Berfore read the TCA article below please visit with the news article below:
Read this article and you become aware that David Evans is a convicted crook and who was representing the industry in parliament. His submissions to the government are contained below. For reference the OTE is the old name of the RDO.
My name is David Evans. I am submitting this evidence on behalf of Shakespeare Classic Line Ltd, the company of which I am a Director. The company has been in business for 10 years as a developer, retailer, wholesaler and management company of holiday ownership.
I would like to give my evidence on the specific issues as follows:
- OVERVIEW
Many industries have strong industry associations such as ABTA. The timeshare industry has ARDA in America and TISA in South Africa. If TATOC were to merge with the OTE, then we would have a strong industry association in Europe. It would then be a simple matter for anybody involved in the ownership industry having to be a member of the association. Strong publicity telling everybody about the association and that heavy fines and expulsion would be levied to companies breaking the rules.
- We feel that there is more than enough legislation covering sales of goods and services, but it is the policing of this legislation that is the problem. Therefore, adding to the legislation simply increases the problem.
We believe that one association should cover all of the member states, thus making it clearer for the consumer. We also believe that there is a problem of conflict between EC laws and national laws.
- The existing Directive has led to confusion and has seriously damaged the timeshare industry. The strength of the Directive is the full disclosure, but the weakness is the cancellation notice, which has led to holiday clubs and major disintegration of the timeshare industry.
- SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS
We believe that any changes in legislation should only apply to products bought outside the country of residence.
- NATIONAL PROVISIONS
We agree that written information should be provided to the consumer.
- We repeat that we believe that there should be a strong industry association.
- RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL
From a consumer perspective, the right of withdrawal is confusing. The consumer purchases the product believing it to be a good product, only to find that they are being invited to cancel which immediately raises alarm bells because the consumer then believes that there is something wrong with the product because they are being invited to cancel.
- We believe that the legislation is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. With approximately five people completing a purchase out of every one thousand people who are invited to a presentation, we do not understand why you are trying to protect those people from buying such an excellent product.
- ADVANCE PAYMENTS
The consumer should not be protected from making advance payments. They expect to pay a deposit as with any other product. You are starting from the premise that timeshare is a poor product and this is just not the case. You are being given completely false figures by Sandy Grey, when in reality there are very very few complaints about the actual timeshare product. Any complaints you receive about the way the product is sold will almost certainly be covered by the new Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
- There is no problem for consumers making advance payments in the resale market so long as the consumer has not been cold called.
- REDRESS
Once again we point to the OTE as the best method for out of court redress.
- SANCTIONS, MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Again we point to the fact that policing the legislation is difficult and we, therefore, believe that the trade body with government funding should be able to monitor and have the powers of enforcement against any company breaking the rules. This could be very simply achieved by having a disclosure document for all sales. Providing that the client agrees to every clause and that the product does exactly what it says, then there would be no need for sanctions. However, if the product does not do exactly as written in the disclosure document, then the client should receive their money back plus interest from the company who sold them the product and this should be guaranteed by an insurance policy.
- As already stated, we believe that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive makes the need for any European timeshare legislation null and void.
- OUTSTANDING ISSUES
The Directive is set out to ruin a once thriving industry; it is a fantastic product, used by millions of people all over the world, so the top hotel chains such as Hilton and Marriott’s are involved in the industry. The product is owned by middle income families who wish to stay in places that were previously only affordable to the rich; the product is also owned by the rich who like their accommodation guaranteed. We believe that the legislation goes too far and we do not need any more.
31 August 2007
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/extra/news-item.cfm/newsid/1333
Its these people who advise the government, the law makers, the law enforcers, and so called consumers association.
It beggars belief!!!!!!!
For more information regarding this article or assistance in any other timeshare related issues please contact the TCA on 01908 881058 or email: info@TimeshareConsumerAssociation.org.uk