Timeshare - in perpetuity

[Judith]

I caught an interesting clip on Radio4 today:

A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where they
paid (I think £8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some sort.

They went for their set week for a couple of years - and then her husband fell
ill - and eventually died. The timeshare was the last thing on her mind.

Then she found that the annual "management fees" were going up year by year -
and she contacted the company to try and cancel the contract.

She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in perpetuity". ie
the contract had now passed to her - and she could not get out of it. Even to
the degree that when she died the timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and
they in term would be "lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated
management fees - until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids -
for ever and ever.

The programme said that there was now an agreement with a "Timeshare Operators
Organisation" (of some sorts) - and people in these in perpetuity contracts
would be able to now buy themselves out.

The bad news was that the firm that the lady had the contract with was not part
of this body - and there was uncertainty as to whether the company she had her
contract with would release her from it.

As it said at the end of the clip: the moral is - read the small print before
you sign a contract.

I must admit I did not know that "perpetuity" contracts even existed.

I can see that some would think it meant for the rest of your life: without
being aware that it would then be passed on to future generations of your
family.

Food for thought.

[Zapp Brannigan]

Post by Judith
She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in perpetuity".
ie
the contract had now passed to her - and she could not get out of it.
Even to
the degree that when she died the timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and
they in term would be "lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated
management fees - until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids -
for ever and ever.

I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

[Clive George]

Post by Zapp Brannigan

Post by Judith
She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in
perpetuity". ie
the contract had now passed to her - and she could not get out of it.
Even to
the degree that when she died the timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and
they in term would be "lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated
management fees - until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids -
for ever and ever.

I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

And if it was, what happens if one leaves the timeshare to the
management company in the will?

[Graham Murray]

Post by Clive George
And if it was, what happens if one leaves the timeshare to the
management company in the will?

Or if the beneficiary, whether specific or of the residue, rejects the
legacy.

[Robin]

Post by Graham Murray
Or if the beneficiary, whether specific or of the residue, rejects the
legacy.

In which case the problem reverts to the executor.

FWIW this is a problem on which many consumer organisations, media and
lawyers have commented over the years. The gist of their views is that
there's no simple escape route. Of course they may have missed
something. But most seem to end up recommending arguing that the
original contract was mis-sold/mis-represented. I am sure this is not
wholly or mainly because so many of the dodgy sales were made on one of
the Costas and with rather little documentation and sales staff who are
unlikely to still be employed by the sellers:)

[Anthony R. Gold]

Post by Clive George

Post by Zapp Brannigan

Post by Judith
She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in
perpetuity". ie
the contract had now passed to her - and she could not get out of it.
Even to
the degree that when she died the timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and
they in term would be "lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated
management fees - until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids -
for ever and ever.

I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

And if it was, what happens if one leaves the timeshare to the
management company in the will?

You are considering the timeshare to be a net asset. The issue here is the
management contract which is the equivalent of a very large debt such that
the timeshare has a negative value. No one can inherit anything from an
estate unless its debts have been settled. One obvious exit strategy would
be to declare the estate insolvent.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here, perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

[Paul Rudin]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here, perhaps?), it
was a Spanish property.

There's a specific carve out in the Rome I Regulations from the usual
rules about in rem property rights in the case of consumer timeshare
contracts - see Art 6(4)(c) of Rome I. It's likely that the substantive
law is that of the habitual residence of the consumer (presumably
therefore that of England and Wales).

It's possible that the contract specifies applicable law, but it is not
capable of derogating from the provisions of English law that would
afford protection to a consumer in such contracts.

[Judith]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here, perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

No - it was in Scotland

[August West]

Post by Judith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here,
perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

No - it was in Scotland

One would obviously have to see the deed creating the obligation, but I
can't think of any way of creating an obligation that passes through
inheritance and binds the unwilling in Scots law.

And considering Scots law's antipathy to perpetual trusts & entails (and
recently, even long leases), it seems unlikely a "perpetual contract"
would be countenanced.

Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

[Judith]

Post by August West

Post by Judith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here,
perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

No - it was in Scotland

One would obviously have to see the deed creating the obligation, but I
can't think of any way of creating an obligation that passes through
inheritance and binds the unwilling in Scots law.
And considering Scots law's antipathy to perpetual trusts & entails (and
recently, even long leases), it seems unlikely a "perpetual contract"
would be countenanced.
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

It is the Hotel that is in Scotland - the Hotel Chain itself is based in
Warrington - and there was no mention in the programme of the contract being
covered by the law of Scotland: so I was assuming (but I don't know) that it
was English law.

[August West]

Post by Judith

Post by August West
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

It is the Hotel that is in Scotland - the Hotel Chain itself is based in
Warrington - and there was no mention in the programme of the contract being
covered by the law of Scotland: so I was assuming (but I don't know) that it
was English law.

Quite possibly; however, if any real property ownerdhip ir right is
involved, with the land being in Scotland, Scots law will have at least
some bearing on it.

