There are two issues at stake here but both relate to marketing.
To muddle the two only confuses the issues.

1).SALES.
There is something very wrong when you have 21%/ 22% owners of weeks on a wonderful 5* complex who are struggling to sell due to major marketing failures , over all too many years, to recognise the need for an EFFECTIVE 5* marketing strategy (including effective search engine optimisation,) which does justice to the 5* status of the “product“ and retains values that are appropriate to the number of years remaining on the lease and the 5* nature of the product.

To employ a company with this in mind and then find it has not proved effective begs many questions and no one to date appears willing to answer why.
Why has the profile of Underscar sales not improved during this time since 2015?

To repeat, since 2015, well in advance of the sale of FML to Sykes, there has been the opportunity to effectively address this sales marketing problem…. Was the original company CREATION ADM not tasked with this proviso? Are all owners now having to fund yet another means of lifting the 5* sales profile of Underscar when the previous company was presumably accountable for changes to the website to improve marketing from the outset?

Who exactly is currently responsible for the maintenance of any remaining website relating to sales? Whose intention was it to split OUR Underscar website into two?

Is it being split into two, and if so who remains responsible for each website to ensure they remain in line with regard to the level of detail of the Underscar development as details change?

2)RENTALS.
As already expressed there is a fear that the rentals website will not link to sales if this is being managed by SYKES ( HOTL and Fisherbeck) given Sykes are predominantly a rental platform.

So the question remains are changes now attempting to split rentals from sales and is this being managed by Sykes and/ or CREATION ADM or a.n. Other?
If so, what reassurances can we receive that this does not present a conflict of interests with regard to Underscar sales going forward?

The lack of detailed information is sadly only causing angst, so please can we have this clarified for the benefit of all owners.

Thanks for the response Mary but I’m finding it very frustrating that this appears to be an endless task with no end date in sight.

Can you please give us an estimated live date together with the responses to both Annie and Peter.

Thanks Mary

I am a little confused on timing for the new site. Work started on it a couple of years ago and other information from the Board recently has spoken of an Autumn launch. Your most recent email suggests the specification is not yet finished. Could you clarify please?

Peter

Thank you Mary for your responses.

Please can you identify if the new website that you refer to as a rental website has a transparent cross link in the banner heading to sales, as originally existed in our Underscar website design several years ago?

There still appear to be 21% of owners seeking sales and therefore every marketing opportunity including this new Underscar website should be afforded to owners.

Please therefore can owners have reassurances that there will be an effective cross reference direct link to sales in the banner heading in this new website?

Many thanks.

I have read the recent postings on the Forum and confirm that members of the UOCL Board are aware of members’ concerns.
1. The Working Party has met remotely in the last week to consider a proposed new Underscar website. This new platform will include an opportunity to rent apartments and book and pay online. Work remains to be done, but the Board considers that progress is encouraging.
2. The Board has thought about how those members who ‘lost’ weeks during the lockdown can be compensated. This work is ongoing and the Board will meet shortly to consider the matter further. The Board is determined to make decisions which are as fair as possible for all members. The availability of stock weeks as part of a compensation package is already under consideration, but the number of available weeks is very small compared to the number of members who were unable to come to Underscar during the closure. A form of lottery will be required. Members will be informed shortly about possible arrangements.
3. The Board notes that there is a concern about the way in which stock weeks owned by UOCL are treated. Stock weeks are for sale and have been included in recent ‘invitation to tender’ exercises. The Board believes that sale proceeds should be added to reserves upon the basis that once sold, the new owner will pay the annual management fee, which covers all costs relating to that apartment ‘week’ on an annual basis. If a stock week remains unsold, it is offered for rental at market price. Members will be pleased to know that currently there is an unprecedented demand for rentals of Underscar apartments and Heart of the Lakes has also negotiated a number of sales.
Mary Sackree – Board Member

Surely the best and cheapest marketing tool is existing Owners with support information and back up.

Anne I stepped down from the Committee in December 2014 and passed all my papers/records to my successor, so I no longer have access to the actual details. To my recollection, no specific ”cost benefit analysis” was done. The decision to sell those weeks was taken to provide additional funding for the Reserve Account, which our Accountants felt was getting too low. The amount raised should be available through the Accounts. Ian Hedley coordinated the sale. I believe that the weeks were offered to all owners via the
Newsletter. Clearly, the sale of FML/HOTL has not made matters any easier for the Board and I guess, especially with Covid, it will take more time to get back on an even keel. I suspect any solution to the issue of rent/sales will not satisfy everyone! If any remaining stock weeks could be sold, albeit being rented in the interim, as well as those weeks Owners wish to sell, the result would be a more permanent basis for the future – both in income and ownership terms. Meanwhile, I trust you will successfully sell your week. Stay safe.

Apologies as I’m dipping in and out today and will read in full later.

Regarding the Auction – the 2nd auction was not as successful as many didn’t reach their reserve price (ours was one of them).

David,
Thank you for your reply.

I wonder however with regard to your observation re the closed auction that included STOCK weeks, was a cost benefit analysis undertaken to appreciate if retention of premium stock weeks, as a form of continual ongoing income source to UOCL, was of greater benefit as a means of maximising a reduction of the management fees over the longer term? Especially bearing in mind the 50+ years lease remaining on Underscar weeks.

A one off sale at knock down prices would not appear to be of longer term benefit to the club, as opposed to ongoing rental appreciation, unless a cost benefit analysis proved otherwise.

But also now under the current Covid scenario, ironically, this would also be of benefit to those owners affected by lockdown as an alternative provision of accommodation for the management fees that owners have still had to pay. Easy to say in hindsight I know, but has the sale of further stock weeks now been re-evaluated? Presumably all the best calendar stock weeks have now been sold?

Re your observation re vehicle for sales. Agreed that Sykes have no incentive to market sales when as has been previously identified, every sale is a rental lost.
But doesn’t this now emphasise the need to take back control of sales marketing, and as others have identified this could be managed more efficiently and effectively under the control of Underscars website and managed by those who have loyalty to Underscar owners best interests.

But, does this need for greater control to the benefit of all owners, not also apply to Underscar rentals?
Especially given the apparent gap in the market place for 5* quality facilities and accommodation which current rental providers are failing to take account of in their website designs, ( i.e. 5* specialised timeshare marketing) so that potential renters are not redirected to lower quality rental accommodation which fails to take account of the high standards that Underscar provide.
We note that these rental companies have a different rating system that does not truly represent the 5* standards that the likes of Underscar provides.

With regard to your observation re sales of stock weeks we note also that there appears insufficient detail to appreciate which weeks have been sold and the prices achieved for each week.
Likewise as has already been expressed more information is required to identify those UOCL stock weeks that remain available, to act as alternative provision for those affected by lockdown. Or has a decision been made to prevent this option if there are insufficient weeks available to be fairly apportioned.

Anne The sale of stock weeks, purchased for a very small minimum payment from the Developers, was documented and the figures appeared in the Accounts. A good number were sold by closed auction and the monies raised added to the accounts, thereby assisting in keeping the maintenance charge down. I believe that there has been a second ”sale”. The majority of these week were very low season. The website query is now one for the Board to deal with. Personally, I do not feel that it is an effective vehicle for sales.
I am not convinced that the issue of Owners’ sales can be really successfully dealt with by a company dealing mainly with rentals. As you suggest, hopefully Mary Sakree will take relate these points to the Board. All previous Minutes should be available for the previous Committee and the current Board, as well as for the AGM’s. Barbara Hedley’s excellent Newsletters also provide information about the sale of stocks weeks.

David (Dld261)
It appears concerning that UOCL stock weeks have been sold ( presumably at low prices?) when these weeks could have been used to maximise rental income for the club which would have assisted in the lowering of management fees for all owners.
I wonder how many of those stock weeks sold were prime weeks that could have achieved significant rental value to the benefit of ALL owners going forward?
Why was the emphasis on sales not focused on the 22% of owners wishing or needing to sell their weeks instead of removing a vital income source to the club?
Is anyone looking to the wider perspective and longer term scenario in this regard?

The failure to effectively market and sell OWNERS weeks ( now 22% of all owners) has culminated in an oversupply of sales and negatively impacted values in that process. ( Supply and demand).

What’s more, given the current increase in staycations in the UK and the apparent gap in the marketplace for sales of 5* quality accommodation of the standard that Underscar provides, there has never been a more opportune moment to tackle this failure of Underscar sales marketing. To leave this unresolved until next April or beyond appears a major oversight.

