BinScammed
I've been on Sunchaser's website with justification for their argument as to why we should be paying to renovate their building. Simply put, their argument has very little basis. It's pretty illogical (stupid) to say the least. I also have other questions that are nagging at me and they haven't been addressed yet.
When I bought my timeshare, I bought it under the assumption that the building was/was going to be constructed according to the building code of the day and that there were no shortcuts taken that could jeopordize the lifespan of the building. Obviously, this has not been the case since some very serious issues have arisen as Northwynd is now trying to tell us. For one thing, they keep mentioning foundation problems among other things.
Building components have a life-span and yes, maintenance may be required for the component to meet its full life. Poured concrete and foundation, as I assume these units have, have a life span of 200 years. Concrete block, 100 years. For the most part, there is very little to no maintenance required for concrete to reach it's full usable life. So who's fault is it that shoddy building practices were used to construct these buildings? Ours? Even the argument that ground collapse and shift really doesn't stand as the ground on all building sites must be sufficiently prepared to withstand the weight and movement associated with the building over the course of its useful life. This is just one of many aspects to this renovation that must be addressed.
As to who should pay for this major renovation, Sunchaser says on their website: (
http://sunchaservillas.ca/renovation-program/f-a-q/)
Q – Why doesn’t Northwynd (the Developer) have to pay for this?
A – The maintenance of the resort is the responsibility of the timeshare owners and timeshare lessees as required under each contract. The developer is only responsible to the extent that it also is the active owner of any inventory......
For timeshare lessees, this is similar to owning a vehicle lease. You agree to maintain the vehicle to a certain standard for the life of the lease. If the engine breaks down during the lease, it is your responsibility to fix, not the car company. If you return the vehicle in sub-standard condition at the end of the lease, the car company charges you for the deficiencies.
They then try to argue that 'co-owners' and 'timeshare lessees' are the same thing according their attorney, Norton Rose as found here:
http://sunchaservillas.ca/wp-conten...nfirmingOccupancyCostsandReplacementCosts.pdf
In it they note that their are two versions of the agreement. An original 40 year lease arrangement (vacation villa lease/experience lease) and the second creating a co-ownership called a vacation interval agreement. They then state that, "Except as specifically noted, for purposes of this letter the two versions are practically identical". WHAT?? A lease and co-ownership is practically identical? I don't care what the wording, these are two very different and distinct things. My argument is for the lease portion since this is what I'm under. This would be like saying that a person who owns a condominium and the person renting from the owner of that condominium are essentially identical parties and have the same responsibility towards that building. Even if the owner coerced the renter to sign such an agreement, no court would ever enforce it! Yes, the owner can, as part of the renters lease, require maintenance to be done to their condo while the renter is leasing it, and at the cost to the renter.
Somewhere, either in the mess of papers we received or on Sunchaser's website, I recall reading that Sunchaser feels an obligation to the original investers of the buildings to help them recover as much of their original investment as possible, because they lost so much. That is fine and good. But at who's cost? Investors know full well that their is a possiblility that their investment will go south and it is they, not anyone else that bears responsibility for it. The higher the potential return (%), the higher the probability of loss (risk factor). I have lost significantly on some investments that I made, especially during the economic crash. Would I and every other investor be justified in going after the company's customers to recover that loss? Ridiculous!! But that is what's happening here. We leaseholders DO NOT have a vested interest in the building itself, yet we are being strong-armed into paying for the renovations. Ridiculous! The company (Northwynd) is trying to go after their customers (us) to pay the investors. Yes, we have an obligation for maintenance, just like a renter would, but we simply have no obligation to the renovation of the building unless we caused the damage itself. We too had no say in who the company was using to do that maintenance, yet they are trying to tell us that we are responsible because the former company misspent or misappropriated funds - their words, not mine.
Now let's use their argument (mentioned above regarding maintenance/car leases) and responsibility.