[Paul Rudin]

Post by August West

Post by Judith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here,
perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

No - it was in Scotland

One would obviously have to see the deed creating the obligation, but I
can't think of any way of creating an obligation that passes through
inheritance and binds the unwilling in Scots law.
And considering Scots law's antipathy to perpetual trusts & entails (and
recently, even long leases), it seems unlikely a "perpetual contract"
would be countenanced.
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

The Rome I Regulation applies to choice of laws as between England and
Scotland just as much as it does between (say) England and Spain. On the
facts were have here, from my (admittedly superficial) understanding of
this area of the law it's likely that any dispute would be governed by
English law if the individual(s) who bought the timeshare is habitually
resident in England, notwithstanding that the timeshare property is
located in Scotland. (And this is a different question from which
court(s) have jurisdiction.)

Of course if everyone involved and the property are all in Scotland,
then Scots law would apply.

There is a question about whether we're talking about a contractual
matter or a inheritance matter since Rome I is about contracts. But
surely the first question is whether the timeshare contract is
enforceable against anyone other that the original parties, which is
surely the law of contract?

[August West]

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

The Rome I Regulation applies to choice of laws as between England and
Scotland just as much as it does between (say) England and Spain.

Not as such. It's the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 that
applies; although it handily incorpotate both Rome I and Lugano 68!

Post by Paul Rudin
On the facts were have here, from my (admittedly superficial)
understanding of this area of the law it's likely that any dispute
would be governed by English law if the individual(s) who bought the
timeshare is habitually resident in England, notwithstanding that the
timeshare property is located in Scotland. (And this is a different
question from which court(s) have jurisdiction.)

I doubt it - even though it's a consumer contract the places of both
performance and delivery are both Scotland. Simply being a resident of a
country is not enough to create a connecting factor (although forum
conveniens would give access to the English courts, if not English law).
And, besides, the contract of this type would normaly state the
applicable law. But if real property rights are involved, the law of the
jurisdiction the land is located in applies.

[Paul Rudin]

Post by August West

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

The Rome I Regulation applies to choice of laws as between England and
Scotland just as much as it does between (say) England and Spain.

Not as such. It's the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 that
applies; although it handily incorpotate both Rome I and Lugano 68!

Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation. But anyway, we agree that the substance
is applicable.

Post by August West

Post by Paul Rudin
On the facts were have here, from my (admittedly superficial)
understanding of this area of the law it's likely that any dispute
would be governed by English law if the individual(s) who bought the
timeshare is habitually resident in England, notwithstanding that the
timeshare property is located in Scotland. (And this is a different
question from which court(s) have jurisdiction.)

I doubt it - even though it's a consumer contract the places of both
performance and delivery are both Scotland. Simply being a resident of a
country is not enough to create a connecting factor (although forum
conveniens would give access to the English courts, if not English law).
And, besides, the contract of this type would normaly state the
applicable law. But if real property rights are involved, the law of the
jurisdiction the land is located in applies.

As I mentioned up the thread, timeshares have their own carve out from
the usual rules about in rem property rights. See Art 4 (4)(c) of the
Regulation.

It's prima facie a consumer timeshare contract. Therefore the habitual
residence of the consumer provide the applicable law by Art 4(1).

[Chris R]

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

The Rome I Regulation applies to choice of laws as between England and
Scotland just as much as it does between (say) England and Spain.

Not as such. It's the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 that
applies; although it handily incorpotate both Rome I and Lugano 68!

Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation. But anyway, we agree that the substance
is applicable.

The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 section 2(3) does apply Rome I and
other conventions as between England and Scotland.

[Francis Davey]

Post by Chris R
The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 section 2(3) does apply Rome I and
other conventions as between England and Scotland.

"The Conventions" doesn't include Rome I (the regulation) - see s.1.

In fact the Act is not applicable where Rome I does apply as a result of sections 4A (EWNI) and 4B (Scotland) of the Act - both sections inserted as a result of the regulations I cited in my last post.

Francis

[Francis Davey]

Post by Paul Rudin
Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation. But anyway, we agree that the substance
is applicable.

Being really pedantic (and when am I not?), the Brussels I Regulation does not of itself apply to choice of law as between England and Scotland because internal choice of law within a member state with more than one legal system is expressly excluded by the Regulation, see Article 22(2).

Nor, as August suggests, does the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 apply. Section 2(3):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/36/section/2

did apply the Rome Convention to internal conflicts, but that has changed as a result of regulation 4 of the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and regulation 5 of the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2009:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/410/regulation/4/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3064/regulation/5/made

Do apply Rome I to internal conflict situations (except insurance contracts - which we aren't dealing with here).

I teach this topic (at Strathclyde University as it happens) and looking through both the textbooks I recommend to students I can see that neither gets this right.

:-)

Francis

[Chris R]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by Paul Rudin
Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation. But anyway, we agree that the substance
is applicable.