But another uncomfortable question also remains.
Why has a company specifically commissioned by UOCL (Creation ADM) back in 2015 to improve the original Underscar website that marketed sales and address search engine optimisation to maximise Underscar marketing not been successful? Was this not part of their original remit? Are UOCL now having to pay twice over for this to be effectively addressed?

To read the newsletter and minutes of previous AGMs you would never believe that there was a significant problem associated with sales for our 5* Underscar weeks and the 22% of owners trying to sell, so please can I request that Mary Sackree ( responsible for owner feedback) bring these concerns to the urgent attention of the board and could they please respond ASAP.

Thank you.

All that I require is a list of ”available to rent weeks” each year and a telephone number. I know the minimum rental is the administration fee. The contact telephone number is to ensure that if I can introduce a potential holiday maker to stay at Underscar (should not be too difficult), then I am able to check property not already rented in order to avoid double booking.
We are reminded repeatedly of Underscar’s 5 star status and our love of the place so it shouldn’t be too difficult to sell the idea to others. It is how I was hooked in the first place.
The programme could be run on Excel sheet. I do this for holiday property I rent abroad. Works a treat and not time consuming. Doesn’t require a Management Company to do it just one reasonably intelligent individual.

Why not send an email, addressed to each Board Member, to FML, with a request to forward it to each individual: that way, theyall see it at the same time. You will recall a number of Stock Weeks were sold a few years back. It would be helpful to know how many are left.

Totally agree with your rationale Annie and there is no saying everyone affected would want to take advantage of such an offer.

Had this been a holiday company and dates are cancelled, they offer an alternative so why should this be different. UOCL have had the management fees and those affected need to be able to have the opportunity of using that week, albeit delayed, maybe even carried forward if stock weeks available early next year.

The difficulty will be getting action on this as emailing Mr Hedley doesn’t seem to generate much of a response – any ideas?

Apologies for any confusion….On reassessing the assumption about stock weeks are there only 35 actual weeks owned by UOCL available to be used in total? In which case this would be insufficient to spread across the number of owners affected by lockdown!

P.s. This would require that stock weeks currently owned by UOCL should not be sold but retained to the benefit of all owners.

Julie , yes, that’s exactly what I implied in my posting…owners affected would be allocated a replacement for their “lost week” from the stock weeks, but be expected to pay only the original full management fee for their lost week.
I recently learned from a friend who has a timeshare week elsewhere in the Lakes who had been similarly compromised, that this solution was accommodated by their management without any extra charge. So they paid the full amount of management fee and were allocated an available week later in the year. Obviously much depends upon how many weeks were available to be accommodated in this manner, but the principle seemed to work well for them and appeared a fair compensation.

Looking to the practicalities….Perhaps the basic detail could be confirmed . I.e. that there appear to be 35 stock weeks owned by UOCL and each stock week is available for 49 weeks of the year (since 3 of those weeks of the year are maintenance weeks). This would mean that in total there are potentially 1715 (35×49 ) weeks available in total. Is this assumption correct? Or are there some stock weeks that do not fit this pattern?

The next calculation would involve how many owners have actually been affected in total during the lockdown period, and this would be a start point to inform those affected, so that they could be allocated a future provision depending on their choice from the actual 1715 weeks available.

For those affected this would mean that they would be expected to pay the full management fee for their week that they lost at no extra charge to themselves.

Only when this option has been completed for all owners affected by lockdown would it be fair thereafter to open up a future rental of stock weeks at a reduced cost( ownership perk) to the whole membership. In other words stock weeks owned by UOCL would thereafter become prioritorised for owners and their family and friends before being placed on the open market for rental.

But also, for those affected by lockdown who for whatever reason do not wish to take up this alternative stock week option, perhaps they could be fairly compensated in some way from the income achieved from subsequent stock week rentals. In other words this would require a fair assessment by UOCL.

Could this be a fair way to firstly compensate those affected by lockdown, but thereafter provide an ownership perk, which could better incentivise future sales?

Does this make sense?

Excellent idea Annie.

Maybe an additional thought would those who have been denied their week due to Covid be offered an alternative week at no cost (but forfeiting any reimbursement / discounts currently being offered to those who have lost out).

I’m sure many would be appreciative of a Covid Secure week away at present.

I completely agree that intelligent use of available weeks would be a genuine perk of ownership. Maybe a late booking system where anything available in the next 6 weeks can be rented by owners or friends at a ‘marginal cost plus a bit’ basis.

Given the rebates of around 250 this year, which were said to be the marginal cost, maybe 300 per week? Would keep otherwise unused weeks full and bring additional business to Oxleys

Peter

Anne, your last comment is a breath of fresh air. I for one, would have snapped at the chance to take another week to ameliorate the situation created by the” lockdown”. I would expect and happily pay extra for the week, but at least I would be getting something for my money and Underscar would get the full fee for a property that would otherwise remain empty.
Intelligent use of available resources would be relatively inexpensive. Those resources are also the 1000 or so Owners who travel to Underscar every year.Presuming they have like-minded friends and family (i.e love of the Lakes and walking), then a little effort by those Owners to help fill the available weeks could work wonders for Underscar’s finances and save on management and web sites. The incentive to do so would be the lowering of the cost of the weekly administration fee to themselves, helping make the renting option even more attractive.

With regard to owners who have been directly affected by lockdown and the expectation to pay their management fees without being able to benefit from a weeks accommodation, has the offer of future provision of an alternative stock week ( owned by UOCL) been considered for those who wish to regain a weeks accommodation for the monies ( albeit discounted) they have already paid?
Can a detailed current list of actual stock weeks be made available so that owners affected can appreciate alternative options available to them, even if this becomes a future provision option?
Presumably this would require topping up the discounted management fee already provided to make up the difference to the normal fee, but for those interested would this not provide a fairer means of compensating those affected?

The thread to cross reference is titled “ Response to Tifkat re marketing” see https://underscar.co.uk/members/answers/response-to-tifkat-re-marketing/#comment-405

Regardless of the right and wrongs of the Board choosing to start a new thread, please note that a discussion on sales / marketing can be founf elsewhere in the forum at the moment

Peter

Mr. Norris
It’s probably easier if I address each of your points in situ….

1. It was placed on another thread so that stood out and people who were specifically interested in that area would go straight to it instead of going through swathes of the original now long thread. Also it means hopefully that intelligent comments on the content will now be grouped in the same place.

With respect, Mr Norris, the previous thread’s content needs to be read as it covers a multitude of concerns that relate to sales and rentals and marketing and management issues over several years, and if other owners are to be directed to the owners website, for this to be taken in context, requires that they be made aware of the whole picture.
Without remaining aware of the whole, there will be a lack of full understanding of the background and complicated detail surrounding these ongoing concerns.

2. there is no hidden agenda to thwart people’s access to the information or inhibit discussion or anything

The point being made, Mr Norris was that by setting up a separate thread the previous posters were not being prompted of responses going forward, and also, sadly, it diminished the overall picture of events and ongoing concerns. Questions and viewpoints had been made within the previous thread that appeared genuine concerns, which form part of the overall scenario.

3. The fact that what was a carefully prepared document with spacing and paragraph headings was turned into a single stream of consciousness probably has something to do with the way in the message board works; an issue to be addressed at a later stage etc

I have found the easiest way to address this problem is to formulate an answer, and then copy and paste it into the current box at the bottom of the page. Not ideal, and this is what others have been frustrated by, as the original owners website design appears to be, once again, not user friendly.
This in itself has sadly ( and rightly or wrongly) given the impression that the owners website was never designed to be user friendly.

4 I am not sure what the ”noise” is; perhaps you could enlighten me. I suggest people concentrate on reading the content (there is nothing between the lines to read) and spend some time on that if they have a serious interest in pushing though the improvements we all want. I am happy to engage with anyone who has constructive suggestions about what we actually do about the situation; specifics are helpful as well; As in ”setup our own marketing budget” is not exactly helpful; how big? managed by whom? focussed on social media? how will it increase visitors to our site etc etc.

Agreed, It’s important that we all remain respectful of one another’s viewpoints and constructive suggestions about what to do. However, suggestions have already been made in the previous thread. Hence again the request to keep these together in the one, previous thread. Only then can owners appreciate the overall perspective.

