ASA Ruling on ITRA Singapore and ITRA Europe

No Comments
KwickChex claims to be the reputational manager for the timeshare industry. Full Document

As reported previously on the TCA website, they are employed by the RDO and TATOC. Their operations can only be viewed as questionable as they are in subjection to their pay master generals. Those generals run, in part, a timeshare industry and fuel by way of copious amounts of cash, the many adverts which suggests that the industry is fantastic.

In reality, this is not true. The timeshare industry attracts exuberant amounts of disputes and Litigation. That being the reality, it is in the interest of the timeshare industry to question companies who assist consumers with exits from the very contracts which bring the industry profits.

It is beyond doubt that the industry has little time for the exit companies, and believes it has a mandate to regulate those legal companies and firms of Solicitors. When in reality they don’t.

Yesterday we reported that Kwikchex had done an excellent job in bringing to the attention a scurrilous enterprise. Yet today, we find that they have launched a wrongful allegation against ITRA.

Consumers will be fully aware that ITRA and the timeshare industry are at complete loggerheads. ITRA at present is supporting a very large group action which now stands at 12000 Consumers who are claiming that RCI have been skimming. The group action is biting into the coughers of RCI and the potential compensation is escalating into the 10’s of millions.

Therefore, no doubt the RDO and TATOC who are sponsored by RCI will try and assist RCI in rubbishing this very large group action.

The latest attempt was perpetrated by Kwickchex who launched an allegation with the Advertising Standard Authority.

That allegation floundered and below is the report made by the ASA.

Consumers are reminded that this action group is run by Litigation Management Ltd and is free to join. Link Here

ITRA will not be promoting this action group if it were not financially involved in it. Therefore, its motives will be to seek a profit from victorious conclusion.

That said, on the other hand if the group action is undermined and/or flounders, RCI will be victorious and will avoid many millions in liabilities. Whether or not such a large Litigation should spill over into internet slanging matches is another matter.

Covert tactics such as these will not influence the minds of Judges when they determine the issues set before the Court.

 

International Timeshare Refund Action (incorporated in the Seychelles) t/a TimeshareRelease.co.uk 

PO Box 561 PMB G416 Gibraltar

Date:

15 July 2015  Media:

Internet (on own site)  Sector:

Business

Number of complaints:

Complaint Ref:

A15-297465

Ad

A website, www.timesharerelease.co.uk, for a timeshare claims company featured a page titled “Feedback from People We Have Helped” under the section “Testimonials”. The page contained text that stated “We’ve published a selection of past/recent feedback messages below and, since November 2014, we’re delighted to have teamed up with FEEFO, the leading customer feedback organisation, to independently validate and manage our customer service feedback.” The page featured a number of customer testimonials.

Issue

KwikChex Ltd, as part of the Timeshare Task Force initiative, challenged whether the testimonials by “Kevin & Sue W” and “Mrs Mary W” were genuine, because they understood that the same testimonials appeared on another website for another timeshare claims company under different names.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.13.453.7

Response

International Timeshare Refund Action Ltd said that the testimonials were genuine and came from previous clients of theirs. They provided documentation associated with their work on behalf of these clients, which included their addresses, further contact details and copies of emails from them that included the wording used in the testimonials. They said that the fact that the same testimonials has appeared on another site under different names did not mean that the ones that had appeared on theirs were not original and genuine.

Assessment

Not upheld

The CAP Code requires that advertisers hold documentary evidence that testimonials are genuine and contact details for those giving them. We noted that the advertiser had provided the names, postal and email addresses of the clients who gave the testimonials, as well as documents relating to the work the advertiser had done on their behalf, which included their names and addresses. We therefore considered that they held documentary evidence to support the testimonials and the contact details of the clients concerned. We also noted the fact that the same text had appeared on another website did not, in itself, demonstrate that the testimonials on the advertiser’s website were not genuine. We concluded that the ad was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading Advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.45 (Endorsements and Testimonials), but did not find it in breach.

Action

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *