ECC - Our Story - Spring 2018

Welcome to ECC’s spring e-zine.

We hope you enjoy reading and should you have any queries or comments relating to any of the news stories please contact us at

Our latest victories

Our legal partners at M1 Legal have already had a number of great successes in the courts this year! Here is an overview of some of their biggest wins on behalf of ECC clients:


Our legal partners at M1 Legal’s most recent court hearing was against Club La Costa. The Judge ruled in favour of our client and declared their contract null and void and Club La Costa was also ordered to pay our client £19,674 plus legal interest.


We started 2018 by claiming back over £55,404 on behalf of three sets of very happy clients who were former timeshare owners with Madeira Regency Palace.


Another Royal Park Albatros contract has been declared null and void for one of our clients! The judge also ruled that the resort pay the client £6,765 plus the legal interest since the contract was signed in 1999.


So far this year we have claimed back £13,700 for three sets of ex Salina Wharf owners.

And while we are talking about recent victories, please let us also bring you up-to-date with other successes and future victories:

To discuss your timeshare contract, please contact one of our expert advisors today on telephone: 0203 6704616

Interested to know the legality
of your timeshare contract?

Let our new Viability Report analyse and reveal the legal status of your timeshare contract!

Each timeshare contract is different and the options available to you as a timeshare owner will often depend on the legal position of your specific timeshare contract.

Before you decide what to do about your timeshare contract, it is recommended that you get an opinion from a qualified lawyer on its legal position, so you can make an informed decision on how best to proceed.

ECC have retained a specialist firm of timeshare lawyers, M1 Legal, on an exclusive basis to assist hundreds of our clients process claims through the Spanish courts.

A Viability Report will disclose the following information:


Order online now from the comfort of your own home by simply completing 4 easy steps. Your personalised report will be delivered within 7 working days. Register now at:

Facts not fiction

Over the past couple of weeks we have been contacted and informed by a number of our clients about libellous communications from CLC about ECC.

One communication entitled ‘Reality Check’ had been posted on CLC members’ websites where they made a ludicrous claim that our legal partners at M1 Legal are not lawyers.

As can be seen from the website (, M1 Legal are very clearly a legitimate firm of lawyers, each individual lawyer being registered with Colegio de Abogados de Málaga (Bar Association of Málaga). Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the lawyers of M1 Legal have been, and currently are, representing ECC clients in the Spanish courts, which obviously contradicts the statement made by CLC World that M1 Legal is NOT a firm of lawyers.

In other communications which were emailed to our clients, they allege that we ‘falsely claim’ that we have been successful in the courts. Again, this is simply untrue.

Having said all that though, it is not surprising really that an organisation which has been found guilty in the courts for making untrue and misleading statements to its members, is obviously going to use similar tactics to damage its opposition.

With this in mind, please be reminded of M1 Legal’s most recent court victories on behalf of ECC clients, in Spanish Courts, against Club La Costa:

We understand that this irresponsible communication from Club La Costa may have been unsettling and worrying for many of you that have entrusted us to assist with your cases/claims.

Please do not be alarmed by these malicious and irresponsible rumours and feel free to contact us on 0800 6101 512 should you have any further concerns. For the avoidance of doubt we have instructed our media lawyers in London to respond to this communication by CLC and take action against them, if that is deemed necessary.

Who’s who in the timeshare industry

We often hear back from clients concerned about information supplied to them by the RDO or Kwikchex (funded by the RDO). These organisations certainly position themselves as industry regulators but who exactly are behind these organisations?

The RDO describes itself on its website as “the trade association for vacation ownership across Europe, encompassing a number of usage types including timeshare, fractional interests, private residence clubs, condo hotels, destination clubs etc, all aimed at providing holidaymakers with quality holiday accommodation through various concepts of use.

Yet, interestingly, the RDO does not regulate the industry and does not say that it does. There is no legal requirement for resorts to be members. It does not perform a role similar to OFCOM, for instance.

Out of roughly 1,200 timeshare resorts in Europe, the RDO consists of less than 8%. That alone disentitles it to speak, on behalf of the industry.

A quick review of the RDO members reveals a list of some of Europe’s largest timeshare resorts developers and operators who as well as being members contributed to the formation and funding of the organization.

The resorts which are members of the RDO tend to be some of the problematic resorts which attract complaints from those who own timeshares. The RDO’s leadership is connected to some of these resorts.

The Chairman of the RDO is Mrs. Susan Crook.  She is named on the RDO website. She is also the director of legal services and European General Counsel for Diamond Resorts European Collection, which is owned by Diamond Resorts International (‘DRI’), and is a company the RDO purports to regulate. This conflict of interest is not revealed on the RDO website.

DRI is a company which sells FNTC timeshare contracts. It was denounced in The New York Times on 22 January 2016 in an article entitled, The Timeshare Hard Sell Comes Roaring Back for its strong-arm tactics. It paid $800,000 to resolve allegations of Consumer Fraud Act violations following an investigation by the US state of Arizona into ‘hundreds of consumer complaints.’  It agreed to a number of changes to its business practices. There is an ongoing $1 billion law suit against DRI in Nevada filed by Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright. The lead plaintiffs are Ilona and Lester Harding. There is no evidence that the RDO has ever taken action against DRI. It is not clear how that would in fact happen. Would Mrs Crook as chairman of the RDO write to Mrs Crook as legal counsel for DRI?

The RDO’s Communications Council is headed by Mr. Robin Mills, who also appears to be a member of the RDO in a personal capacity which does not suggest any independence. He is the directing mind of “Aroma Spice” the UK arm of Flexi Club, South Africa’s largest holiday club. Flexi Club is another one of the unscrupulous parts of the industry. Its contracts, our client believes, were drafted by FNTC and, like DRI, it has been investigated by the National Consumer Commissioner in South Africa. This government agency has publicly asserted that the contracts are a “scam” and are pursuing Flexi Club through the courts.

The RDO Legislative Council is led by Eugene Miskelly who is the Director of Club La Costa. Club La Costa (or CLC Worlds Resorts and Hotels) is a member of the RDO, which again, does not indicate independence. Club La Costa is another timeshare developer using FNTC contacts. It has lost various cases across the world and, at present, it faces a group action whereby its relationship with a linked financial arrangement, has been deemed contrary to section 140a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Furthermore, Kwikchex describes itself as a company which detects fraud. However, as it is another company funded by the RDO, it is important therefore to question why such a company has interest with an industry that shackles, perhaps through mis-selling, members of the public to onerous and expensive contracts until they die, and that model has seen a sea of consumer dissatisfaction with it. In addition, it is intriguing that the Director, Chris Emmins, has resigned from 4 companies and held 17 appointments at 17 dissolved companies and has allegedly left the creditors with a debt of around £500,000.

Given how the RDO and Kwikchex are positioning themselves as respected industry bodies has anyone questioned why they have never mentioned even one of the many successful consumer claims against their members?

As always when being presented with information it is important to understand the source of the information and what commercial interests (direct or indirect) may be behind the supply of this information!