Case Study: Anfi Speedy resolution, No need for trial

 

Client Nationality: English

Defendant Resort: Anfi

Resolution Location: Maspalomas, Spain

Judicial Level: First Instance

Case Type: Civil

Timeshare Structure: Timeshare

Resolution Period: 8 months

Amount Awarded: over 49.700€

 

Client Story:

Our clients got to know Anfi more than ten years ago, and felt they needed to keep upgrading in order to be able to get the desired dates with their floating weeks. However, from time to time they felt that the offered great business was good for the resort but not for them. They even stated: ” We feel we have been conned, lied to, by a very slick and devious organisation.”

 

Action Taken by CLA:

Our clients contacted CLA who filed their case in October 2017, being accepted at court in November the same year. After the court notified Anfi, who then presented their reply in writing, the court set the date for the preliminary hearing in April 2018. There was no agreement reached that day and Anfi asked for the actual trial to take place to which we opposed. We argued that the case and the infringements are based on documentation and therefore there is no need for a trial nor for the testimony of our clients. The judge agreed to pass a resolution after the preliminary hearing without a trial.  And three days later the ruling was established. 

In it the judge reviewed all of the evidence and concluded that for various infringements the contracts shall be declared null and void with the return of over the clients were in the right, declaring their contract null and void and ordering Anfi to return over 49.700€ plus legal interests, which included the purchase price and the double deposit!

Resort Infraction & Sentence Summary

As in previous sentences, the magistrates ruled in accordance with the criteria of the Supreme Court that floating weeks are unlawful as the client’s rights cannot be guaranteed for the lack of object in the contract. The judge also accepted our petition to pay compensation for the client for being forced to pay moneys during the reflection period, which is strictly prohibited by law; this is being punished by ordering the resorts to pay back the received amounts in double.

 

For further information on this case or any others please contact us. 

Leave a Reply

*

Be sure to include your first and last name.

If you don't have one, no problem! Just leave this blank.