TESS is pleased to confirm that in the last 30 days, (since opening after the Christmas break ended) it has secured further compensation awards for its clients in the amount of £80,069.49.
The sums identified above have all been paid into our clients by the bank’s accounts and consisted of a collection of damaged based awards on account of each client being mis-sold timeshares and timeshare related products. In this report, the majority of awards were on account of the misselling of Monster Credits.
At present, TESS is assisting hundreds of timeshare consumers who are litigating against timeshare and timeshare related companies in the UK and Spain.
One interesting case (presently being delivered via the courts) concerns the misselling of Monster Travel leisure Credits by Hollywood Marketing and its associated companies. As the 1st and principle contract (when the product was sold) was, the ‘provision of credit’ (paid partly by way of a credit card), the banks (in these batches of cases) have been shown to be jointly and severally liable to our clients on account of the assistance (with the provision of credit) they gave to the contracting consumers.
In 2016, TESS led the way in the pursuit of Monster Travel compensation and did so after collating a vast number of documents, all of which were compiled, analysed and considered so as to provide our clients with a pathway to claim compensation.
From the documents TESS obtained, Monster Travels clients rightfully claimed, they were mis-sold Monster Credits and when mis-sold, the products (in the vast amount of cases) were acquired with the assistance of credit provided by the card issuer.
When the client paid the total sums asked for, they were given a number of Monster Credits which were claimed as being a gateway to obtain ‘discounted holidays. As credits were being sold was, a private currency, Monster Travel claimed – after 14 months – the credits could be rebought and each credit would redeem £0.08 in value.
Despite this looking like an insignificant sum, the number of credits sold in most transactions were – in the 100s of thousands – if not millions.
As the credits after 14 months proved to be incapable of being redeemed for any value, the court in some cases was not averse to hearing a case regarding a ‘breached of contract’ claim and in the alternative a misrepresentation.
This means that instead of being returned to the position the consumers were in before the contract was made; the consumer could claim they should be put into a financial position they would have been in had the contractual promised been fulfilled.
The compensation being claimed in these cases are valued at 3 times that of the sums the consumer paid. For a total payment of £10,000, this equates (in this example) to £30,000.00 in damages.
This new line of claim results in the damages awards (in some cases) over 3 times that of the sums paid which is a breath of fresh air in respect to the court’s potential view on damages in respect to Monster Travel claims.
Of course, ‘breach contract claims’ requires the client to produce very detailed account of what was said, and all their documents must be in good order for these cases to be run – effectively.
In many cases, some consumers bought Monster Travel Credits without paying any part by way of credits a card so, the 1st and principle contract is the sale of the credits themselves. The initial view was, these consumers did not have a claim against any other party other than Monster Travel or its sales companies, however. that may no longer be the case.
It is wrongly being claimed by some claims management companies that those who bought without the aid of a credit card have no claim for damages other than a direct claim against Monster Travel who we now know is – subject to a criminal investigation.
The fact is, that when most consumers visited Monster Travel and bought the credits, the sums each paid was for the provision of 2 benefits; a) the investment return of the credits and b) access to the Monster Travel club where a vast collection of discounted holidays were available for sale.
If the investment return claim failed (which it would appear to have), the entitlement to discounted holidays still remains available. As the holiday provision was partly paid for by the sale of the credits (which acts as a gateway to the published discounted holidays) should the holiday benefit become unavailable a further ‘breach of the contract’ will have occurred?
If such a breach does occur, the discounted holiday products are bonded and via a number of indemnifiers/ insurance companies. During the course of pre-action interlocutory with the indemnifiers, some of the existing claims have been frustrated – not on account of there being no runnable argument, but because of the fact that the holiday website still exists.
Therefore, as the Holidays are technically still available, a claim, can’t proceed, however, should the position change (when Monster Travel admits guilt or is convicted of the alleged crimes), and the websites will be taken offline. It appears quite logical, that when the holidays are no longer available the 2nd and final benefit becomes undeliverable and the sum paid for the credits has been lost, therefore entirely claimable from the insurance policies that Monster travel must-have, on account of the terms for its industry membership.
Thank you for reading this TESS Law News article, to see more please visit our News section.
Posted on: 14th February 2020