founding Member” CLC Resort Developments Limited.

The various Merchants are; –

Club La Costa Leisure Ltd Athene House, 86 The Broadway, Mill Hill, London, NW7 3TD U.K.
Paradise Trading SLU Calle Galacia 6, Torviscas Alto, Playa de Las Américas, Adeje, 38670, Tenerife Spain
Leading Resorts Ltd Akara Building, 24 De Castro Street, PO Box 3136, Wickhams Cay, Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands
Continental Resorts Services SLU Urb Marina Del Sol No 188, Mijas Costa 29649, Málaga Spain
Club La Costa (UK) PLC Athene House, 86 The Broadway, Mill Hill London, NW7 3TD U.K.
Vacation Resorts Ltd 33 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LB U.K.
Consolidated Resorts Ltd PO Box 438, Tropic Isle Building, Wickhams Cay, Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands
Holiday Leisure Ltd 34 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LB U.K.
Leisure Resorts Ltd Akara Building, 24 De Castro Street, PO Box 3136, Wickhams Cay, Road Town, British Virgin Islands

The Companies listed above are all owned by or linked back to CLC Resort Developments Limited and to our knowledge are the only Merchant Companies who sell both the VC and FO Club products.

In respect to the sale of the Clubs Membership Fees: – consumers are asserting that all the money received by the Suppliers and for the sale of the Memberships is retained by the sellers and no monitory value passes to any of the Clubs thus, according to law an “Unfair Relationship” exists as established in the “Plevin Rule”.

 Plevin v Paragon Finance Limited [2014] UKSC 61, [2015] 1 All ER 625 and the Court of Appeal in Scotland v British Credit Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 790; [2014] All ER (D) 103 (Jun).

When the membership is sold, the consumer then becomes a member of the VC or FO Club, which receives no consideration for the product sold.

IN RESPECT TO; – CLC Vacation Club Ltd CLC [The Club]. The Club is managed by CLC Resort Management Ltd [The Manager] The manager demands payment of yearly membership fees and other fees for the acquisition of yearly “Points” [a closed loop private currency] which the manager can accept and in exchange for Holiday Accommodation if that accommodation is available. Again, those fees are taken by the manager and no consideration is given to either the VC or FO club. Again an “Unfair Relationship” exists is established having regard for the “Plevin Rule”.

Strangely when considering these allegations being made “if you designed, invented a valuable and merchantable product” you would want to sell it and make money! Yes. To sell it you would employ salesmen! Yes? When sold, you would be paid for the product you created and delivered to the members you sold it to! Yes. In Club La Costa clubs the opposite is occurring.

The reasoning behind what I have stated is simple, both Clubs have created a product and have appointed a sales agent to sell the club memberships and when sold other agents maintain the product. In so doing, all the sale proceeds maintenance fees, points fees and profits are diverted to others, away from the club you are members of, and YOU [the member] receive nothing, absolutely nothing.

You might believe this is poppycock however the statement I have made is none-the-less “truthful”. Consumers are told they are buying a “Holiday Club Membership”. The purpose of the club is to obtain maintained holiday accommodation, which is offered it to its members at a discounted rate.  The fact is CLC Vacation Club Ltd is DORMANT, has never traded nor has ever declared in compliance with their statutory duty, that any significant transactions or groups of transactions have ever taken place.

This Company Dormancy has been evident for over 16 years. Thus you the consumer have been paying “£10,000’s to be a member of a club which does not trade or provide any benefits. So who does? Quite simply another company which you are are not a member of! If you knew, the club had no holiday accommodation, could not provide any accommodation and it carried out no significant transactions would you have paid £10,000’s to become a member? would you have paid the yearly membership fees?

In the event, a consumer accepts my assertions and challenges Club La Costa, they are required to disclose the existence and extent of commissions taken or paid to the broker/manager, refusal would render the Relationship Unfair in terms of section 140 (A) of the CCA 1974. To date, neither Cub la Costa nor the Banks (which lent you money to buy the membership product) have disclosed the information which proves an “unfair relationship” does exist and that the product is a “scam”.

Finance Interest Charges levied by You the Creditor

Consumers are also asserting that the interest charged on the loans they pay is excessive, that a secret and undisclosed profit was paid by the Banks and to Club la Costa. Thus, the Banks are required (when faced with these allegations), to disclose the existence and extent of commission they have paid to the Club La Costa.

Further Consumers are asserting the commissions are significant, should it have been disclosed, at the point of sale and was not. If they had been disclosed and they knew of the “secret profit” they would have challenged and/or reduce the commission to make the cost more reasonable.

The Banks are required to provide all the relevant documents including the commission paid and should they refuse the relationship would be regarded as“unfair” in terms of section 140A of the CCA1974.