Also to direct the title to one person who has made a suggestion is a little unfair and appears questionable.

So in this instance please can we keep these ongoing suggestions and observations in the one thread ( the previous thread) so that those owners trying to gain an overall perspective are not left either with half a picture or confused by cross references that appear elsewhere.

I hope you can appreciate Mr Norris, that this is suggested with sincere intent.

I will paste this into the original thread.

A few questions and observations going forward.

How many of the sales quoted came from the internal auction as opposed to external marketing by HOTL?
Which weeks of the year did these sales figures represent? Only when we see the relevant details can you draw conclusions if these weeks were subsequently undervalued or not.
Bear in mind that owners original purchase price reflected the season they bought into, with some paying extra for frontline positions, etc, or school holiday weeks.

Summary of sales stats.
20% of the owners weeks are currently for sale. This appears a considerable amount for anyone to ignore, especially when a 5* development that is currently charging owners high fees to cater for equivalent 5* upgrades and refurbishments and is already contributing to a marketing platform supposed to be effectively promoting such sales.
Now it appears that owners fees are expected to contribute towards a duplicate marketing platform ( referred to as digital and social media ) to make up for the lack of effective marketing by HOTL? Is this correct?
Perhaps I have misunderstood?
It appears we have gone from using one Underscar website that catered for sales and rentals, to two separate websites ( that as Julie identified has made matters worse), and now back to one. Is this correct? Have there been major costly oversights in this exercise? How can we best prevent a repeat?

Definition of occupancy rate includes those owners who took occupancy of their own week as normal, or those owners who rented out their week.
So occupancy rate does not reflect those who actually rented out their weeks.
Some owners who might have not been able to attend their weeks for whatever reason, might not have chosen to rent out their weeks. So the only true figures to reflect upon are those who ACTIVELY requested a rental. Of these Mr Norris identified approx 250 per year ( average). This is approx 20% of the whole number of weeks within the development ( 1225).
But the question to ask then is does a part week add towards the rental stats, and if so, how many of these were still not appreciating a full weeks rental or were offers that fell below the weekly management fees? This appears the critical point to bear in mind……For stock weeks and individual owners weeks up for rental….so long as the rental appreciation does not meet the level of management fees, then a form of negative equity exists. Which all boils down to an uncomfortable reality that it appears cheaper to rent a week at Underscar than own a week! If this is the case, then how can this not be deemed of sufficient importance to bring to all owners attention?

Michael rightly spoke of the need for a priority to be given to gaining an income for the club so long as the fees continue to rise disproportionately so out of sync from rental appreciation befitting a 5* development.
Pricing management fees so out of line with the market place will be the death knell of timeshare , and if not careful will do a grave disservice to the generation left to pay these fees since renting will become far cheaper than owning.
But also the question needs asking how many of the stock weeks are up for sale? Should the owners club be retaining these to act as a form of income for the owners club?

Could I also ask, where have the stock weeks originated from? Did they come from the original developer’s unsold weeks ( that the club purchased from the developer) or have some come from owner bereavements that resulted in relinquishment of the relevant week?

As for realistic rentals…. some may equally suggest there is a need to discuss realistic upgrades and refurbishments that are adding to the escalating management fees, and looking for ways, as Michael has identified, to realise effective ways to offset these fees. Such things as resale of original 5* furniture or goods that are being replaced ( either from within the owner family or externally), reassessing value for money, but more importantly encouraging rental platforms such as Sykes to recognise there is a gap in the market place for promoting specialised 5* rentals, which could include other 5* developments, all of which would have an interest in retaining realistic rental appreciation across the board ( in excess of management fees), whilst adequately reflecting the standards provided.

Or as others have suggested, perhaps the best way forward is to manage Underscar from within, away from the major rental companies, and assume that word of mouth and specialised focused marketing with effective strategies in place, will create a loyal fraternity of renters willing to pay a fair price for Underscar’s unique standards and position. This in turn would incentivise sales in the knowledge that it is being effectively managed without conflict of interests that undermine its true value.

This response has been received and posted on another thread so for those who are being prompted and wish to review this in the one thread here’s the detail.

RESPONSE RE RENTALS SALES AND MARKETING ISSUES RAISED BY TIFKAT Ian has asked me to respond to your questions re sales and marketing. Looking at the latest figures which are available publicly to all owners there are 51 I bed weeks for sale, 192 2 bed weeks and 23 3 bed weeks. In terms of sales there were 23 sales in 2016, 12 in 2017 and 18 each in 2018 and 2019. Only 3 so far in 2020 but this is hardly surprising. Average sale prices achieved in those years were £6147, £5000, £4581, £3741 and £2666 respectively. Occupancy rate is a tricky one but over the full year in 2016 just over 5% of the total weeks remain unused ie were vacant. This percentage increased in 2017 and 2018 with 6.8% of apartment weeks being unused. However in 2019 there was an improvement so that around 95% of apartment weeks were used. This year has not yet ended. Around 250 weeks per year are made available to let. Of these around 30 are stock weeks, although this number has been increasing and was up to 35 in 2019. Thus over 200 owners, approaching 20% of owners, put their weeks up for rent each year. Just over 60% of these weeks (125) were actually let in 2019. Please remember that the underoccupancy rate will vary significantly between seasons and weeks. The problem with this analysis is it does not count people who did not let their apartment but nevertheless failed to make use of it. On the other hand it does not take into account those who put their apartment up for rent and when it was unlet came and used it themselves or let friends or relatives use it. These data are supplied to us for the AGM each year and would normally be published and discussed at the AGM. After a tendering exercise In 2019 we had an agreed plan for the unification and improvement of the two websites and an identified budget for marketing on top of the HOTL spend on marketing their website which includes our properties. Many of the issues about which owners are concerned were addressed by this plan. None of this happened; Pure cottages took over and then Sykes and then Covid came along. We have revisited this with Sykes and they have agreed to provide us with a new single website for launch in mid-september. We have yet to discuss with them how our apartments will be marketed, either through our own website or through an integrated HOTL/Sykes website. Some issues. A big change we asked for was the introduction of the ability of interested renters to book and pay online; making the site like every other holiday rental site. This has proved enormously problematic for reasons of which I am completely unclear. It is now going to be solved (we are told) General marketing; the issue is how do we get more punters to come to the site to explore what underscar has to offer. This is up for discussion. Currently they mainly come through the HOTL site. Doing effective SEO for a small niche site is not effective or very expensive Targetted marketing; HOTL does very little of this and we would like a more flexible approach, especially in difficult months. Hence a new separate budget for digital and social media marketing which will not be accessed by HOTL. One brief example I decided to rent our apartment for a short break in the first week of September after the bank holiday. Nothing was coming through HOTL so I put it on our local next door network at 10pm; it was let by 4 pm next day and I had a waiting list. Our major problem is that we have 25 apartments, most of which are used by owners and friends 47 weeks of the year; this is not an attractive proposition for major holiday rental sites where they like a single apartment which is going to be let out 50 weeks of the year. The upfront costs to them of setting up an apartment on their site is the same whether it lets 2 times per year or 50 times per year; but they make commission on successful lettings only. And finally. Do some renters have a view about what rent they should achieve which is unrealistic. I always say whatever level of rent gets it let but I am told others insist on covering their management fee. This is unrealistic for many apartments but I don’t know how extensive this view is. Geoff Norris, Director responsible for marketin
Posted by elsie
Asked on August 19, 2020 10:16 am

Not just this thread Julie but all threads, some of which sadly have unanswered questions.

Valid comment Annie and one that we need an answer too.

if a website is designed well, any data collected and can transferred from one to the other but we do need an assurance that this thread will not be lost.

Can I query is it correct to assume that only when the website changes have been fully tested and agreed that the new website goes live?
So this should allow for continuing postings to be made to this owners website in the interim period, and only at actual handover to the new website will there be a short interruption to live viewing ? Is this correct?

Have reassurances been provided that the existing communications will be backed up ( not lost) and are able to be transferred across to the new owners website without subsequent conflicts? Will the two websites be compatible in this regard?

Given the concerns expressed, the retention of communications to date appears critical to minimising any potential distrust and ongoing concerns re conflict of interests.

Good point about conflict of interest Anne.I am no whizz on techy stuff but I think FACEBOOK is the modern medium. I am old fashioned and have always believed one personal recommendation is worth a 100 adverts, whether it be books ,films, restaurants or even places to stay? I am sure we are capable of promoting those spare weeks to friends particularly because of Underscar’s undoubted attributes.It was how we found about Underscar through friends, who invited us to join them during their week and ended up buying a week ourselves. I have been going to the Lakes for 60 years and was not aware of Underscar. We had friends here in 2019 who were keen to come back and were even considering buying a week,but the pandemic put paid to that.

One important aspect that all owners need to bear in mind is that Sykes are predominantly a rental platform, so why would they be incentivised to adequately promote sales in any website they redesign , when every sale is a rental opportunity lost?
Is there not an obvious conflict of interests here?

Plus Underscar will continue to be undervalued so long as sales are not adequately marketed….likewise with under valuing rentals that are marketed within a website that directs folk elsewhere to other Sykes properties causing a downward spiral effect on rental appreciation, especially if 5* properties are not being effectively recognised.
The emphasis if not careful will be on a company whose mission is intent on achieving rental commission ( disregarding the impact on owners) as opposed to adequately developing and catering for a 5* market place which Underscar requires and deserves for BOTH SALES AND RENTALS, given the fees currently being requested and which appear to be continually increasing.

It appears that the decision to commission Sykes for the redesign of the website begs many questions and we would be grateful for reassurances in this regard, especially if Underscar owners funds are already committed in this respect.

Thank you for finally responding Ian, although I have to say, I cannot understand why it’s taken so long having been aware, by your own admission, of the feelings on this forum, surely a quick comment to advising the comments have been seen, and a response will follow in time, would have been the order of the day?

The comment ”11 owners on this site” made me smile and I’m sure it’s intended to highlight you feel we are a minority (I feel we’re on the naughty step) but you’ve had 100+ emails received offering their support, I wondered if it was the norm to receive such a high level of emails and also wonder the relevance of the comment.

No one doubts the work that goes in to being a Board Member, especially in these challenging times, I’m sure many owners are, or have been, on a Board (I’m currently Chair of a large young peoples charity so know the importance of communication with our members); however what we’re not seeing is transparency, in fact we’re not seeing anything. It’s stated that the Board are working on behalf of the owners and no doubt that is the case but you need to be more visible in what you’re doing by not just sharing it with the owners, but celebrating the good work you do, and this is a perfect forum and a sure fire way of gaining trust.

I do however have to take great exception to a couple of comments:

”Unusually in the timeshare world we have a proportionately low number of owners interested in selling, or indeed putting their apartments up for rental in any one year” – Weeks for Sale area of the website would disagree with this, there are 7 pages of weeks for sale, with around 40 on each page, round it down and lets call it 250 weeks for sale – that’s not a low number and many on this forum know, we’ve been trying to sell ours for 6 years. We also try to rent ours our every year and only once have we succeeded.

”work is well advanced on our website redesign, which I hope will be going live early in the autumn” – I’m really sorry but I had to laugh out loud at this comment. The website has been a bone of contention for years. I remember attending a meeting in Wigan some 4 years ago when we were assured the website would be revamped and geared towards resales – the website was revamped but the resales area was worse than ever and still is. Ian, you rang me personally in November 2019 (after my emails had gone unanswered) and you assured me that he website would be remedied and still we wait with opportunities lost. Twelve months for a website to be developed is outrageous. If this was the developer for my business, I’d be having very strong words with them. The Club are investing huge amounts of money on projects that are not delivering. The Website is the shop front for Underscar and this needs to be capitalised on. Underscar unfortunately have a track record of completing missing the point in this area.

it’s good to see work is being done but please, share it with the Owners, communication is key, especially during times of such huge change, not only Underscar but the World as a whole. concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed and a wall of silence only serves to create a feeling of doubt or worse, suspicion.

I also note the comment regarding a newsletter, again after many false starts,, I’ll watch with interest (no offence Martin). I agree with Michael, this is the correct forum for dealing with the issues Owners currently have. Hope it goes well Martin and I look forward to seeing it.

So what next?

Peter is waiting for a response to his questions which are also of interest to me and I’m sure others on the Forum.

Expanding on Annie’s comment I’m assuming that UOCL have email addresses for all (or most) owners, as we know, this is a preferred method of communication. I respectfully ask that an email is sent to all Owners advising them of Owners Area of the Underscar Website to at least afford everyone of the ability to share their views / concerns / questions? The Owners Area of the Website is an even better kept secret than the Underscar Website itself so it would be beneficial for owners to be officially aware of that communication channels are open to them.

Julie Edmondson

We have a Forum to air views,it is here. No disrespect Martin, but a newsletter too often becomes the view of the Management and not the voice of the Members. As written material is expensive to produce and distribute, surely it would be better to advise ALL clients of the existence of this Forum to air their views.One can see from a modest beginning that this thread is growing in length and hopefully influence.

Dear Mr Hedley
Please can I respectfully ask that you request all owners to review this thread on the owners website, as only when we can be sure that ALL owners are aware of existing concerns and your responses, will any of us be able to gain a true picture of the majority of owners views, which as I’m sure you can understand depend upon full awareness going forward.
Until such time as ALL are made aware of these concerns and your responses, it would be wrong for any of us to jump to conclusions as to a majority viewpoint in this regard.
This appears the most transparent way forward by allowing ALL owners to remain aware and have the opportunity to reflect on the communications and genuine concerns expressed to date.
Kind regards.

Thanks Martin. Could I suggest that you include a Q&A with the Board on the many questions raised on this forum over the last few months, with answers more thorough than ’we are listening and considering’

Peter

Hello everyone – my name is Martin Walker, and I am your new Newsletter Editor. I am an owner with Ashness Week 2 and Scafell Week 44 since 2016; I was co-opted to the Board at the July meeting and on a steep learning curve at the moment. ’My’ first Newsletter will come out at the end of August 2020, and I look forward to receiving your contributions.

Thanks for the reply Ian. Can you let us know how many weeks are on the market at the moment. The last sales sheet I saw suggested a significant number of owners were looking to sell. Also, has there been any progress on performance reporting? Clearly the, last few months have been a challenge but, pre Covid, what was the occupancy rate, which is a good marker of potential rental demand by owners. By that I mean if a week is empty, why wasn’t it rented out? Was it on rental market with no takers or did the owner not even try. If, as you suggest, there is little demand for rental or resale, I see why the Board is not investing in marketing.

I trust that there will be a better flow of information in the future than of late.

Could you also advise how long you will remove the owners forum for and how many companies bid for running the Web site? I am sure you will have picked up the concerns about continuing close ties with Sykes

Peter

I have now had an opportunity to review this conversation thread in which some 11 owners have been debating the business operation of Underscar Owners Club Ltd, and our relationship with FML (now a subsidiary of Sykes). Thank you for your input. I recognise that some of you feel very strongly that your Board is not doing enough, or the right things.
I have also heard from over 100 owners over the last few months, most of whom have been very supportive of the way the Board, and FML as site agents, have managed so many difficult choices this year. I accept that I have not been able to respond to every person’s email over the last hectic few months.
However, my Board colleague, Mary, does keep the Board informed of your views. Many of the issues you raise have been the subject of robust discussion at recent Board meetings. For example you suggest an early EGM. Under the Companies Act 2006, this can be triggered by a specific request in the appropriate format, from not less than 5% of the total voting rights of all owners. For UOCL this means at least 59 owner weeks. Few owners have expressed any interest in this approach, preferring to be kept informed by my Chairman’s updates, given that we have already scheduled a deferred AGM in April 2021. By that date our future relationship with Sykes, with DAE and any other exchange companies, and with our Landlord should be considerably clearer, as should our financial position post-Covid-19!
Our role as a Board is to try and achieve the best we can for the greatest number of owners. Unusually in the timeshare world we have a proportionately low number of owners interested in selling, or indeed putting their apartments up for rental in any one year. That of course is reflected in the proportion of our income that the Board thinks appropriate to specifically invest in sales. Our income is broadly capped by the Maintenance fee income we can receive, so doing more of X means we may have to cut back on Y.
We have a number of active workstreams led by individual Board members covering Finance, our operational contract with FML, the updating and redesign of the website, site maintenance and improvement, extending our use of exchange companies beyond DAE, and so on. Each workstream has a cost implication, and we have to be clear that there is an opportunity to benefit the majority of owners before committing to major change. So, we are not ignoring suggestions from owners, but rather, evaluating them for their relevance and viability to our operation overall.
For example, work is well advanced on our website redesign, which I hope will be going live early in the autumn. We have commissioned someone from Pure Cottages (part of Sykes) to deliver this. So please do not be surprised when the owners’ forum is shut down for a short period. We do intend that this feature will be included in the new system.
The redesign should also address the point you make about transparency. I intend that the owners’ area will provide clearer pathways to access Board minutes, AGM minutes, audited annual accounts, stock week availability, and so on.
So please continue to express your views on the new members forum, or in any other way you feel appropriate. As a Board we will continue to take all owners’ views into account as we try to balance the range of owners’ aspirations for the benefit of us all.
Ian Hedley, Chairman UOCL

Is there a David Richardson on this Forum?

