If you have been following our articles on Barclays Partner Finance, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service regarding loan agreements for timeshare purchases, it is clear there is something seriously wrong. This is especially true for loan agreements brokered by Silverpoint sales staff for their very dubious product, a product that we all know is a fraud.
AIT has followed the case of one reader & her Husband who has had so many years of frustration dealing with Silverpoint, the Spanish legal system and to cap it all, years of fighting with BPF, FCA & FOS. Their fight is not over yet, the biggest stumbling point is the loan agreements.
The legal process is virtually complete with all contracts being declared null and void by the Spanish Courts. We now have to wait for the liquidation process to run its course, which is now in the hands of the Mercantile Court and the Appointed Administrator. We won’t hold our breath for any news on this front for a long time to come.
The biggest hurdle has been the loan agreements with Barclays Partner Finance, which were brokered by Silverpoint sales staff in order to “close the sale”. No finance, no sale.
There are two loan agreements, each for Silverpoint products and taken out within 12 days of each other, the first for over £24,000, (forget the interest to be added), is in the Wife’s name and was agreed on 4 June 2007.
The second was for over £25,000 again not including interest, this was in the Husbands name and was agreed on 16 June 2007.
We do hear you ask, why the two loans and different dates?
According to the recollection of our couple, the timeshare sales staff never put anything in writing, and were told that it would be very difficult to get the finance on the full “investment package” which included “Club Paradiso”. Well, we are looking at a loan of over £50,000 with only one name on the agreement. Unlike the “timeshare” these loans only have one of the purchaser’s signatures and names.
The first purchase consisted of a 1-week studio apartment at Beverly Hills Club and an “Island” (probably a studio) for 1 week with Club Paradiso.
The second 12 days later consisted of two, 2-bed apartments for 1 week with Beverly Hills Club, a 2-bed apartment for 1 week at Hollywood Mirage Club and another “Island” for 1 week with Club Paradiso.
These purchases were made after they were convinced that they could only recover their losses for previous “investments” by “trading in” existing “investments” and “upgrading” to the more “sellable”. Remember, their experience with this company goes back many years and they were “trapped” with the promises they had been given regarding rental and resale.
It was not long after these sales that their legal proceedings with the Spanish Courts began, culminating with their first case in around 2010. It was among the first cases against Resort Properties/Silverpoint and was a criminal case, this was not particularly successful and it would take a long time to get the cases resolved using the civil court system.
Eventually, in 2019 it was finalised after years of appeals by Silverpoint, the unfortunate part is that the “purchase” with the husband’s name on the loan agreement was not included. The judgment made reference to previous contracts dating back to 1989, explaining that they didn’t fall into the current legislation as they are pre-1999.
It appears the “Husbands purchase” was not accepted by the court for the following reason:
El resto de los contratos que se alegan en el escrito de demanda no constan aportados, ni acreditada su existencia y condiciones pactadas, por lo que no puede aseverarse su existencia (valga la redundancia) ni puede examinarse la presencia de causas de nulidad o no, dado que no se puede proceder a su análisis por no estar en autos.
The rest of the contracts that are alleged in the statement of claim are not provided, nor are there in existence and agreed conditions accredited, so their existence cannot be asserted (forgive the redundancy) nor can the presence of causes of nullity or not be examined. since it is not possible to proceed with its analysis because it is not in the case.
It appears these contacts no longer exist, according to the law firm dealing with the case, Silverpoint has claimed they were “sold”. We can’t be certain, but it is quite conceivable that it was when Silverpoint was informed of formal proceedings being instigated. This does lead us to believe that Silverpoint knew exactly what they were doing.
Moving on from the courts we look at the reasons BPF have refused the claim for the Husbands loan agreement, this is the one belonging to the “contracts” that apparently were sold.
According to the information BPF has supplied this is what has influenced the FOS in supporting this.
BPF is inferring that the claim was only instigated because Silverpoint was placed into administration, and Mr H “thought they would not be able to use the membership in the way intended”. BPF also claimed that due to no maintenance being paid he was not entitled to use the resorts.
Now considering both were informed previously that no maintenance had been paid on any of the timeshares since the case was filed with the courts, this was on the advice of their lawyers and is usual practice in Spain. This means that BPF fell for Silverpoint lies surrounding “arrears” of maintenance.
We also have to question how could there be any arrears on the contacts if according to the court’s information provided by Silverpoint the timeshares were sold. No timeshare, no maintenance due.
All information has been supplied to both BPF and the FOS regarding the court proceedings and judgments, they have been informed of all the facts by the lawyer conducting the case, yet they use these excuses to deny the claim.
So we now ask the most important question of all, are Barclays Partner Finance being taken for a ride by Silverpoint or are they using these reasons purely as an excuse?
This is only one in hundreds, maybe thousands of claims and possible claims by Resort Properties/Silverpoint “victims”, a fraud that was running for years and financed through what we can only call suspicious loan agreements. The number of cases which have been through the court number in the hundreds, surely any person with a brain can see that something is wrong, or are brains in short supply at BPF, the FCA and the FOS?