Between the Lending Bank and the Club

Consumers also are asserting a further Unfair relationship exists (by way of s140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s140) 

In Link Financial Ltd v Teresa North Wilson, an unfair relationship under s140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s140) was established between Club La Costa and a Defendant Bank because

“the terms contained in the contracts allowed the ‘asset’ (being her membership in the Club) to be taken from her for missing annual maintenance charges, leaving her with the liability on the Loan and no residual asset with which to offset against the same”.

Each Membership product is backed up by a contract and in those contracts are terms and conditions. In these terms and condition, the above clause exists

All monies paid will be forfeited as compensation”, and clause (h) “management charges due but not paid will lead to suspension of rights and eventual loss “without compensation” and in clause (L) “the owner is prevented from modifying the agreement”.

Accordingly an “Unfair Relationship” did, does and continues to exist in their contract and by way of the “link financial” authority, yet knowing this term is unfair, knowing that the Courts have stated this and delivered an authority, Club La Costa and associated Banks still sell the timeshare membership and the corresponding finance.

The Supplier’s Sales Agents

The Sellers of the Club la Costa Membership do employ sub-sales agents. It is these sub-sales agents who sell the Club’s Memberships. These sub-sales agents are the face of the Supplier who employs them to do their bidding. The majority of the sales agents are not employed directly by the Supplier but are in fact self-employed and/or works for another. Accordingly, the Suppliers are responsible to you for the representations and sales the sub sales agents make, including the sales of your “credit/loan product”. Should the Banks state and/or rely on a counter-assertion the Banks have been invited to prove evidentially that the assertion is false, yet have failed to do so.

Having carried out significant investigations Tess can reveal via “similar fact evidence” and analysis that consumers can show that the Sub-Sales Agents “flit” between the Merchanting Suppliers, yet all sell the same product for and on behalf of each Supplier noted above, thus are not directly employed by Club La Costa.

In the financial accounts dated the 31/12/2011 at note 3, the supplier declares “there were no employee’s other than the Director who was not in receipt of any remuneration”

Accordingly, consumers would be right to aver that a collection of self-employed sub-agent is motivated to sell, are not in receipt of salaried employment but are paid an undisclosed commission. Should the averments be incorrect and a secret commission has not been paid the Banks are required to prove it and should they not this would render the relationship “unfair” and contrary to section 140A of the CCA1974.

In the case of Mr Bratt (a Director) who signed off the Club La Costa accounts, he is also a salesman and has prolifically sold the suppliers products. When doing so, he then asked one of his self-employed sales team (who was in subjection to his authority) to sign the documents as a “compliance officer“, yet Mr Bratt held power over that alleged Compliance Officer.

KNOWING that mis-selling had taken place in the past and potentially could in the future, the controlling minds of the VOFO Clubs, the supplying merchants and CLC Resorts Development Ltd did create a “compliance check” and all sub-agents, appear to be required to present the sales they have made to a nominated “compliance officer” to ensure the sale was lawful. This measure does appear to lend some credibility to the proposition that the sub sales agents are in fact monitored. However, contrary to that proposition the “Similar Fact Evidence” shows the “sub sales agents” and the “complaints officers” are one of the same, the sub sales agent sell a club membership product one day then act as a “compliance officer” the next, each certifying the sale for his buddy and vice-versa and in each case.

Thus, the “compliance check” is a delusion and imparts credibility where no such credibility ought to be considered. The delusion is unfair and potentially an engineered tort.

Having regard to the fact that these products have been and still are subject to allegations of “unfair relationships” misrepresentations and legally required representations must be delivered, it would be reasonable to ensure a compliance check was in place. Knowing the need existed, and then to construct an illusory compliance officer/department, to negate that need, and present a delusion is [I submit] engineered and corporate misrepresentation which tortious causes an interference in a consumers behaviour.


The objectives of the Club la Costa clubs is to provide discounted 5* holidays and the inventory should be maintained to ensure the promises made, are delivered. When acquired the consumers are then required to pay membership fees and when paid, a member can acquire a private “closed loop” currency called “Points” which the clubs assert can be exchanged to buy holiday inventory the club retains. That being averred the clubs are DORMANT “no trade or significant transactions have taken place.

The memberships are sold by nominated suppliers/merchants [listed above], money is charged by each merchant/supplier, yet each does not have any paid employee’s, servant’s, agents or Directors.

The Companies are controlled by an unpaid Director Mr J Bratt and according to the 31st of December 2011, the sales exceeded £27 million, and over £22 million was sent to other related parties (un-named) under the guise of Administrative expenses, however, no consideration was given to the Clubs whose membership product was sold.

The clubs are a scam, they don’t exist or provide any benefit and act as a shield for those who conceived them and the infrastructure is “unfair” and the relationships must be equally “unfair”.

Posted on: 4th December 2017