Being really pedantic (and when am I not?), the Brussels I Regulation does
not of itself apply to choice of law as between England and Scotland
because internal choice of law within a member state with more than one
legal system is expressly excluded by the Regulation, see Article 22(2).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/36/section/2
did apply the Rome Convention to internal conflicts, but that has changed
as a result of regulation 4 of the Law Applicable to Contractual
Obligations (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and regulation 5 of the Law
Applicable to Contractual Obligations (England, Wales and Northern
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/410/regulation/4/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3064/regulation/5/made
Do apply Rome I to internal conflict situations (except insurance
contracts - which we aren't dealing with here).
I teach this topic (at Strathclyde University as it happens) and looking
through both the textbooks I recommend to students I can see that neither
gets this right.

It was me who brought up the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 so clearly
I'm wrong in that.

But to be return the pedantry, the Brussels Regulation is about jurisdiction
and not choice of law.

[Francis Davey]

Post by Chris R
But to be return the pedantry, the Brussels Regulation is about jurisdiction
and not choice of law.

Sorry, typo. I meant "Rome I Regulation".

Francis

[Paul Rudin]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by Paul Rudin
Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation. But anyway, we agree that the substance
is applicable.

Being really pedantic (and when am I not?), the Brussels I Regulation
does not of itself apply to choice of law as between England and
Scotland because internal choice of law within a member state with
more than one legal system is expressly excluded by the Regulation,
see Article 22(2).

Is "shall not be required" potentially ambiguous here because arguably
22(1) makes the Regulation applicable in the absence of a specific
contrary choice pursuant to 22(2)?

Post by Francis Davey
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/36/section/2
did apply the Rome Convention to internal conflicts, but that has
changed as a result of regulation 4 of the Law Applicable to
Contractual Obligations (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and regulation 5
of the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (England, Wales and
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/410/regulation/4/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3064/regulation/5/made
Do apply Rome I to internal conflict situations (except insurance contracts -
which we aren't dealing with here).

OK, so we're back with the Regulation being applicable in any case.

Post by Francis Davey
I teach this topic (at Strathclyde University as it happens) and
looking through both the textbooks I recommend to students I can see
that neither gets this right.

What is a good textbook for this sort of thing?

[August West]

Post by Francis Davey
I teach this topic (at Strathclyde University as it happens) and
looking through both the textbooks I recommend to students I can see
that neither gets this right.

Aha. Does those books include Crawford & Carruthers? (I certainly hadn't
picked this point up, despite being taught IPL by Profs Crawford,
Carruthers, & Maher QC).

[Francis Davey]

Post by August West
Aha. Does those books include Crawford & Carruthers? (I certainly hadn't
picked this point up, despite being taught IPL by Profs Crawford,
Carruthers, & Maher QC).

Yes it does, and I think Crawford & Carruthers is probably the best current textbook for students seeking to understand conflict of laws at least in the UK context.

Francis

[August West]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by August West
Aha. Does those books include Crawford & Carruthers? (I certainly hadn't
picked this point up, despite being taught IPL by Profs Crawford,
Carruthers, & Maher QC).

Yes it does, and I think Crawford & Carruthers is probably the best
current textbook for students seeking to understand conflict of laws
at least in the UK context.
From sheer idle curiosity, at what level, and how many credits does it

carry? At Glasgow it's a level 2, 20 credit court, but at Edinburgh just
10. Which I assume still satisfies the Faculty (which is why people do
it, of course, as nobody really does it for fun).

[Francis Davey]

Post by August West

Post by Francis Davey
From sheer idle curiosity, at what level, and how many credits does it

carry? At Glasgow it's a level 2, 20 credit court, but at Edinburgh just
10. Which I assume still satisfies the Faculty (which is why people do
it, of course, as nobody really does it for fun).

Just two topics in a module on e-commerce that forms part of the LLM.

[Chris R]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by August West

Post by Francis Davey
From sheer idle curiosity, at what level, and how many credits does it

carry? At Glasgow it's a level 2, 20 credit court, but at Edinburgh just
10. Which I assume still satisfies the Faculty (which is why people do
it, of course, as nobody really does it for fun).

Just two topics in a module on e-commerce that forms part of the LLM.

When I was at university, conflict of laws was one of the more popular (but
also one of the most challenging) option subjects.

[August West]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by August West

Post by Francis Davey
From sheer idle curiosity, at what level, and how many credits does it

carry? At Glasgow it's a level 2, 20 credit court, but at Edinburgh just
10. Which I assume still satisfies the Faculty (which is why people do
it, of course, as nobody really does it for fun).

Just two topics in a module on e-commerce that forms part of the LLM.

I may well have just applied to do that very LLM...

[August West]

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Not as such. It's the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 that
applies; although it handily incorpotate both Rome I and Lugano 68!

Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation.

But not _within_ contrcating states, as I understand it (as they
expicitly retain competency within their own borders). That's why the
Act was needed.

