header-logo header-logo

01 February 2018 / David Partington
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

When timeshares turn to nightmares

nlj_7779_partington

Timeshare contracts can trap the unawares into lengthy commitments. David Partington presents some innovative means of escape

  • Raises potential ways to tackle timeshare contracts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  • Introduces the idea of proceeding against lenders who finance such contracts under s 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

This is a brief introduction to what is a hugely complex topic, defending liability or seeking redress in respect of timeshare contracts. Before I do that, I need to explain two matters. One is the central ‘mischief’ of timeshare contracts. The second is the structure of such contracts.

The central mischief is that clients find themselves bound to very long contractual obligations with no express ‘exit’ provisions, although there are various policies which some companies say they operate in cases of extreme hardship, old age (say 75 years) or death. At the same time the client is bound to pay an annual management fee in the nature of a service charge, whether or not they are able to access the scheme,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll