Welcome to Timeshare users forum.

In order to view the timeshare forum and guides you must first Register.

FREE to register and FREE to participate


No announcement yet.

MacDonalds settle with the two elderly sisters but who pays?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MacDonalds settle with the two elderly sisters but who pays?

    Whilst many will be pleased that the threat of negative radio publicity seems to have forced a positive resolution for the two very elderly sisters who were allegedly being harassed by the lawyers of MacDonalds. They may have to temper that pleasure with the fact that the other members will now, seemingly, be required to bear the cost of this settlement, be it in lawyers fees, future lost maintenance revenue or future loss of revenue brought about by the negative publicity that this protracted wrangle has brought about. Is it the fault of the existing members or should the blame and any costs lie with the developer and its officers?

  • #2
    Given the frequency with which some timeshare companies seem to shoot themselves in the foot I am surprised that they are not all rolling around in wheelchairs. Would it not have been a better idea to just have done with it quietly and make no mention of passing the costs on to existing members. They really do not do themselves many favours which just goes to show how much importance they put on continuing customer service.


    • #3
      This is just another attempt for MacDonalds shift the blame to others by saying it is now the responsibility of existing members to cover the cost. At the end of the day, these old ladies paid their maintenance fees every year even though they did not use it, so MacDonalds has had years of money from them. Had MacDonalds resolved this 5 years ago it would not have been necessary to get this sort of publicity. It is also a fact that no timeshare company fully informs its members of companies that they will not deal with. If they did inform their members that they did not recognise any termination or transfer of the timeshare by ITRA, then they would not have paid them or taken on their services. The same as if they had simple procedures to allow members such as these sisters to relinquish. Once again it is down to the timeshare companies to accept it is their responsibility to ensure that their members are not ripped off by other companies, they have a duty of care along with a duty to allow people a simple exit without the huge costs involved.


      • #4
        Unfortunately there is one piece of incorrect information on the Inside Timeshare report on the MacDonalds climbdown blog and it is contained in the following paragraph.
        "Remember who was behind this conversion, Harry Taylor of TATOC, both now discredited, he and his organisation which was supposedly there to help and protect timeshare owners, wholeheartedly backed this move by MacDonalds. It is also a fact that MacDonald Resorts were also one of the biggest contributors to TATOC and that was the only organisation they belonged to in the timeshare industry after all their membership to the RDO was essentially revoked.

        The board of TATOC did not wholeheartedly back the move by MacDonalds. It was a unilateral activity undertaken by Harry Taylor and the board at TATOC were not aware of it until after the endorsement and the chairing of some MacDonalds members meetings, to sell the idea, by Harry Taylor had taken place.

        The full story of this and Harry Taylors unilateral and personal involvement in the huge Silverpoints 23 page doc. changing of their constitution, that ultimately played a part in their downfall, has yet to be told.
        And I will say yet again that the full information inc all correspondence and records is out there placed safely within a network of trusted people, should it ever be deemed necessary to make it public.


        • #5
          Although the board claim they were not aware of Taylor's move, that just goes to show that the organisation was for his benefit and not that of owners. At no time has anyone seen any statement from the board they did not agree. Had the board been in control and not allowed Taylor to run TATOC as his personal enterprise, then this "backing" may not have happened. The entire board must also be responsible for the demise of TATOC, they blindly followed Taylor for his own ends and now he is totally discredited. The job of a board is to keep a check and especially reign in a CEO who is working on his own agenda, in this they failed.


          • #6
            At no time has anybody seen a statement from the board full stop.

            TATOC matters were governed by strict confidentiality clauses and the board did appear to be, in the main, hand picked by Harry Taylor. I agree wholeheartedly that the board should have reigned in the CEO and stopped him from reporting his activities after events had taken place. He should have consulted his board with his intended actions before proceeding but he did not. The fact that only one member of the board questioned his activities at meetings and via emails seems to suggest that as a hand picked board they were of very little use to timeshare consumers but after all was that not the idea anyway?


            • #7
              Mavo, I totally agree, the whole association was never intended to help owners the same way as the RDO. It was all the time jobs for the boys all under the auspices of Harry or was it Henry Taylor once a director at Diamond if I am not mistaken. This is what the problem is with timeshare, it is a closed industry, it is run on greed and has never been consumer friendly. WE TAKE YOUR MONEY WHEN YOU PURCHASE, WE TAKE YOUR MONEY EVERY YEAR IN MAINTENANCE, THEN WE TAKE EVEN MORE TO GIVE YOU UNNECESSARY UPGRADES. IN RETURN YOU HAVE NOTHING NOT EVEN YOUR RIGHTS TO DECIDE THE FATE OF YOUR CLUB. WE THE INDUSTRY WILL DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!
              Ring any bells!


              • #8
                In the UK/European arm of Diamond /Sunterra /GVC they appoint 2 non exec member directors on 4 year terms and they can apply for re-election at the end of their term. Harry Taylor was a member director He would no doubt be invited to various policy meetings but would be very unlikely to have a meaningful vote as he would be seriously outnumbered by internal board members employed by the company. The role of a member director is in reality a token role which attracts no other financial inducements other than "reasonable expenses"