Public input could lead to single law to regulate timeshare
THE focus on gripes in the timeshare industry switches to Cape Town this week,
The National Consumer Commission’s (NCC) public inquiry into the holiday ownership, or timeshare, industry will be based in central Cape Town from today.
National Consumer Commissioner Ebrahim Mohamed has appealed to consumers to participate in the public inquiry‚ in person‚ if they wish to see change.
The inquiry process began in Pretoria last week.
There, the panel heard consumers tell of the refusal of timeshare clubs to cancel timeshare contracts‚ the overselling of limited accommodation‚ and the charging of exorbitant levies for the maintenance of facilities owned by holiday clubs.
This is in spite of a 2014 SA Revenue Service directive that levies cannot be charged to people who do not have a title deed and do not own a property.
The timeshare industry was not effectively regulated because different aspects of it were regulated by several different laws‚ some outdated‚ Mohamed said.
The main thing the NCC hoped to see coming out of the public inquiry was a single piece of legislation to regulate the industry effectively and create a means for consumers to participate and have a voice in the affairs of holiday club schemes.
Acting consumer goods and services ombudsman (CGSO) Magauta Mphahlele submitted a report to the NCC outlining the types of timeshare complaints that her office regularly received from consumers.
Of the 127 cases received from January last year to February this year‚ 71% related to contracts and cancellations‚ unfair terms‚ failure to disclose contract terms and breach of contract.
The remaining 29% related to quality of service‚ bait marketing‚ misleading advertising‚ overselling and unreasonable service delays. Typically‚ consumers complained that:
• They tried to cancel the agreement within the five-day cooling-off period but could not get hold of the company until later‚ when it refused to cancel the agreement within the cooling-off period;
• They entered into the agreement many years ago and could now no longer afford the yearly fee for the upkeep of the scheme, or due to medical reasons could no longer enjoy the benefits, and therefore wanted to cancel but were told they could not do so;
• They were pressured into signing the agreements and misled during presentations.
The CGSO had resolved most of the complaints‚ Mphahlele said.