Post by Paul Rudin
As I mentioned up the thread, timeshares have their own carve out from
the usual rules about in rem property rights. See Art 4 (4)(c) of the
Regulation.

Do you mean 4(1)(d)? (I can't see a 4(4)(c)) Yes, I see that provision
now - but that seem to turn on the Landlord's domicile. Although it also
looks to me that that's meant to cover, for example, holiday lets, and
not necessarily timeshares, per se, as they are periodic rather than
short-term (and summed in perpeturity, amount to a time longer than six
months). Although it's clearly arguable that they do fall under it.

Also, where (27):

"Various exceptions should be made to the general conflict- of-law rule
for consumer contracts. Under one such exception the general rule
should not apply to contracts relating to rights in rem in immovable
property or tenancies of such property unless the contract relates to
the right to use immovable property on a timeshare basis within the
meaning of Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect
of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right
to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (2)."

(2) being OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

Post by Paul Rudin
It's prima facie a consumer timeshare contract. Therefore the habitual
residence of the consumer provide the applicable law by Art 4(1).

I can certainly see your reasoning.

[Paul Rudin]

Post by August West

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Not as such. It's the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 that
applies; although it handily incorpotate both Rome I and Lugano 68!

Belt and braces - Regulations have direct effect whether or not
reflected in local legislation.

But not _within_ contrcating states, as I understand it (as they
expicitly retain competency within their own borders). That's why the
Act was needed.

Post by Paul Rudin
As I mentioned up the thread, timeshares have their own carve out from
the usual rules about in rem property rights. See Art 4 (4)(c) of the
Regulation.

Do you mean 4(1)(d)? (I can't see a 4(4)(c))

My mistake - I mean Art 6 (Consumer contracts), not Art 4. Sorry.

[August West]

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West
Do you mean 4(1)(d)? (I can't see a 4(4)(c))

My mistake - I mean Art 6 (Consumer contracts), not Art 4. Sorry.

Got it. thanks.
Odd, a search for "timeshare" didn't bring up that paragraph.

[Percy Picacity]

Post by Paul Rudin

Post by August West

Post by Judith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Zapp Brannigan
I don't believe that's enforceable in English law, BICBW.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of (a previous thread here,
perhaps?), it was a Spanish property.

No - it was in Scotland

One would obviously have to see the deed creating the obligation, but I
can't think of any way of creating an obligation that passes through
inheritance and binds the unwilling in Scots law.
And considering Scots law's antipathy to perpetual trusts & entails (and
recently, even long leases), it seems unlikely a "perpetual contract"
would be countenanced.
Definitely something to have looked over by a lawyer skilled in Scots
private law, anyway.

The Rome I Regulation applies to choice of laws as between England and
Scotland just as much as it does between (say) England and Spain. On the
facts were have here, from my (admittedly superficial) understanding of
this area of the law it's likely that any dispute would be governed by
English law if the individual(s) who bought the timeshare is habitually
resident in England, notwithstanding that the timeshare property is
located in Scotland. (And this is a different question from which
court(s) have jurisdiction.)
Of course if everyone involved and the property are all in Scotland,
then Scots law would apply.
There is a question about whether we're talking about a contractual
matter or a inheritance matter since Rome I is about contracts. But
surely the first question is whether the timeshare contract is
enforceable against anyone other that the original parties, which is
surely the law of contract?

As a non-lawyer I have been reading this thread with increasing
mystification. Is there some sort of financial obligation that can be
incurred by contract but then run with the property regardless of
contract, like some covenants and easements do?

[Robin]

Post by Percy Picacity
As a non-lawyer I have been reading this thread with increasing
mystification. Is there some sort of financial obligation that can be
incurred by contract but then run with the property regardless of
contract, like some covenants and easements do?

The people who sold the timeshare contracts could afford some quite
savvy lawyers to (try to) create hereditable property with liabilities
attached in the form of annual fees. That means (as I said upthread)
there's rarely an easy escape route, even on death. An individual
beneficiary can disclaim but that does not take it out of the estate;
and the the administrators of the estate may then feel they cannot
distribute other property for risk they end up personally liable for the
fees.

Ministers last year asked OFT to investigate so there should be
something later this year. In the meantime anyone who has a legal
solution to the problem could earn fame and fortune among the many stuck
with such timeshares. (FTAOD I am not one of them!)

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Robin

Post by Percy Picacity
As a non-lawyer I have been reading this thread with increasing
mystification. Is there some sort of financial obligation that can be
incurred by contract but then run with the property regardless of
contract, like some covenants and easements do?

The people who sold the timeshare contracts could afford some quite
savvy lawyers to (try to) create hereditable property with liabilities
attached in the form of annual fees. That means (as I said upthread)
there's rarely an easy escape route, even on death. An individual
beneficiary can disclaim but that does not take it out of the estate;
and the the administrators of the estate may then feel they cannot
distribute other property for risk they end up personally liable for the
fees.
Ministers last year asked OFT to investigate so there should be
something later this year. In the meantime anyone who has a legal
solution to the problem could earn fame and fortune among the many stuck
with such timeshares. (FTAOD I am not one of them!)

FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.

There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling them
they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts) which
could be collected when the recipient turned up for a "presentation" at
an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit the bin. IIRC
Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and revealed it to be a
high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people being intimidated into
signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the doors and refused to let
people go until they had signed.

Of course by going to their offices, people lost protection of a cooling-
off period.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling them
they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts) which
could be collected when the recipient turned up for a "presentation" at
an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit the bin. IIRC
Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and revealed it to be a
high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people being intimidated into
signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the doors and refused to let
people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

[Sara Merriman]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling them
they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts) which
could be collected when the recipient turned up for a "presentation" at
an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit the bin. IIRC
Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and revealed it to be a
high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people being intimidated into
signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the doors and refused to let
people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

There were quite a few such outfits, and I remember it being very
common knowledge at the time.

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift? Was it in the
small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone ever try to
sue for the free gift?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling
them they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts)
which could be collected when the recipient turned up for a
"presentation" at an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit
the bin. IIRC Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and
revealed it to be a high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people
being intimidated into signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the
doors and refused to let people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

There were quite a few such outfits, and I remember it being very common
knowledge at the time.

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift? Was it in the
small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone ever try to
sue for the free gift?

IIRC the TV reporter was given a pen. The glossy letter you got said you
had won a prize from a selection - with a picture of a car.

My view of life is there really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Therefore things like this (and the subsequent 419 scams) just hit the
bin. I think the chances of me losing out on a fortune as a result of
this behaviour are far smaller than the chances of being swindled as a
result of responding. Clearly there are enough people not like me to make
these scams continually profitable.

One of the marks the TV programme interviewed was a retired Detective
Inspector. Which may explain a few things.

[Sara Merriman]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling
them they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts)
which could be collected when the recipient turned up for a
"presentation" at an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit
the bin. IIRC Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and
revealed it to be a high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people
being intimidated into signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the
doors and refused to let people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

There were quite a few such outfits, and I remember it being very common
knowledge at the time.

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift? Was it in the
small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone ever try to
sue for the free gift?

IIRC the TV reporter was given a pen. The glossy letter you got said you
had won a prize from a selection - with a picture of a car.

So he did leave with a prize from the selection - albeit a rather
paltry one - without having to sign up? or did he only get the pen
after he'd signed?

Did anyone *ever* get the car, even if they did sign up?

Post by Jethro_uk
My view of life is there really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Therefore things like this (and the subsequent 419 scams) just hit the
bin. I think the chances of me losing out on a fortune as a result of
this behaviour are far smaller than the chances of being swindled as a
result of responding. Clearly there are enough people not like me to make
these scams continually profitable.

Indeed. Sad isn't it?

Post by Jethro_uk
One of the marks the TV programme interviewed was a retired Detective
Inspector. Which may explain a few things.

Eh?

[Roland Perry]

In message <140520141454039210%***@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
14:54:03 on Wed, 14 May 2014, Sara Merriman

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift?

I didn't get the free gift. I made my excuses and left. iirc the main
weapon they were using was shaming people who wanted to leave by
accusing them loudly of being too poor to be able to afford even their
'bargain rate' offer.

Post by Sara Merriman
Was it in the small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone
ever try to sue for the free gift?

Don't know. I was sort of tempted, but as it was in Spain I doubt I'd
have succeeded.

[Wm]

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling them
they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts) which
could be collected when the recipient turned up for a "presentation" at
an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit the bin. IIRC
Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and revealed it to be a
high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people being intimidated into
signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the doors and refused to let
people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

There were quite a few such outfits, and I remember it being very
common knowledge at the time.

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift? Was it in the
small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone ever try to
sue for the free gift?

I subscribed to Which? magazine back in the day. It was an
entertainment to see if you could actually get a free lunch or a gift at
the time. I managed more than one lunch before they caught on.

Here is the fun bit.

When recalling this experience to Norwegian friends and relatives [1] at
the time they looked at me askance. Their timeshare experience was
completely different.

A young couple would be aided by their family in obtaining a timeshare
or be given one by caring parents. If children appeared they'd trade
for something better suited to young children and so on through to
teenagers and when the teenagers became adults and formed relationships
the gift was made.

At some point someone got the idea of fleecing people and UK people were
dumb enough to buy the idea. Timeshare's of themselves aren't bad, some
people that bought them may be fools.

[1] me waves if you have Norwegian family or friends too as it is Norway day

[tim.....]

Post by Sara Merriman

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jethro_uk
FWIW, I have always thought timeshares were snake oil.
There used to be an outfit in the 90s who would mail people telling them
they had won a prize (mentioning cars, and large cash amounts) which
could be collected when the recipient turned up for a "presentation" at
an office in Leicester Square. I had many, which hit the bin. IIRC
Watchdog (or a similar program) went undercover and revealed it to be a
high-pressure timeshare sales pitch, with people being intimidated into
signing up. The salesmen effectively locked the doors and refused to let
people go until they had signed.

I thought this was common knowledge.

There were quite a few such outfits, and I remember it being very
common knowledge at the time.

Post by Roland Perry
Went to such a presentation once, fully understanding the plot, and it
was indeed impossible to leave with the "free gift" (in my case I think
it was a voucher for a free weekend away at some resort, which I had no
intention of claiming) without actually signing anything first. But I
got a "free lunch" and a little more insight into the dark side of life.

JOOI, how did they stop you leaving with the free gift? Was it in the
small print somewhere that you had to sign up? Did anyone ever try to
sue for the free gift?

I subscribed to Which? magazine back in the day. It was an entertainment
to see if you could actually get a free lunch or a gift at the time. I
managed more than one lunch before they caught on.
Here is the fun bit.
When recalling this experience to Norwegian friends and relatives [1] at
the time they looked at me askance. Their timeshare experience was
completely different.
A young couple would be aided by their family in obtaining a timeshare or
be given one by caring parents. If children appeared they'd trade for
something better suited to young children and so on through to teenagers
and when the teenagers became adults and formed relationships the gift was
made.
At some point someone got the idea of fleecing people and UK people were
dumb enough to buy the idea. Timeshare's of themselves aren't bad, some
people that bought them may be fools.

too right

Tis a shame that what could be a perfectly reasonable way of acquiring the
weekly rental rights to a property morphed into a scam

tim

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Post by tim.....

Post by Wm
At some point someone got the idea of fleecing people and UK
people were dumb enough to buy the idea. Timeshare's of
themselves aren't bad, some people that bought them may be
fools.

too right
Tis a shame that what could be a perfectly reasonable way of
acquiring the weekly rental rights to a property morphed into a
scam

I was in Puerta Vallarta Mexico some time ago, and everywhere I
turned someone was trying to sell me a timeshare. Someone tried to
sell me one when I arrived at the airport. Someone at my hotel
tried to sell me another one. I went to a grocery and asked a
clerk for help finding something, and he tried to sell me one. I
spoke with his manager, and the manager tried to sell me yet
another one. I took a day tour, and the tour operated tried to
sell me yet another one!

I guess there must be a lot of profit in the retail sale of
timeshares.

[BartC]

Post by tim.....

Post by Wm
At some point someone got the idea of fleecing people and UK people were
dumb enough to buy the idea. Timeshare's of themselves aren't bad, some
people that bought them may be fools.

too right
Tis a shame that what could be a perfectly reasonable way of acquiring the
weekly rental rights to a property morphed into a scam

It's sounds completely unreasonable to me and totally impractical.

So you purchase, say, a one-week timeshare, which starts at exactly the same
date every year. This might conveniently be on a Saturday when you buy, but
a few years later it will be the middle of the week.

How practical will it be to take time off from exactly the same day each
year (it won't match half-term dates for example), and to be able to get the
best flights at exactly the same dates too?

Or even if you have the inclination to go to exactly the same place every
single year.

There are supposed to be schemes where you exchange weeks with other people,
but this is not guaranteed, it might cost extra money, and is lot of extra
hassle.

Far easier to save your money and have total freedom of when you travel, for
how long, how frequently and where you go, without hefty services charges
each year.

[Roland Perry]

Post by BartC
So you purchase, say, a one-week timeshare, which starts at exactly the
same date every year. This might conveniently be on a Saturday when
you buy, but a few years later it will be the middle of the week.

I wouldn't expect then to work like that. By the week rather than date,
for example.

Post by BartC
How practical will it be to take time off from exactly the same day
each year (it won't match half-term dates for example),

Perhaps some buyers don't have children at school.

Post by BartC
and to be able to get the best flights at exactly the same dates too?

They aren't all overseas.

[Clive George]

Post by BartC

Post by tim.....

Post by Wm
At some point someone got the idea of fleecing people and UK people
were dumb enough to buy the idea. Timeshare's of themselves aren't
bad, some people that bought them may be fools.

too right
Tis a shame that what could be a perfectly reasonable way of acquiring
the weekly rental rights to a property morphed into a scam

It's sounds completely unreasonable to me and totally impractical.
So you purchase, say, a one-week timeshare, which starts at exactly the
same date every year. This might conveniently be on a Saturday when you
buy, but a few years later it will be the middle of the week.

While I agree with your general gist, I'd be surprised if they made that
mistake. It would be week X of the year, where X = 1 to 52.

Googling confirmed this :

http://www.clublasanta-timeshare.co.uk/buying/timeshare-calendar-and-exchanging-weeks/

for example.

Post by BartC
Far easier to save your money and have total freedom of when you travel,
for how long, how frequently and where you go, without hefty services
charges each year.