I totally understand. For what it’s worth, the FB group is totally private and although it can be seen if you search for it, you cannot see any of the content (I run a number of Groups so I’m confident it’s as secure as it can be). I also have control over who is admitted to the Group, there are questions to answer that only owners would be able to answer and if I’m unsure, they won’t be admitted.

Julie – I’m not a Facebook user and have never intended to be one, however there seems be so many issues that need addressing I may have to break that rule unless there’s an alternative? I have a few WhatsApp groups but of course that requires ’phone numbers and I would imagine people being a bit uncomfortable giving those sort of details out to people they don’t actually know in person.
As mentioned previously an EGM might drive a conversation for sure.

There is no way we would have access to the mailing list (GDPR) and rightly so to be honest, but we do need to try and reach out to owners via other forums if anyone knows of any that we could use..

IF YOU’RE DUE TO VISIT – maybe leave a note in the Owners Diary, as we do regarding good restaurants and walks, asking them to reach out to us either via here or the FB Group. I’m mindful that many won’t be Facebook users but at the moment, I cannot think of another forum to generate activity.

The comment regarding posts being ”moved” is worrying but hopefully now they’ve been rumbled, it may stop.

There are n increasing number of us who feel quite strongly that the UOCL is not being run for the benefit of us, the owners who, in the end, actually pay the money! I have written yet another direct email to Ian Hedley expressing my displeasure and particularly at the fact that the Board doesn’t respond. I have taken legal advice on the situation and am reviewing what we can do about the extreme dereliction of duty of the Board. This whole situation is seriously out of hand. I have also taken note of the fact that Fisherbeck are organising OUR, PRIVATE noticeboard and moving controversial and critical posts to other folders with little relevance to the subject matter. We need to get hold of the owners club mailing list and send out a general email to see what other owners think of the situation and laying out the very uncertain future for UOCL under current ”management”. I would be interested in thoughts and it will also be interesting to see if this post is moved by Fisherbeck to another folder!!

There are n increasing number of us who feel quite strongly that the UOCL is not being run for the benefit of us, the owners who, in the end, actually pay the money! I have written yet another direct email to Ian Hedley expressing my displeasure and particularly at the fact that the Board doesn’t respond. I have taken legal advice on the situation and am reviewing what we can do about the extreme dereliction of duty of the Board. This whole situation is seriously out of hand. I have also taken note of the fact that Fisherbeck are organising OUR, PRIVATE noticeboard and moving controversial and critical posts to other folders with little relevance to the subject matter. We need to get hold of the owners club mailing list and send out a general email to see what other owners think of the situation and laying out the very uncertain future for UOCL under current ”management”. I would be interested in thoughts and it will also be interesting to see if this post is moved by Fisherbeck to another folder!!

Yup, my thoughts too. The elephant in the room obviously isn’t tapping anyone on the shoulder which I find surprising when we know members of the Board do check this forum.

I’m not sure how much longer they can ignore is for. The clue is in the title ”Underscar Owners Club Ltd” – I think a little more emphasis on ”owners” and less on the ”club”.

The Facebook Group is growing if anyone wants to join us but please ensure you answer the questions to gain entry.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1097508863979691/

I don’t know what everyone’s griping about… judging by the latest Chairman’s missive everything is ticketyboo in the UOCL world. Just ignore everything and put up the Management Fee by 1% and that should keep the natives quiet! We will however start to get quarterly news updates so that’s okay then, don’t tell us we don’t communicate with you.

Dear Rolly49> Feel the same as you , if contribution to costs were achieved through active selling of available weeks, whether Owners or stock weeks, as well as Underscar’s leisure activities, this may have the effect of reducing weekly administration costs to Owners. In turn this would make selling of Time Shares more attractive to potential buyers.
Has an exercise been done to ascertain whether some weeks are retained for sale by UOCL? e.g. 50 weeks at £1000 per week, contribution £50,000 .There are 1250 weeks either occupied by Owners or available to be marketed. It would be a start if existing Owners were made aware of vacant weeks to either use themselves or tell friends and family.

This is the link if anyone is interested

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1097508863979691/?ref=share

There is a Private Underscar Owners group if anyone is interested for current or future discussions.

Just search for Underscar Owners

Good afternoon Anne. No, not to this one, though I did get a ”Received/Read” confirmation.
Interestingly, when I queried whether the VAT reduction wold apply to Underscar, I received a very quick reply!! Apart from a direct telephone call, not sure what else can be done. I have to agree with those who feel we should move on from Sykes/ HOTL etc. I said this to Ian as well!

A question for dld261 (David?)
Please could you advise if you have had any response from the Chairman/ Board with reference to your ongoing concerns as expressed in this thread.
Thank you, in anticipation.

That is a tad worrying Peter. A concern in relation to gaining support to call an EGM (even if there was a mechanism) is the number of owners (or lack of) who read the contents of this forum and if they do, how regularly they visit.

There will also be many, like us, who have no need for DAE so will be oblivious to the growing issue regarding rentals and resales we’re currently facing.

I have never thought the Board had transparency, in fact, quite the opposite, and their desire to spend on refurbishments which are outrageously expensive continues to baffle me.

The Board represent the owners so it’s now time the stepped up and answer questions and clarified where owners are at in relation to both re-sales and rentals.

If anyone can advise on how to move this forward, you’ll have our support

Hmm. The Articles don’t seem to say how to call an EGM. Any company law experts out there?

Calling an EGM requires a certain number of members, 5% rings a bell. To get that, there would need to be a mailing through UOCL’s list, and the Board would need to approve that happening. Or the Board could just call one

Peter

Dear dld261 – good luck with getting an answer from Ian Hedley. I emailed him over a month ago and still no response. I really think that the board have either gone away en masse or are all asleep! I would really appreciate anyone who is willing to put up their hand to demand either an AGM this year or an EGM – we cannot wait until next April and we need to know WHAT this ”board” is negotiating with Sykes on our behalf.

Make no mistake, Time Share is a 60 year liability. Weekly administration charges become the key to an attractive liability or a burdensome legacy.If they are low, consumers are happy and so are the kids. If they are high you are locked in with no easy way out.Instead of boasting that Underscar is 5 star and a not-for – profit organisation, I suggest the Committee focus more on keeping costs down in the running of Underscar and capitalise on the rental possibilities of available weeks (owned and not owned) to offset the running costs.At the end of the day it is a business not a Charity, and should be run as such in the interests of the Owners.

Anne Thank you for that update on DAE/RCI. Really is time for the Board to be more involved and open with the Owners. I think I will send an email to Ian Hedley

RCI are now part of Wyndhams (( American) …and appear to have been bought out by another global venture entity ( Platinum Equity)
https://www.rciventures.com/news/europe/wyndham-sells-european-vacation-rental-business/index.html
, although it would appear for now that DAE remain an independent subsidiary to Wyndhams.
We have been told on several occasions that they are aware of the problems re 5* equivalence of exchange and would be looking into this….but to no avail.
Also more recently spoke to a representative who suggested he would get back to us, again to no avail.
It would appear that these global acquisitions have the potential to undermine owners best interests with little intent on their part to address our vulnerabilities.
In the article it suggested that funds from the sale will repay debts and help in the acquisition of a franchise hotel and management company.
You can draw your own conclusions but we need greater transparency and reassurances going forward.

There is clearly a need for some serious Board response, especially with regards to the effect the new owners of FML & HOTL are having on Underscar – sales, rentals and maintenance. With referenced to DAE my understanding is they are now part of RCI Europe and that as members of DAE we have access to the RCI portfolio. We have always had a DAE senior representative at our AGM’s and perhaps the Board would invite her to talk to us at the next one, rather than just have a desk in the foyer.

