Client Nationality: British
Defendant Resort: Resort Properties / Silverpoint
Resolution Location: Madrid; Spain
Judicial Level: Supreme Court
Case Type: Civil
Timeshare Structure: Hollywood Mirage and Beverly Hills Vacation Package.
Resolution Period: 4.5 Years (2012)
Amount Awarded: £17,994
Client Story:
Clients purchased from Resort Properties in 2007, when they were invited for a free holiday in Tenerife on the condition that they had to attend a presentation. At first, they tried to sell the clients property, when they refused they were offered 6 weeks in their complex, with the advantage being the option to re-sell. The clients were in a meeting room all day, in which the representatives eventually pressuring them into purchasing these weeks.
The clients felt that they were misled as they were promised these weeks would be sold in 12 months. The cost of the yearly maintenance fee also upset the clients, as they were promised that it would be a small amount. In 2011 the clients contacted Canarian Legal Alliance, with hope of terminating their Silverpoint contract and receive monetary compensation.
Action Taken by CLA:
The legal process has been initiated in July 2012 when their case was accepted by the court, and in 2013 the trial was heard.
The First Instance Court sided with the clients, declaring their contract null and void, whilst also condemning Silverpoint to refund the purchase price to our clients. Silverpoint appealed this decision sending the case to the High Court, who decided that what the clients purchased does not come under the Spanish Timeshare Law 42/98, and that they acted as investors not as consumers.
Unhappy with this decision the clients decided to take Canarian Legal Alliance advice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The highest-ranking court in Spain dismissed the High Court`s assessment, ordering Silverpoint refund our clients a total of £17,994.
Resort Infraction & Sentence Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the membership sold in this case by Silverpoint is clearly a timeshare product, thus falling under the scope of timeshare law, (42/98),.
The highest ranking court in Spain even went as far as to state the following in their assessment of the sentence: “ it can clearly be seen that in no shape or form do they respect the dictates stated in the law 42/98, in other words not only can we see a breach in the law but a lack of systematic compliance”. What the Supreme court is alluding to here is the shortage of information required by a Timeshare company to include in their contracts.
The Supreme Court, in accordance with their earlier ruling confirm that clients are consumers, as they are not professional investors, and as this purchase is not something they were doing as a habit.
These rulings will have a profound impact on future cases, not just against silverpoint but other “club” schemes and points systems.
