WolfgangMaerz
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks, but no more information than we know already.
I hope for all who have demanded maintenance fee back that the high court simply ignores this (including hotel cost) and that it does not go up to the Supreme Court.
Wolfgang
@Julie “… the dismissal of claims for maintenance fees, have been decisions made by the Supreme Court in Madrid, not the local Courts on GC”. That is right.
The claims for maintenance fees stem from an earlier Supreme Court judgement that if a contract is null & void all monies and goods have to be exchanged back in a way as if the contract never existed. The interpretation including maintenance fee led to ‘free holiday at Anfi’ and is one of the reasons Anfi wants hotel costs back to compensate that.
At November 2017 there was a Supreme Court judgement against Silverpoint where the pay back of maintenance fee was dismissed.
Unfortunately Richard does not comment on this even he is aware of the Facebook post in two groups which gives a bad impression.
Some thought more: the clubs are aging and the refurbishment order is Beach, Puerto, Monte, Gran according to the date of building of the clubs. Up to now Beach and Puerto have had a total refurbishment (decoration, furniture, …) and Monte will follow.
That means after building the club there is a period of saving money in the replacement fund till it is spend …
It should be tested at court if after the change of constitution successful claims can be made. One argument to win the case is that only a majority of voters and not a majority of owners have changed the constitution (see timeshare law).
If Anfi Sales rents out their unsold weeks to RCI the floating system cannot work anymore for the benefit of the members.
Or in other words:
The balance sheet shoes the financial figures only at 31th December. At that date the monies which go into the replacement fund and the advance payment of owners (payed maintenance fee till 31th December for the next year) is on Anfi Sales and Anfi Resort bank accounts. The total are the debitors.
If all owners would pay in advance the sum would be the maintenance fee and what goes into the replacement fund.
If no owner would pay in advance the sum would only be what goes into the replacement fund.
This means the debitors can not be set into relation to the state of maintenance. Futher more if monies are on Anfi bank accounts or on club accounts makes no difference with the exception of may be greater security in case of bankruptcy.
So the payed maintenance fee (for operation, repair and service) and the part that goes into the replacement fund are the relevant financial figures over the years, not the debitors (loaned money to Anfi companies).
The financial analyses of Monte in Facebook group Anfi del Mar is wrong because it constructs a relationship of increasing loaned monies (debitors) to Anfi Sales and Anfi Resorts with bad maintenance of the club. This guy seems not to be familiar balance sheets.
The net assets (debitors minus advance payments of owners (creditors)) are the available monies for the replacement fund and not the debitors. So the debitors figures alone give a false impression.
The said bad maintenance of the club should be commented by the Monte commitee members.
On the other hand it is true that the accounts of said Anfi companies are not a save place.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
I had posted the letter in this forum shortly after it was issued. The letter explains itself.
The key rational behind it is that the timeshare resorts had after the law coming into force (6th january 1999) two years time to adopt the timeshare regime to the law. The judge decided that within that time (and before) contracts with unlimited duration where legal.
I have met an Anfi member who made a claim against Anfi without demanding the maintenance fee back. Anfi lost the case and nevertheless appealed demanding much higher hotel cost back. This forced him to demand the maintenance cost back at second instance.
Message from Jose Luis Trujillo, January 25th 2018:
Dear Member,
Further to previous communications regarding the current situation with existing court cases, we would like to inform you about quite a few cases of claims being dismissed by the Courts of San Bartolomé de Tirajana which resulted in certain Anfi Members being charged with the correspondent Legal Fees.The cases we bring to your attention refer to contracts signed between January 1999 – January 2001. Those Anfi members were claiming back:
a) Deposits
b) Contract to be declared null & void
c) Refund of Annual Maintenance Fees paid by these Members to dateIn these specific cases, the Legislator gave Resorts and Developers a margin of 2 years from the Law’s date of issue to adapt their pre-existing regimens into the new legislation. This is what Anfi has done. Therefore Judges have clearly seen that the cases we refer to are within this 2-year adaptation window and therefore dismissed Anfi Member’s claims.
We are totally aware that unfortunately alleged “Legal Firms” do not offer their potential customers all the information in order for them to make a balanced decision, thus embarking in a legal battle without knowing the Law or consideration for the
different scenarios.We understand that the court issues are quite complicated and technical. Therefore we reiterate our invitation to all our Members, who might still have questions and/or are concerned about their personal situation, to come and meet us for further
assistance/clarification:Customer Services Department –
Tel: (+34) 928 152 990 *
Email: customerservice@anfi.esWe do appreciate and are thankful for your loyalty to Anfi and reiterate our commitment to keep providing you and your family with great holidays in Anfi for many years to come.
We will keep you updated on this.With kind regards,
Jose Luis Trujillo
I am not so sure about the further court procedings.
In one case the plaintiff should get 35,000 € back and Anfi appealed with a counter action demanding 64,000 € back. The argument is that hotel fees (short time product) are much higher than maintenance fees (long time product). There is much to say about this argument but I keep it short here.
Anfi says that this argument has up to now not been decided by the Supreme Court and there may be the possibility that it goes up.
Here http://timeshare-talk.info/faq-frequently-asked-questions/ is a questionary of the claims issue. It’s not so specific about claims and deals more with the ‘political’ issue. Maybe an add on of Julie’s guide.
Wolfgang
Hi Angus,
She got only back the by the formular reduced purchase price (with maintenance fee) even so the claim demanded to get the double purchase price back. All payment documents where within the three month periode. Two weeks where taken as deposit for purchasing three weeks which means payment at the day of signing the new contract.
As said, JLCA will appeal to the judgement.
Wolfgang
I heard from a JLCA client who had the trial at first instance number 3 in November 2017. The contract was declared null and void and Anfi has to pay back the purchase price (reduced by the formula taking into account the years used) and the maintenance fee. But not double the purchase price for whatever reason (missing payment documents?).
That may mean that only prefered weeks count.
Julie, thanks for informing us and keep us up to date.
Wolfgang
I am in contact with John Meykel (club ‘Anfi del Mar friends’) to promote the app in his Facebook group Anfi del Mar (6,000 + members).
Next will be an Apple iOS version of the app.
Wolfgang
Steve Jobs would say “There is one thing more, online booking”.
But Anfi would never allow this even this would be possible from the technological point of view.
Wolfgang
Management of putted adverts.
Request of guest certificate (only upper part is shown in the scroll view)
Email to Anfi CS.
Timeshare calendar.
Timeshare calendar with number of advertised weeks. Click on week number shows the adverts.
In the overview new adverts since the last opening of the app will be marked with calour.
Please note that no private information is shown in the advert! Nevertheless the owner can be contacted by click with a system message and you get a response back from the owner by mail. So full privacy is granted.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by
Because the app is now full working as an prototype on my smartphone here an update.
Wolfgang
The app is developed by me and will be found in the Google ‘Play Store’ spring next year. It already works well as prototype but needs further testing and improvement.
The reason I publish this project here is to get response if it is helpful and if the features satisfy the needs. The aim is to replace the (successful) Facebook group ‘Anfi Rentals & Resales’ with a far better solution. That is also the reason to allow advertising without fee.
Regards, Wolfgang
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