Lorrie I’ll drop you an email over the next day or two

Very cogent point Anne. I am Lorrie Benwell and my email address is [email protected] for any of you who would like to discuss possible solutions away from this website.

OK.
By definition this owners website presumably was intended for owners was it not ( including the UOCL board who of course are owners themselves). It provides a means of owners freely communicating amongst themselves for whatever reason. and provides an ideal opportunity for transparency and for the board to respond where necessary.

Fisherbeck /Sykes already have a means by which they can keep abreast of owners concerns regarding maintenance issues via the forms that are presented and requested to be completed where relevant at the end of stay. ( or via email under Covid ).

Any other concerns such as expressed on this website appear to be communications between owners themselves and the board .
If the board subsequently need to communicate concerns to Fisherbeck (Sykes) or maintain updates to the site then they can do so accordingly but presumably they would be protecting owners interests in that regard.

Why then would there be a need to retain anyone other than owners ( including UOCL) from accessing / viewing the owners postings on this website.?

Surely owners should not have to find another route to freely communicate with one another and feel compromised in this process, should concerns need to be aired.

Why therefore is there a need for Fisherbeck /Sykes to have any access to owners postings on this website. For what purpose?

Ditto. There is a need for forcing some engagement with the Board to ensure that owners’ views are being heard and acted on. Maybe a WhatsApp type group for those interested? Zoom is open to being ’gatecrashed’.

Peter

Ibenwell, we would be interested to hear your ideas

Anne, in answer to your question as to whether non-owners can view this website the answer is a resounding YES. Nathan, UOCL on site manager for FML can see it so therefore, FML will be aware of the discussions. As I have said in earlier posts, the way to extract ourselves from control by Sykes and Vitruvian (which is a Private Equity firm) is to say bye bye to FML and put in place our own team. We should also push for an EGM by Zoom for this year and hopefully more owners will be able to attend without the need to travel. I also have an idea for UOCL going forward which I would like to discuss with interested UOCL parties but not on this website because of the reasons stated previously.

Thanks Peter.

It appears that DAE (Wyndhams) by their current discounting of rentals to the tune of up to 40% are compromising all owners and undervaluing the product in their strategy, most notably those accredited as 5*.

But why can’t exchanges and rentals be fairly accommodated within the same company to reflect the 5* standards that owners are paying for?

Has the buyout by Sykes (funded by Vitruvian) also left us vulnerable to such undermining of values if Sykes as a company are now dictating the terms to Fisherbeck and HOTL?
Aren’t Sykes more interested in their potential renters than owners?

https://skift.com/2019/10/29/sykes-cottages-sold-for-480-million-in-a-bet-on-tech-led-short-term-rentals/

Has there become a monopoly in the timeshare market whereby owners are now being used as rental fodder to further these venture entities’ own interests?

And if so, is the only alternative to regain control, by employing a manager who has allegiance/ loyalty to UOCL, and manages rentals and sales via our own website without fear of conflict of interests? As for exchanges if there is a marketplace for 5* equivalence then this could be used.

One important question going forward is do UOCL now own the rights to our own marketing website and this owners website?
Have we retained control over the maintenance of these websites?
Is this owners website only able to be viewed by owners and UOCL board and how secure is it from being viewed by those outside third parties who are not Underscar owners? Are Sykes and their employees prohibited from viewing this owners website so that we can discuss matters of this sensitive nature without being further compromised?

So long as there is not a market place for 5* accredited timeshares via agencies without the threat of such conflicts of interests, do we have any alternative other than to regain control over our own affairs, in the best interest of all owners?

When you look to the wider perspective, the concern is that these companies, as things currently stand, appear to be using owners as rental fodder for their own benefit, and have little interest in the knock on impact which ironically also undermines sales values in that process.

Sorry for all the questions but this appears critical at a time when renegotiation appears imminent….

We should not be turning a blind eye to such uncomfortable realities as sadly directly or indirectly this appears to affect all owners.
Even if you have no desire to rent or sell at this moment in time, sadly it would appear that values are being eroded in the interim under the current arrangements.

For clarity, I have no connection with Dial An Exchange. My point is that there are a range of options available to the Board but nothing other than ’stay the same’ seems to be considered. Covid has been, and still is, a challenge for everyone but it shouldn’t have prevented substantive replies from the Board to the issues raised here.

A simple ’the Board takes note of views’ really isn’t enough

Peter

There was an exchange between UOCL Board and DAE in mid 2018 looking at if/how DAE could market spare Underscar weeks through their rental system. I know DAE ownership has changed since then. The proposal was that stock weeks, ie unsold ones still ’owned’ by UOCL would be offered through DAE. If this worked, then the hope was that the facility could be made available to individual owners, albeit through a single UOCL system.

The plan wasn’t carried through because of the Board view that DAE would set to low a price. I am aware of these prices and they are a lot less than HOTL / Sykes /FML try to achieve. And I stress the ’try’

The proposal was never put to owners and discussions with DAE ceased, I think. An option to attend a DAE conference on rental opportunities, at a cost of about 150 pounds, was turned down as the Board felt they had nothing to learn from DAE

I’m confused by this Peter as DAE (Wyndhams is now their parent company) resort rentals system states
“ Resort Rentals are a great way of being able to secure a specific location months in advance without even needing to use your holiday credit. DAE have a number of carefully selected participating rental resorts (we never rent out owners’ weeks) in some of the most in-demand locations around the world, and as a DAE member, you will receive discounts of up to 40%
price compared with booking directly with the resort.“
So if I’ve understood this correctly, Underscar not only can’t achieve an equivalent 5* exchange as DAE haven’t any equivalent 5* rated properties in their portfolio, but they also cannot achieve a decent rental value from Underscar’s stock weeks that should recognise the 5* status. Their grading system is based upon a different criteria which does not befit Underscar’s standards.
Bottom line, as things currently stand this company does not appear suitable for our 5* development and if they remain unwilling to negotiate a better deal then we should look elsewhere.
But the irony is that Wyndhams , the parent company, do have 5* properties in their select portfolio so why can’t Underscar achieve a better deal with the parent company???
See http://www.rci.com/static/html/en_US/flipbook/TheRegistryCollection/2019/index.html
which refers to the registry collection.
On page 82 of 214 it makes reference to Kentisbury Grange in Devon England ( the only complex in the UK )…..Underscar appears equivalent if not better than this complex , so could this form part of the negotiations going forward? I wonder how credits are awarded for each resort in this collection and whether this might be in Underscar owners better interests as opposed to the status quo?
To be honest this looks similar to the World’s finest resorts, which many older owners will recognise as being an option when they first purchased an Underscar week….it could incentivise sales whilst also providing some high spec 5* exchange options.
Might this be worthy of consideration going forward given the apparent “under valuing “of Underscar from DAE (Wyndhams subsidiary).
Just a few thoughts to consider.

In reply to Michael, 16/7, 256pm, the Board had the option to do this through Dial an Exchange but refused because they believed DAE would charge a much lower fee than the Board thought appropriate. It seems the Board would rather have an empty week and, maintain exclusivity than keeping Underscar full, potentially generating sales leads

Peter

I’ve been told that the invoicing is being done via e-mail. I changed my e-mail address at the turn of the year and think my old (defunct) address may have been used. Perhaps an opportunity and reason to audit the database in use?

For the ask of argument say there were a 100 available weeks in the year, either not owned or available to let by owners. If this could be coordinated and controlled at a central point (perhaps a manager), then the dependency on FML would be reduced and flexibility in marketing could be introduced.For example look at Trip Advisor reviews for Sykes Cottages and compare to Simply Owners.(UK based, not American)

We are due to go to Underscar on 8th August but have not yet received our management fee invoice (which we’d normally have paid by now). I’ve sent a message via this area, tried to telephone and sent a second message to no avail yet. Are other people still receiving management charge invoices through the post as usual?

Please count me and my husband in for a Zoom meeting! I absolutely agree with all the comments. I did send an email directly to Ian Hedley over a month ago now and have had absolutely no response. We were at Underscar last week and Nathan, the site manager offered to speak to Mr Hedley to get him to respond – still nothing and we should not have to go through the Underscar/Fisherbeck site manager to be in touch directly with our own chairman! The solution is to get rid of Fisherbeck and that way we are then not involved with Sykes nor the Private Equity company that owns them.

Annie – a Zoom meeting for interested parties?

