Note: Any information submitted on this form, and any information exchanged over the phone, email, or at consultation, is classed as privileged. None of your information will be stored or sold, not in whole, or part, or any format, without your prior written approval.
Claims qualification for Asia Claim
To successfully claim back your refund, from your sales organisation in question, you will first need to register a ‘Refund Claim Request’. Asia Claim will accept refund applications from any industry, however, we specialise in direct sales committed by the timeshare industry. Whether or not it is a timeshare, holiday club, or a completely different commodity. Over the years Asia Claim, and its legal partners, have watched and studied the timeshare sales industry, as it has tried to diversify in order to remain profitable. If you have had an unsatisfactory experience with any of the following below, you may be qualified for a free consultation:
Timeshare, Floating week, fixed week and points based holiday clubs, stocks, share and commodity purchases.
Land banking, pre construction and off-plan property purchases.
Please click on the link below If these apply to you:
Asia Claim and its overseas partners are pursuing claims on behalf of the general public against resorts, management companies, and marketing companies. We have had many group and individual litigation rulings in our favour. Asia Claim, and its agents, are currently processing a large number of claims on a case by case basis, and are pleased to announce the following successful judgments against some of the largest multi-national players in the timeshare industry.
Club La Costa
On the 29th of October 2015, in court number 4, in Fuengirola, Spain, a ruling was made against Club La Costa World, whereby the judge ruled the timeshare contract unfair. Thereby sentencing Club La Costa World to repay the client in full for the purchase amount of their timeshare, and the legal fees and costs.
On the 12th of January 2016, in court number 5, in Torremolinos, Spain a ruling was made against Pueblo Evita Marketing Company Limited, whereby the judge ruled the timeshare contract null and void. Thereby sentencing Pueblo Evita to repay the client in full for the purchase amount of their timeshare, plus double the amount paid by way of deposit, plus maintenance fees paid by the client.
We submitted a claim in the Spanish Court against Macdonald Resorts Spain S.A. Leila Playa Club, for the nullity of the purchase contracts signed in 2003 and 2008, on the grounds of breach of the Spanish Timeshare Law 42/1998. The Resort had not complied with their statutory duties of providing a general description of the proposed accommodation, and information on the consumer´s right of withdrawal. Furthermore, the resort made an infringement of the maximum period of 50 years that a contract of this type can be made, and the consumers signed the contract under misrepresentation. To support the claim, we provided, among other documents, the purchase contracts. Regarding misrepresentation, Macdonald Resorts said in their defence it was not a misrepresentation as the claimants knew and understood the product. They also defended that they did not infringe the maximum period of 50 years, as the Law 42/1998 is not applicable in the present case, because their system was created before the enactment of that statutory instrument.
The Judge rejected the Resort’s contentions: “In relation to the applicable law to the present case, we must look at the Law 42/1998, in which the contentious contract should give the claimants the right to use more than one accommodation, for a fixed price, for more than three years, permanent but without the owner condition, therefore we are clearly facing a contract that confers a personal right to use multiple accommodations for a fixed period superior to three years but inferior to 50 years. This is the type of contract stated as null and void by the article 1.7 of the Law 42/1998. The aforementioned purchase contracts are therefore null and void.
With regard to the defendant pleading that Law 42/1998 was not applicable in this case, the judge rejected it on the grounds that any previous systems similar to timeshare, that exceeds the limit by the law, should be deemed fraudulent, null and void (art. 1.7). The D.T. 2ª covers those timeshare rights acquired before the law came into force, according to the agreed system, but does not allow those rights to be transferred to infringe the legal rules; these must respect the new law (STS 477/2014, 15th January 2015)
The judge found the purchase contract did not comply with the requirements of the Article 1 Law 42/1998, as the Resort did not provide the description of the different accommodations that consumers could use, nor how to make a reservation. Furthermore, the Judge declared the contract to be a unilateral contract, where the supplier (Resort) sets the terms and conditions, without there being any real equality between either party. The clients were offered products, and advantages, without being made aware of the cooling off period, or the necessary time lapse between the explanation of the product, and the signing of the contract.
The claim was allowed, and the judge found the contract null, and void, on the legal grounds of an infringement of the Spanish Consumer legislation. The same reasoning appears in another case (Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Málaga 7th November 2005), in which the Court of Appeal ruled the contract should be deemed null, and void. This was on the grounds that the vendor did not comply with his legal obligation to provide information to the consumer, about the accommodation and services offered.
The Judge also said that the clients were not correctly informed of the contract terms and conditions. The documentation given did not abide with the requirements to ensure the client was informed correctly. We claimed that Macdonald Resorts had to pay compensation for the delay in the payment, this being, the legal interest of the owed sum since the interjection of the demand until the payment was completed.
- The contract between both parties is deemed null and void, plus any other annexed to said contract.
- Macdonald Resorts must reimburse the clients the sum of 11,839.22 pounds, plus the accrued interest since the 17th of September of 2015, until the payment is completed.
- Macdonald Resorts Spain S.A. Leila Playa Club must also pay the costs incurred in this instance.
Group Litigation Update
Where there are a large number of claimants against any one particular company, it is possible to instigate a group action. A sample of the claimants is presented to the court in order to obtain a group litigation order, to represent the whole group.
RCI Action Group – see www.rciactiongroup.com
It is alleged that RCI Europe misappropriated members’ weeks, thus reducing the ability of members to obtain their requested exchange. Please see our Litigation Management Company helping timeshare victims to become aware of their rights:
- The RCI Action Group was formed towards the end of 2012, with its own constitution and self-elected committee.
- The RCI Action Group is open to all past and present members, who have tried to arrange an exchange of their timeshare interest.
- There is no cost to register, and you will not be asked for any contribution towards legal fees. In the event of compensation being awarded, all registrants will be entitled to 80% of compensation receivable.
- The RCI Action Group is represented by the eminent firm of London solicitors, Messrs. Edwin Coe
The primary case brought against Leisure Dimensions Limited, RMI (F&P) Title Limited, Ecomar Continental SL, in respect of Infiniti Points, has now been served. Our lawyers have adopted a robust approach to these proceedings, and should the Defendants be unable to offer a substantive defence to the claim, we have instructed our lawyers to take every step to curtail the proceedings, in favour of our clients, as quickly as possible.
If you are an INFINITI Club member, and have yet to have your case reviewed by our legal team, please contact us today.
YOU FEEL THAT YOU WERE MIS-SOLD YOUR TIMESHARE
- Your maintenance fees have increased above the annual cost of living
- You were told you would be able to hand back your timeshare if not wanted
- That it would be easy to dispose of your timeshare
- That you would be able to exchange your timeshare like for like, season for season
THEN YOU HAVE SURELY BEEN MIS-SOLD. ANY OF THESE FACTORS WOULD ENTITLE YOU TO CLAIM!
Example of Litigation
MARRIOTT VICTORY 108,985€
We are delighted to be kicking off the week with another victory against Marriott!
Christmas really has come early for our German clients whose 3 contracts with Marriott Club Son Antem and Marbella Beach Club were all declared null and void by the court of the First Instance No 7 Marbella.
Not only did our clients get back what they paid for their contracts – 44.766€ – they were also awarded an ADDITIONAL 64.219€ in compensation for deposits taken within the statutory cooling off period – taking their total amount to 108,985€ PLUS INTEREST – THAT’S NEARLY2.5 TIMES MORE THAN OUR CLIENT PAID!
This case really does highlight the impact of receiving double the amounts back for deposits paid within the statutory cooling off period – and the fact that the 10 day statutory period is extended to all amounts paid within 3 MONTHS where the client did not receive the information required by law at the time they signed the contract.
Congratulations again to our German clients and to our Claims Consultant Evi Richter and our Lawyers Miguel Melian Santana, Oscar Salvador Santana Gonzalez and Christine Ihmann.