For timeshare lessees, this is similar to owning a vehicle lease. You agree to maintain the vehicle to a certain standard for the life of the lease. If the engine breaks down during the lease, it is your responsibility to fix, not the car company. If you return the vehicle in sub-standard condition at the end of the lease, the car company charges you for the deficiencies.
Let me illustrate what they are trying to say. Let's say that I lease my car from ABC leasing who buys their car from XYZ car manufacturing. I lease the car with the understanding that the car meets certain safety standards and will last the life of the lease. ABC leasing assumes the same thing from XYZ car manufacturing when they buy their cars. Since the manufacturer deems that certain maintenance is necessary on their vehicles, that maintenance requirement is passed on to the lessee. However, ABC leasing requires all their lessees have their vehicles serviced by one maintenance company. When we sign those papers, we agree to those terms. When we get vehicle maintenance done, we are assuming that that company is actually doing the work that we ask and pay them to do.
As it turns out, XYZ car manufacturing were shysters. Their cars didn't meet the minimum expected standards and fell short of lasting the life of the lease. ABC leasing were simply bad at what they were doing, declared bankruptcy and out of the ashes, DUD Group was born. After they buy the assets of ABC leasing for pennies on the dollar, they realize that all of the vehicles are substandard and need significant work. Not only did this happen, but the maintenance company that we were required to use either didn't do the work or used substandard parts to maintain our vehicles. To add insult to injury, after DUD Group takes over, the maintenance rates significantly go up year after year so that maintaining your vehicle simply becomes unaffordable. But, you're locked in with that maintenance company.
So, who is responsible to bring the car back up to minimum standards again? The lessee or the owner? By rights, it should be XYZ car manufacturing, but they're out of the picture now. If the lessee was doing all the required maintenance on their vehicle (and it was actually being done) when it was needed, should they be required to, say, replace the engine because the engine block was made of sub-standard material? I don't think even someone with the intelligence of a moron would see the logic in that. And yet this is exactly what is being asked of us!!!!!!!!!
Sunchaser's site also states this:
As a reminder, Northwynd is not the developer and property manager that created this situation. Northwynd agreed to acquire the developer and property manager rights from the now defunct previous owner through their Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) protection in 2010.
We did not create this situation, either!!!!!!!!!! This is also not our (lessees) building. We are simply renting 'time'. But we have to pay significant upgrades to a building that should last between 75-100 years with adequate maintenance? We barely got 20 years out of it regardless of the maintenance that was done or not done to it. Some of these upgrades are obviously the fault of the builder and/or Fairmont Resort Properties for, perhaps, choosing a contractor based on price only. Again, not our fault.
The new owner also assumes the liability from that point forward and the condition of the assets that come under your possession! It's not just about, 'look what we got for pennies on the dollar'!!
As an additional side note, I work in the fire and flood restoration industry and have dealt with this side of insurance companies for some time. I would not be surprised that a significant reason why the plumbing must be changed is that it is a condition set out by the building insurers in order to maintain their insurance coverage. This usually comes as a result of having a number of claims to a building (or buildings covered under the one policy) caused by the same situation. Since all insurance companies 'talk to each other', it's not simply a matter of finding a new insurance provider.
I have several other points to bring out, but this is long enough of a read as it is!
BinScammed!!
So glad I got that done earlier in the year. Not very impressed with the happenings out there in Fairmont and am definitely on the bailing out side. I am hoping to not have to pay the fees to bail out as, quite frankly, I don't have the money. FYI, yesterday, I sent the following email, below it is the reply I received back from Norton Rose Canada:
What exactly is their role in all this???
, but willingly paid my maintenance, what was in the works with this Stay or Go Coercion. I originally wanted to pay the Stay fee and carry on as we did for the first 20 years:annoyed:. Now I just want to deposit my time, go somewhere else, and wait to see if we can effectively ditch this Management Company
. Anyone out there know a reputable time share manager with integrity? I suspect our present disastrous MANAGEMENT will make it hard to "exchange" Sunchaser with other well managed resorts going forward. Maybe I can't deposit with II becaue they will have nothing more to do with this corrupt management company????