Having seen the service charges people are talking about, don't they end
up more expensive than just renting an apartment? Or are apartment rents
generally from people trying to recover a small amount of money from
timeshare purchases?

(service fee for 1 bed apartment in the above example, which is for a
week in addition to your initial payment is 525 quid. Boggle.)

[Chris R]

Post by Percy Picacity
As a non-lawyer I have been reading this thread with increasing
mystification. Is there some sort of financial obligation that can be
incurred by contract but then run with the property regardless of
contract, like some covenants and easements do?

Rent, for instance.

[Peter Crosland]

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where they
paid (I think £8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some sort.
They went for their set week for a couple of years - and then her husband fell
ill - and eventually died. The timeshare was the last thing on her mind.
Then she found that the annual "management fees" were going up year by year -
and she contacted the company to try and cancel the contract.
She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in perpetuity". ie
the contract had now passed to her - and she could not get out of it. Even to
the degree that when she died the timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and
they in term would be "lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated
management fees - until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids -
for ever and ever.
The programme said that there was now an agreement with a "Timeshare Operators
Organisation" (of some sorts) - and people in these in perpetuity contracts
would be able to now buy themselves out.
The bad news was that the firm that the lady had the contract with was not part
of this body - and there was uncertainty as to whether the company she had her
contract with would release her from it.
As it said at the end of the clip: the moral is - read the small print before
you sign a contract.
I must admit I did not know that "perpetuity" contracts even existed.
I can see that some would think it meant for the rest of your life: without
being aware that it would then be passed on to future generations of your
family.

AFAIK such a contract is not enforceable under UK law as far as the
descendants are concerned.

[Chris R]

Post by Peter Crosland

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where they
paid (I think £8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some sort.
I must admit I did not know that "perpetuity" contracts even existed.
I can see that some would think it meant for the rest of your life: without
being aware that it would then be passed on to future generations of your
family.

AFAIK such a contract is not enforceable under UK law as far as the
descendants are concerned.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that in English law. You can disclaim
a gift, but you would need to know that the property was onerous in time not
to accept it. And you can't disclaim part of a gift, so you might have to
disclaim the whole of your inheritance in order to avoid taking on an
onerous property, if that's what it is (in local law). Otherwise you might
have to put the whole estate into bankruptcy in order to avoid the
obligation.

I agree that it's much simpler if it's just a contractual arrangement, as a
contract cannot of itself bind a beneficiary.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Chris R

Post by Peter Crosland

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where
they
paid (I think ￜ8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at
a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some
sort.
I must admit I did not know that "perpetuity" contracts even existed.
without
being aware that it would then be passed on to future generations of
your
family.

AFAIK such a contract is not enforceable under UK law as far as the
descendants are concerned.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that in English law. You can disclaim
a gift, but you would need to know that the property was onerous in time not
to accept it. And you can't disclaim part of a gift, so you might have to
disclaim the whole of your inheritance in order to avoid taking on an
onerous property, if that's what it is (in local law). Otherwise you might
have to put the whole estate into bankruptcy in order to avoid the
obligation.

You could bequeath it to someone who has no money and is willing to go bankrupt.

[Graeme]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Judith
<***@hotmail.co.uk> writes

<timeshares>

Not an answer to your question, but perhaps a resolution. Timeshare
weeks are regularly traded, in that the contract is freely saleable to a
third party. Doubtless someone who needed rather than wanted to sell
would probably receive less than originally paid, but at least the
annual management fee goes with the contract.

Just Google timeshare sale.

[tim.....]

Post by Graeme
<timeshares>
Not an answer to your question, but perhaps a resolution. Timeshare weeks
are regularly traded, in that the contract is freely saleable to a third
party. Doubtless someone who needed rather than wanted to sell would
probably receive less than originally paid, but at least the annual
management fee goes with the contract.
Just Google timeshare sale.

and you will be inundated with fake agents pretending that they can sell
your TS for an up front fee

Whilst it is true to say that they can be traded, it is completely untrue to
suggest that this is anything but a buyer's market with about 1 genuine
buyer for every 1000 sellers. A potential seller is very lucky indeed to
sell his particular property in these circumstances,. I have even witnessed
TS go to auction will NIL reserve and still not sell.

tim

[Judith]

Post by tim.....

Post by Graeme
<timeshares>
Not an answer to your question, but perhaps a resolution. Timeshare weeks
are regularly traded, in that the contract is freely saleable to a third
party. Doubtless someone who needed rather than wanted to sell would
probably receive less than originally paid, but at least the annual
management fee goes with the contract.
Just Google timeshare sale.

and you will be inundated with fake agents pretending that they can sell
your TS for an up front fee
Whilst it is true to say that they can be traded, it is completely untrue to
suggest that this is anything but a buyer's market with about 1 genuine
buyer for every 1000 sellers. A potential seller is very lucky indeed to
sell his particular property in these circumstances,. I have even witnessed
TS go to auction will NIL reserve and still not sell.
tim

Perhaps it is because of potential problems with "perpetuity" contracts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inheriting a timeshare

In most instances timeshare agreements are 'in perpetuity' so unless they are
sold in the lifetime of the holder, they will form part of their estate and
will be inherited by the beneficiaries of the estate.

