Timeshare Rental/Resale Operation Sued for Deception

A timeshare rental/resale telemarketing business and its owner are in hot water. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FDA) and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi have brought legal action, charging the operation allegedly deceived thousands of consumers into paying up to $2,000 based on false promises that they had buyers or renters lined up for consumers' timeshare properties -- and then failing to deliver promised refunds. 

A federal court has halted the operation and froze the defendants' assets pending further litigation. 

Unkept promises 

According to the complaint against Edward Lee Windsor and Information Management Forum Inc., also doing business as Vacation Property Marketing and Vacation Property Marketing Inc., the defendants cold-called timeshare property owners and falsely promised they had renters or buyers who would pay a specific dollar amount for the consumers' properties. 

They also promised a full refund of consumers' fees, which ranged from $500 to $2,000, if they did not rent or sell the timeshares as promised, or if consumers asked for their money back within a certain time period. 

According to the complaint, the defendants falsely told consumers they had business relations with major corporations, such as Home Depot and Pepsi that had an immediate need for the consumers' timeshare properties. 

Using a script 

A telemarketing script filed with the court stated, "What we do is market and advertise the rental and sale of resort properties to corporations who use them for conventions, training seminars, employee perks, business trips as well as their own vacation time . . . the reason that I've been calling you is because this weekend there is going to be a major event . . . We currently have over 700 corporate buyers and renters coming into town for this event." 

Consumers were allegedly told the properties could be rented for a certain amount, such as $1,800 a week, or that there were buyers willing to pay specific amounts, such as $18,500, within 90 days. Some consumers were also falsely told they would receive the proceeds from their rentals or sales before or shortly after the charges to the consumers' credit cards became due. 

Consumers who sought refunds were often strung along with more false promises to the point that they could not dispute the charges with their credit card providers, and when they were able to dispute charges, the defendants often vigorously contested their efforts to get their money back. 

As alleged in the complaint, consumers who were charged fees by the defendants did not obtain renters, buyers, or refunds. In limited instances, the defendants offered consumers a small portion of their money back, but most often they denied refund requests, contending they had fulfilled their agreement by placing an ad on their Website, onlinevpm.com.