Mr Albert Fletcher
Chairman, Club Los Claveles
Dear Albert
Thank you for posting the details of 2019 Los Claveles AGM, on the website I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee and yourself for your foresight, professionalism and stoicism over the past few years.
• “Foresight” in recognising the true nature of the Onagrup organisation at a very early stage and your efforts in seeking to safeguard our resort and its community.
• “Professionalism” in retaining a sense of objectivity, integrity and decency throughout the legal process. You have kept to the underlying “justice” of the situation presenting the case using factual arguments rather than seeking to rely on ‘legal technicalities’ which appears to have characterised Wimpen/Onagrup’s court presentations.
• “Stoicism” in the way you have tirelessly pursued the cause of “justice” (on behalf of Los Claveles Owners), despite the legal maze/complexities through which you have had to navigate; BUT more significantly had to do this in the face of subjective, unwarranted, unproven and libellous allegations of corruption and fraud which have been directed towards yourselves by both Wimpen/Onagrup and members of the self defined Los Claveles Independent Owners Group [LCIO].
In reviewing the AGM documents, my attention was drawn to resolutions 8, 9 and 10 which I found most bizarre. As I read the motions, I couldn’t help but think about the comments made, by the Arbitrator (Brandon Malone FCI Arb, FRICOS, WS) in the 2017 Arbitration Part Award (Page 18):
“…conflict was heightened at the 2015 AGM when the decision to terminate the First Respondent’s (ie Wimpen/Onagrup) appointment was ratified by the membership of the Club. It is clear to me from that point onwards the Respondents have done everything they can to deligitimise the actions of the Claimants (ie the Committee) and their authority…”
And he goes onto to write:
“..It seems to me that they (Wimpen/Ona) have done that in an attempt to preserve their own position as administrator. The Respondents have rights in terms of the various contracts, and those rights are to be upheld. However, what they cannot do is seek to benefit from their own failings and improper actions ……”.Followed by “…the Respondents, and Mr Pengelly in particular, ought to have recused themselves from any business of the Club dealing with the Adminstrator/Manager. Mr Pengelly’s conflict of interest could hardly be clearer…”
Within this context, I am concerned as to whether resolutions 8, 9 (with somewhat contrived arguments), in conjunction with resolution 10 are not simply a continuation of Wimpen’s/Onagrup’s attempt to undermine (if not replace) the Committee with the express intent of seizing/retaining permanent administrative control of the resort – ie the same objective but using different tactics!!!!!!
These resolutions have been posted by owners who are listed as leaders/followers of LCIO. A group of owners which purports to be an independent group BUT which, for seemingly personal reasons, have evolved into being ‘partisan’ in favour of Onagrup.
Whilst expressing reservations about these proposals, I should like to stress that I am not seeking to deny the democratic right of these individual owners to table them. Rather, I am suggesting that the other owners should treat the proposals with a degree of circumspection, prior to considering their vote.
My “concern” derives from a series of actions over the past 24+ months which have established a clear ‘relationship’ between Wimpen/Onagrup and the leaders of LCIO. This ‘relationship’ has been developed through Mr Barrow. Mr Barrow’s initial relationship with Wimpen/Onagrup was formed through his role of President at Las Casitas and subsequently a Director of an Onagrup holding company at the resort. He then joined/became the leader of the LCIO group, before acquiring the position as purported Head of the Los Claveles Development Owners Association (DOA) – his election being heavily sponsored by
Wimpen/Onagrup.
This ‘relationship’ has manifested in several ways. For example the distribution, by Onagrup, of literature (pro-Onagrup propaganda) produced by LCIO/Mr Barrow whilst ‘blocking’ the dissemination of information by the Committee. This has been perpetrated by Onagrup removing Committee literature from display boards at the resort, preventing owner meetings on the resort AND withholding the owner contact (mailing) database – in direct contravention of the arbitrator’s judgement.
Members of LCIO have continuously promoted Wimpen/Onagrup as the “Owners Champion” whilst denigrating the Committee. In doing so, members of LCIO have displayed a remarkable lack of judgement and a high degree of bigotry in their actions. For example, they have:
• ignored the fact the Committee sought to end LC’s relationship with Wimpen/Onagrup because the ‘new owners’ were unilaterally seeking to impose a number of contractual changes to the detriment of owners
• ignored the reality that Wimpen/ Onagrup has refused to comply with a British court judgement (to vacate the resort and hand over all assets belonging to the Club [bank accounts, owner database etc]) – having originally committed to abide by the outcome of the legal arbitration and despite the fact their case was heard, on two occasions, by two separate independent legal authorities.
• condoned the verbal and physical assault of individual owners whilst on the resort, by Onagrup employees
• repeatedly directed provocative and libellous accusations towards other owners, accusing them of criminal fraud in claiming reimbursement of the second maintenance charge made to Onagrup. Conveniently overlooking the fact that the financial
organisations, having received the individual owners account/testimony, undertook their own investigations prior to making their decision(s).
• mislead and exhorted owners to make maintenance payments to Onagrup in preference to the Club – a situation acknowledged by Onagrup’s lawyers in court. In doing so, encouraged these owners to breach their contracts and open them up to possible legal action.
• castigated the Committee for pursuing a ‘costly legal action’ against Wimpen/Onagrup despite (i) that the action was a majority decision made by ‘owners’ at the 2016 AGM and (ii) that the necessity of continuing the ‘action’ is the direct result of Wimpen/ Onagrup’s refusal to comply with legal judgements.
A ‘big issue’ for many owners in considering the current state of affairs is separating the fond memories of a relaxed and friendly community environment provided under Wimpen’s, former, management regime with the today’s reality. Immersed in nostalgia, it is understandable that many owners believe that the actions of Wimpen/Onagrup are simply ‘errors of judgement’, by over-zealous employees, in a ‘charged’ and ‘unique’ situation currently existing at Los Claveles. This view is, in some part reinforced, by LCIO propaganda which suggests that peace and tranquillity will be restored, if the Club awards a new contract to Wimpen/ Onagrup.
Unfortunately, the former Wimpen and the Wimpen/Onagrup combination, which exists today, are two very different entities. An internet search indicates that ‘conflict’ and ‘litigation’ is a frequent occurrence between owners and a number resorts within Onagrup’s wider operation (including its affiliated companies/partners). Examples, include:
Timeshare Lawyers https://abogadodemultipropiedad.com/onagrup/
Costaluz Lawyers https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2018/11/22/spanish-timeshare-industry-being-punished-by-the-supreme-court/
M1 Legal https://m1legal.com/victories-post?news-20190315-cala-pi-nightmare-now-over
Whilst Onagrup is far from being the worst offender in an industry characterised by scams, high pressure sales, onerous contracts, mal-administration, increasing maintenance fees and a host of other‘offences’ it is probably fair to say that Onagrup is NOT, necessarily, the “Owners Champion” as LCIO would, seemingly, like to portray and encourage everyone to believe.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Ingle (Villa 47, Week 50) sent by email 5 April 2019