Even if the beneficiaries do not want the timeshare, they will still be liable
for paying the yearly maintenance costs.

To avoid this scenario you need to look in the agreement again.

There may be a clause which requires the company to buy back the timeshare in
the event that the original owner dies.

Rejection

If there is no such clause then the beneficiaries are entitled to reject the
inheritance of the timeshare.

This means that the timeshare and the liability for the maintenance fees
remains with the estate - so if you are a beneficiary and executor, rejecting
the gift does not put you in any better position.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Graeme]

Post by tim.....
Whilst it is true to say that they can be traded, it is completely
untrue to suggest that this is anything but a buyer's market with about
1 genuine buyer for every 1000 sellers. A potential seller is very
lucky indeed to sell his particular property in these circumstances,. I
have even witnessed TS go to auction will NIL reserve and still not sell.

But not all of them. Depends when and where the weeks are. Some are
extremely popular - there is a timeshare property a mile away from here
with an extremely active trade.

[tim.....]

Post by Graeme

Post by tim.....
Whilst it is true to say that they can be traded, it is completely untrue
to suggest that this is anything but a buyer's market with about 1 genuine
buyer for every 1000 sellers. A potential seller is very lucky indeed to
sell his particular property in these circumstances,. I have even
witnessed TS go to auction will NIL reserve and still not sell.

But not all of them. Depends when and where the weeks are. Some are
extremely popular - there is a timeshare property a mile away from here
with an extremely active trade.

so that's the 0.1% that I said existed

tim

[steve robinson]

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group
where they paid (I think ￜ8,000) and they would be able to take a
specific week at a hotel literally for ever. They had to pay an
annual "management fee" of some sort.
They went for their set week for a couple of years - and then her
husband fell ill - and eventually died. The timeshare was the last
thing on her mind.
Then she found that the annual "management fees" were going up year
by year - and she contacted the company to try and cancel the
contract.
She then found that her husband had signed the contract "in
perpetuity". ie the contract had now passed to her - and she could
not get out of it. Even to the degree that when she died the
timeshare would pass to her next of kin - and they in term would be
"lumbered" with the timeshare and the associated management fees -
until they themselves died - and it passed to their kids - for ever
and ever.
The programme said that there was now an agreement with a "Timeshare
Operators Organisation" (of some sorts) - and people in these in
perpetuity contracts would be able to now buy themselves out.
The bad news was that the firm that the lady had the contract with
was not part of this body - and there was uncertainty as to whether
the company she had her contract with would release her from it.
As it said at the end of the clip: the moral is - read the small
print before you sign a contract.
I must admit I did not know that "perpetuity" contracts even existed.
without being aware that it would then be passed on to future
generations of your family.
Food for thought.

Cant see such a contract being enforceable

--

[RobertL]

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where they
paid (I think ￜ8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some sort.
They went for their set week for a couple of years - and then her husband fell
ill - and eventually died. The timeshare was the last thing on her mind.
Then she found that the annual "management fees" were going up year by year -
and she contacted the company to try and cancel the contract.

how about this: arrange things so that the estate is bankrupt when the widow dies. i.e. during her lifetime she gifts her assets to her children and retains only the time-share. in her will she leaves her estate (the time share) to someone or an organisation she dislikes.

HMRC can claim back the inheritance tax (if the gifts were made during the last 7 years) from the people who received the gifts.

AIUI a bankrupt estate leaves the creditors with nowhere to claim their money from.

[Chris R]

Post by RobertL

Post by Judith
A lady and her husband had "bought" a timeshare with a hotel group where they
paid (I think ￜ8,000) and they would be able to take a specific week at a hotel
literally for ever. They had to pay an annual "management fee" of some sort.
They went for their set week for a couple of years - and then her husband fell
ill - and eventually died. The timeshare was the last thing on her mind.
Then she found that the annual "management fees" were going up year by year -
and she contacted the company to try and cancel the contract.

how about this: arrange things so that the estate is bankrupt when the
widow dies. i.e. during her lifetime she gifts her assets to her
children and retains only the time-share. in her will she leaves her
estate (the time share) to someone or an organisation she dislikes.
HMRC can claim back the inheritance tax (if the gifts were made during the
last 7 years) from the people who received the gifts.
AIUI a bankrupt estate leaves the creditors with nowhere to claim their money from.

And the trustee claims back all gifts made in the five years before death,
or longer if made with the intention of defrauding creditors.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[BartC]

Post by Judith
As it said at the end of the clip: the moral is - read the small print before
you sign a contract.

In the case of a timeshare, you don't need to bother with the small print.
Just tear it up.

Timeshares are just an extremely bad idea, even without the problems of
passing on the liabilities when you die.