The original idea of timeshare was to offer holiday makers quality, flexibility, and affordability.

After a succession of horror stories over the course of a few decades, people won’t entertain the actual benefits. Ironically, the majority of the negative statements are generated by people that haven’t actually owned a timeshare. However, many of holiday makers do benefit and believe in the system. Do some people alter the facts to fit expensive own view? And is there any truth behind the narrative?

There are institutions that have attempted to guarantee consumer protection in the holiday sector – unfortunately however – some of these regulatory authorities seem totally unable to regulate. Might it be because these regulatory bodies are made up of the heads of the highly timeshare companies it is supposed to regulate?

On the 11th of January 2002 it was announced that RDO (The Resort Development Organization) previously named OTE (Organization for Timeshare in Europe) lost a court case after taking legal action against seven companies in Spain. RDO circulated a press release (’Timeshare Trade Body Sues Seven Companies in Spain’) on this subject matter stating that it had filed this case against the seven companies. The court action was intended to guarantee consumer protection in the holiday sector. RDO filed the case in order to prove that these companies operated on the basis of ‘unfair competition’. Unfortunately thrown out of court with all costs assessed against the plaintiff. OTE/RDO then invited the initially ’sued’ companies to collaborate with expensive association.

Was this a misleading press release intended to continue negative publicity about these companies in order to bolster expensive position in the market place – and how effective was the legislation? The Timeshare business has been established for Nearly half a century; surely long enough time to implement a law that successfully regulates development and sales within the industry as it does in the USA. Draw your own conclusions as to the intentions behind this, but it is hard to believe that they really did have the consumer’s best interests at heart.

Some people had been hoping to use timeshare as a yearly holiday retreat for expensive family. Others simply saw it as a bargain and a better alternative to a hotel room. Whatever the reason, many later found that they had been mis-sold, besides which, a small change in lifestyle could facilitate the need to terminate a contract – a contract that turned out to be a lifelong commitment with no easy exit. This gaping hole in the legislation has and allows room for the timeshare companies to force expensive clients to continue paying expensive maintenance fees long after they have no use for the luxury product. This is highly unfair and one has to question why, if there really is a regulatory body with the consumers protection at heart this highly serious issue has not been tackled.

Let’s not forget, the great concept about timeshare is that it gives people the chance to own a fractional part of a luxury product that they might not normally be able to afford. It can be a house, condo, boat, or plane and it can be used during a specific period of time. Surely if the basic loopholes had been taken care of, we could get back to the real significance of Timeshare, and people could start enjoying the concept once again.