Resales and over supply through lack of effective marketing of 5* weeks appears to have been under estimated with regard to the impact on values.
Marketing via use of a more specialised 5* platform appears essential and Sykes does not appear to be this vehicle for Underscar owners, since every sale is a lost “interim” opportunity for rentals in their eyes, and they appear to be predominantly a rental marketing platform.
These companies such as Sykes appear to have little concern for consumer rights and the best interests of owners, so it would be really helpful to openly discuss a productive way forward.

With respect, we have already expressed major concerns to the Chairman via email but for the sake of transparency it is essential that all owners be encouraged to view and use this owners website as a means of not only expressing their genuine concerns , but also as a platform for the board to respond and be willing to discuss the detail where necessary, reassure , or take remedial action and advise accordingly.
Over the years there has sadly been all too little use, or adequate promotion ( and update where applicable) of this owners website, as a means of maximising transparency to ongoing concerns.
Open transparency and honest respectful discussion and reassurance that the whole family of members concerns are addressed, wherever possible, appears all in this scenario,.

Great comment Annie and I couldn’t agree more.

I received a call from Ian Hedley some time ago assuring me things would get better regarding resales and lettings now FBM and HOTL had been taken over, rentals, maybe but resales NO.

Our property has been on the market for some 6 years, we’re almost giving it away (in fact, I’d be happy to now) and nothing. The promise of the website being addressed has been going on much long than since 2018. As you enter the website it’s actually unclear what the message even is. It’s pretty and has pretty pictures but nothing that says ”buy me”. There is a tab for rentals, but you have to search the website to buy. Website analytics will be able to tell you just how long people are staying on the website and where they are looking.

Mary – no I’m not pleased to know that 4 more bathrooms have been replaced, I can’t imagine why you would think I would be.

The ageing ownership and what happens to their properties is also a huge concern for many and this also needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency.

The thread on this post alone demonstrates the number of unanswered questions owners have

Maybe these issues – and indeed other – should be raised directly with the Board’s Chairman, via his Underscar email. address.

Thanks for replying Mary.

Unfortunately these concerns re the website were being expressed many years ago well before any takeover, so it is a little misleading to suggest that it related only to the takeovers, although this has obviously exacerbated the problem.
We were being told by Fisherbeck that there was no budget for marketing, so what exactly is the truth here?
Have Fisherbeck not been willing to spend the element of marketing fees provided for Underscar over the years on website updates, to address both user friendliness ( bad design) and piggybacking issues, or has this been under estimated?

We need to know what has happened in order to resolve the problems.
Did original negotiations with regard to the management fees include for a marketing/ website element from the outset, and if so when was it deemed to be insufficient to meet our requirements? Where did it all go wrong?

Or has this arisen from a conflict of interests in so much as HOTL were not prepared to alter the website to remove the piggybacking element (stop directing clients away from Underscar) which impacted the ability to maximise Underscars rentals and sales?

Lessons need to be learned especially now that negotiations with Sykes appear to be impending.

How do the Committee therefore plan to safeguard Underscar owners best interests going forward in both these regards?

The impact has sadly been to leave those needing to sell ( or rent in the interim) vulnerable, plus it has had unintended consequences to impact the values of weeks, by creating an over supply.

We all know that the value of weeks depreciates as the years progress due to a declining number of years left on the lease, but there is still a generation left to benefit, so surely it’s in the best interest of ALL to maximise the values and rental appreciation to reflect the 5* standard wherever possible, especially when all owners are expected to meet increasing fees to meet the refurbishment and renewals element.

There comes a logical point of imbalance here that has to be recognised, where if management fees that include both elements of refurbishment and renewals plus necessary marketing elements start to exceed rental values, that it could act as disincentive to purchase.
But both elements still need to reflect value for money whilst remaining fit for purpose.

It would be good to gain greater transparency and reassurance that these issues are being adequately addressed within the upcoming Sykes negotiations or if a re-evaluation of how and whom (as alternative ) could undertake the maintenance and management operations on behalf of UOCL.
Are the board aware that Sykes and thereby HOTL appear to have lost some credibility with their handling of refunds as identified within trustpilot and the TV program watchdog?

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/heartofthelakes.co.uk

It appears that they only responded and reverted their refund policy following exposure of their bad practice.
Have UOCL assessed this and are they sufficiently concerned to retain Sykes (Fisherbeck and HOTL) as our maintenance/ management agents going forward?

Do OUCL have a plan B which appears imperative to upcoming negotiations with Sykes?

Amen to that Peter!

The need for transparency keeps cropping up in this thread

The last time there was any consultation that I am aware of regarding 5* status was a show of hands at the last Rheged AGM, with the previous chair giving three options of ’No rise in fees’, ’A small rise’ and ’Whatever is enough to keep 5*’. There was no outright majority, as I remember, and certainly only a relatively small number of owners present

Could I suggest that the Board presents a set of costed options for the future, showing what is needed to keep 5*, what the benefits of 5* are (especially given the poor letting / sales situation) and what the impact would be, pros and cons, of backing away from the 5* ’Forth bridge style’ maintenance regime?

I would also very much like an AGM this year, once they can be held, where matters such as 5* status, the future management structure and the ever present issue of relinquishment can be properly aired

Peter

The members of the Board, led by Ian Hedley, Chairman, are all owners and volunteers. There is no remuneration.

The Board is acutely aware that the Underscar website is not functioning as it should, and has been attempting to improve matters since 2018. This process has been hampered by the takeover of Heart of the Lakes by Pure Cottages, and the subsequent purchase of Pure Cottages by Sykes. Members of the Board are currently working on the problem. It is intended – among other issues – that Underscar rentals be booked and paid for directly from the Underscar site.

The management fee is based on several elements. Owners will see a breakdown in the 2018/19 accounts, which all owners have received. It is intended that a breakdown will, in future, be attached to the management fee invoice. Historically, owners have determined that Underscar should remain a 5* site, and the refurbishment and renewals element of the fee reflects that. In addition, the imposition of VAT on fees significantly increased the costs. Owners will be pleased to know that four more bathrooms have been refurbished during the COVID-19 shutdown, and the remaining two will be completed at the end of the year. When the Board can be sure that all the financial implications of the COVID-19 crisis is known, we will determine whether further compensation can be offered to owners who ‘lost’ their weeks during the shutdown.

The Board will continue discussions with Sykes over future developments as quickly as possible. The Board intends to meet ‘remotely’ this month and owners’ concerns will be discussed. The Board’s priority is the maintenance of Underscar as a 5* resort for the long term and for all owners.

Could I please ask who is NOW responsible for the maintenance of this Owners website?
Is it HOTL and if so why have there been no updates to the list of Directors and their responsibilities. within the banner heading “ about us”? This appears to date back to 2017… L
Has this information not been presented by the Board or is it that the updates have not been acted upon?
It doesn’t inspire confidence when basic information is not updated.
Likewise why is there no easy access or adequate promotion of this site during these past few years? Why has there been such scant regard to replying to genuine concerns expressed on this site?
Is there a conflict of interests here in so much as to promote a site that asks for greater transparency will create more work for the Committee or for the site maintenance team?
Or is this associated with the maintenance responsibility requesting more funding than is currently accounted for?
We all deserve some answers if only to hopefully reestablish trust, as the longer this continues sadly the greater the lack of credibility .

There are some excellent comments here and yet again nothing really from the Board. Over 6 years ago I suggested to our Committee at the time (yes really) that the owners should have an independent person (an owner) to represent them in the overall ’management’ of Underscar and to be able to question the motives of Fisherbeck. I should own up here and say that as it happens I was considering my options at the time and fancied doing it myself and my background would hopefully have suggested I was more than capable.
However, of course I was rebuffed (no surprise there) and left it at that. You guys are far smarter than me I’m sure and you see the issues now and the lack of transparency is just appalling! I was at the last AGM and asked the question (minuted) about the poor communications from the Board, Newsletters, Website etc etc and was assured improvements were imminent… well I don’t see a great deal has changed and neither it seems does anyone else. There is no kudos in being on a Board just for the sake of it unless you get on and get things done. If you don’t have the time then don’t do it and let someone else have a go who does!
Ps I’m not applying for a job here believe me.

Peter has made many cogent points and, to be truthful, there has been little to no response from the Board. I sent an email to Ian Hedley directly to ask for an AGM this year (not to leave it until next year’s AGM) and also to ask him to look at the threads on this site. I only sent it yesterday so, he hasn’t really had time to respond. However, the suggestion of an EGM is an excellent one and there must be a facility in our Constitution to allow for that. I, for one, will vote for an EGM.

