This is quite a detailed response by the Board, for which I am grateful

I do take issue with a couple of things. Firstly, the Board cite ’3 significant concerns’, of which the 3rd is to do with the difficulty of any closure. As such, I think the first two should be addressed, with the aim of not needing a closure.

The Board has never given any specific feedback on the operation of the scheme in practice, so if there are practical issues, they could be addressed, but keeps referring back to potential claims if not everyone is satisfied. I understand the point, but restate the fact that, given that an owner cannot use a week and has decided to swap it, being unable to find a suitable swap leaves them in a no worse position. It would be relatively straightforwards to formalise terms and conditions to enter such a swap system

Even aside from this concern, by the Board’s own figures, 43% of swaps placed last year were not successfully matched. Because the Board will not publish occupancy rates (I have asked), I do not know how many weeks were simply vacant, because the owner did not see the point of even trying to use such an inflexible swap system. I’m certainly in that group and have used Dial An Exchange, when I would have much preferred to come to Underscar at a different time

It is a shame that the Board have dismissed my proposal and are seemingly happy with a system that fails nearly half of those requesting swaps. I really don’t believe that a bank type system would have such a high failure rate

With ever escalating fees and the seemingly absolute position of the 5* status, I really hoped the Board would have brought forward proposals for a better swap system, rather than just saying ’No’

From Alex Parsons, Board member.

A proposal for a new type of swap system was suggested by this owner.
The Board always welcomes constructive suggestions for changes or new developments from members and it therefore looked carefully at the proposal but decided that it should not pursue it. There were many factors that we considered. I hope to explain the board’s view on a few of the most important ones here.

The first thing to note is that the proposed system would work like a mini DAE or RCI, but restricted to Underscar alone. The basic operation was that an owner would bank their week into the system, making it available for another owner to claim. In return the banking owner receives a credit that they can in turn use to claim a banked week from the pool in the future. There were to be proposed time limits to the banking of weeks and duration of credits. Probably 2 years.

The proposal at first sight seemed quite attractive, offering more flexibility than the existing system. However, as the Board looked at it in more detail, we came to the conclusion that there were also significant downsides and risks for UOCL and hence the membership as a whole.
The three most significant concerns were: the potential for dissatisfaction and disputes; doubts over how the scheme would operate in practice and, not least, the difficulty entailed in closing the scheme if our fears were realised.

The Board felt that the most likely result of operating the scheme would be that there would be an inevitable build up of banked weeks that had not been claimed by other owners and had then sat empty, leading to an excess of owners with credits compared to the number of weeks available.
This worry was compounded when we looked at the recent history of the current system, where a disproportionate number of the weeks being offered for swap are in the low season, particularly November to February. These weeks were also the least likely to be successfully swapped. While no one knows what the situation might be under the new system, the Board saw no evidence to suggest that the spread of weeks being banked would be noticeably different. The Board felt that too many owners chasing too few weeks was likely to cause dissatisfaction and dispute.

Under most circumstances, the Board might have decided to run a pilot, with all our concerns explained to the membership beforehand. However, when we considered how we might then terminate a pilot if necessary, we saw other problems. We felt that closing a poorly performing pilot scheme down would be very difficult and acrimonious. On closure there would be a group of owners with banked weeks, whose own weeks had now passed and who had no opportunity to use their credits. They would naturally feel hard done by. The Club could potentially offer them some of the stock weeks that we own. This may not have satisfied all the owners involved given the limited number of stock weeks and would also have had a knock on effect to our finances as those weeks would not then be available for commercial rental.

In any proposal for change most of the factors being considered are the subject of opinion and not hard fact. We know that the owner who suggested this system has markedly different views than the Board on the problems we foresee. Nevertheless, the Board has to act cautiously over any change that could have significant risks for the club, owners’ satisfaction and our finances. We cannot afford to assume that things will work out for the best. As a result, given our concerns, the Board decided not to pursue this proposal.

The performance of the existing system might also be of interest to you. While not perfect, the current swap system does achieve a reasonable success rate.
In 2016 for example, 49 weeks were lodged in the system as available for swap. These generated 98 requests from other owners to swap with them. In turn this led to 28 successful swaps being agreed. That is a 57% success rate.

Just an update. The Board member I have been dealing with is to recommend that the Board rejects my proposal, on the grounds that

1. Some people may be unwilling to find a suitable swap (but they couldn’t use the week anyway, so they are no worse off)
2. This one I quote directly

”The operation of this system would create a new commercial relationship between UOCL and the members which is not part of our core role, may have implications on our operation and such things as liability insurance and, because of point 1, is likely to be a cause of conflict”

If operating a functional swap system to allow owners to enjoy Underscar, through a swap system if needed, is not a core role, I’m not sure what is

The same Board member also says

”Hence, entering into a new relationship and sphere of operation as in this case should only be done after very careful consideration of the issues involved and only if there is a compelling reason to do so that is demonstrably in the interests of the membership as a whole”

Unfortunately, I cannot demonstrate how interested the membership is as the Board has refused to consult members, by a simple email or question in the newsletter, on the matter

I can go no further with it. I had offered to run the scheme on a voluntary basis as a trial for a couple of years but this was also rejected, in case there were members who had been unable to find a swap

If you have any views, please let me (at [email protected]) or the Board know

Very sad that OUR board seems so resistant to change

Good idea, present system is quite restrictive.