Memorandum by Shakespeare Classic Line
Ltd
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. SCOPE AND
DEFINITIONS
We believe that any changes in legislation should
only apply to products bought outside the country of residence.
5. NATIONAL PROVISIONS
We agree that written information should be
provided to the consumer.
6. We repeat that we believe that there
should be a strong industry association.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. There is no problem for consumers making
advance payments in the resale market so long as the consumer
has not been cold called.
11. REDRESS
Once again we point to the OTE as the best method
for out of court redress.
12. 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.
13. As already stated, we believe that the
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive makes the need for any European
timeshare legislation null and void.
14. 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
| 