This thread has moved on a little from the original question, but is becoming a discussion of general management. So that all the issues are together, the text below is a copy of a post I have made in another thread. Note that I am not out ’Board bashing’, I simply want to feel that issues and comments raised are being taken seriously.

”As a matter of interest, the Board had an option to let spare weeks via Dial an Exchange, but they refused on the grounds that the rentals that would be charged by DAE were much lower than FML advised.

Given that DAE manage to rent their weeks out (elsewhere) and FML struggle to rent out Underscar, I think I can guess what the rent level should be. The fact that this is well below the management fee is the issue”

Does anyone know the practicalities of calling an EGM, given that a percentage of owners have to ask for one. Would the Board send out (email) a question asking if one was wanted?

Peter

Thanks Mary. There is a recurring theme in this thread that there are a number of issues for the Board to address, and I have plenty of evidence that the Board does NOT address comments by owners, or if they do, it’s a matter of ’yes, considered, ignore’.

Perhaps some positive move of engagement, with a plan to take up the several issues raised here would help, but it is hard to be enthusiastic when the front page of OUR website still talks about being closed from March 23rd. Shouldn’t someone have thought to get it changed to celebrate the reopening? What has our letting agent done to ensure that any unused weeks are full, given the likely demand for ’staycations’? More correctly, what has the Board done to manage this process?

I want Underscar to survive. I’m not sure that the status quo is a way for that to happen

Peter

Thanks Mary.
Can I ask what is your board member function? Are you responsible for marketing? I can’t find you on the Directors Responsibilities and risk register under the banner heading “ about us”.

My post on June 23rd explains that I am a member of the UOCL Board. You can be assured that your comments are considered by the Board and when we have further news we will contact all owners. Mary Sackree

I think many of the suggestions put forward here are very relevant and future proofing. It seems to me that we should be holding an AGM at the end of this year, not leaving it to next year and people can join in by Zoom, if they cannot attend in person. To address the ever-rising management fees, I believe the answer is to find another managing agent, or to set up our own management system. To have had Fisherbeck in place since inception of Underscar, alongside their noticeable lack of performance in many areas would lead to the conclusion that it is more than time to have a new and different approach.

The Board seem to have very closed minds on external expertise. When a mini conference by Dial an Exchange was organised, looking at expanding rental options for resort owners, the UOCL chose not to attend as it clashed with their regular meeting. This was at the time I was working with our Board looking at a better swap system. I offered to attend but was told I couldn’t as, apparently, there was nothing to learn from DAE. Maybe true, but it is symptomatic of the closed minds

It would seem an opportune time for the Committee to open up this forum so that Owners interested in the future direction could have their say.It is evident that few people are aware and would serve the transparency Owners are seeking apart from helping decision making more democratic.
One consequence of the pandemic has been the growth in communication via the internet, surely it is more vital to have more opinions canvassed than few siren voices, sometimes lost in the wilderness of poorly attended, unrepresentative AGM’s? The physical attendance must be limited by location alone.
Much is made of 5 star status and not for profit organisation, it is unlikely Fisherbeck Management subscribe to the latter, particularly as they are now part of Sykes Cottages.Even Buckingham Palace ended up having to open its doors to the general public to help pay the bills.
Google 5 star accommodation in the Lakes and naturally it is mostly Hotels.Another Place on Ullswater seems comparable to Underscar and can command £200 per night plus for two people,£280 in the summer peak.This shows potential rental values for Underscar Owners who wish to sub rent. Underscar is very hard to find.Does not seem to impact the SEO. Some accommodation/hotels pay for their own ads e.g. The Cranleigh..
I would ,for one, like to see Underscar make a profit so weekly charges can be reduced to Owners , otherwise at the rate costs rise at Underscar they will be unmarketable and a liabillty not an attractive legacy to pass on to the children.One only has to look to see what else is on offer.Sykes Cottages do not seem the right marketplace for what Underscar has to offer. Johansen’s would be a better choice…but their will be experts in the field more knowledgeable than me.

I one hundred percent agree with the responses from Anne and Tifkat. Also, since I posted in April to ask if Fisherbeck have reduced their management fees, I have had no response to this outstanding item. Also, with the pool and the bistro closed, I would like to know where the savings from them are going please? Also, again I ask – who is Maggie! Please explain who you are. My husband and I are very frustrated, long term owners and it seems to me that the tail is wagging the dog here.

Anne, I couldn’t have said it better myself, although believe me, I have tried. In 2017 I wrote to the Board with some thoughts and ideas on what needed to be done, including getting a better resale system, better swap system, having a relinquishment system, selling unused weeks to a holiday operator, etc. At the last Rheged AGM, I also asked the Board to look at alternative ownership structures, such as MacDonald’s and so on. Unfortunately, none of these have been acted on.

As you say, we still have a prime rental agent where they have a conflict of interest with their own properties, we have no effective resale system and the ageing ownership profile (as I highlighted 3 years ago) makes the need for a ’hand back’ system, as other resorts have, more urgent. I don’t understand the lack of engagement by the Board with this web site, with, and I apologise if I sound harsh, very much a ’go away’ answer from maggie in this thread. I wish I had the answer. I did try and work with the Board on a swap system but was told it was too high a risk and wouldn’t try it.

I know there was a move to look at other rental options, but we have stayed with Fisherbeck. Another thread has questioned having a UOCL employed manager, but maggie appears to have dismissed that idea. There is a pattern of ’no change’, which is worrying, as the world is very definitely changing

The Covid scenario has apparently identified the need for far greater transparency with regard to the management fees and the “take-up” of owners genuine concerns, with open and respectful discussion and committee responses where applicable, on this website.
We look forward to a further update with regard to the fees being charged to those owners currently affected by the closure of Underscar now that an opening date of July 4th has been confirmed. Have the Committee for instance been able to gain a reduction to business rates and FML fees? When will the Committee be in a position to advise?

For several years there used to be a breakdown of fees that accompanied all invoices and it could be argued that restoring this would be in the best interests of all owners. But beyond that it would also assist if there could be greater clarity with regard to the staff employed directly at Underscar and the roles they play, (and value for money) for whom we appear to be paying through our continuing management fees, as opposed to those being furloughed by the management company under the Covid scenario.

How for instance can we be reassured that there is not double accounting where members of staff are working full time on Underscar administration, as opposed to sharing their time on other administrative matters associated with the management company ( with regard to other properties within the management company’s portfolio)? What proportion of their time is officially allocated to Underscar whilst being employed by the management company? Could reassurance be given to gaining clarity and accountability and ensuring owners are gaining value for money? Have the management company reduced their fees accordingly?

Beyond that there appears to be the need for greater transparency with regard to owners ongoing concerns via the use of this owners website.
This relies upon all owners to be encouraged to use the website, which perhaps could be better accommodated by including a clear link at the bottom of all newsletters, where a “click here” option could be provided for easy access to this site, ( making reference for the need to register….or could there be automatic registration upon ownership?)

Only when all owners are encouraged to use this website as a means to respectfully discuss matters of concern, with due consideration by the owners committee, will greater transparency and reassurances be accommodated.

Owners attendances at the AGM have proven to be relatively small and therefore do not necessarily adequately reflect all ongoing concerns, nor do they provide a means of owners comprehending wider issues in detail that require further discussion . Ownership participation of this nature has not been adequately pursued for whatever reason and ease of access to this site presumably plays its part in this scenario.

Issues have arisen such as the need for greater priority to be given to the growing instance of weeks for sale and the apparent inability to acquire sales over a period of several years, through the current management company who have acted as agents, which ironically has sadly undermined achievable values for owners given the growing supply.
Sales Marketing will understandably be of growing concern to all owners currently seeking sales. Note -concern has also been expressed with regard to an ageing ownership and requirement to adequately dispose of their week in a timely fashion where families no longer wish to avail themselves of the week due to the high fees associated with 5* status.
Surely It’s in the interest of all owners to have an effective marketing platform ASAP going forward and it would appear this should not be underestimated or under prioritorised. Many questions remain as to why sales have been unachievable for all too many years, given the constant reference to the unique nature and 5* standards at Underscar.

Likewise adequate and timely attention should be given to the effectiveness of acquiring rentals that reflect the 5* status, ( for which we are all paying a high management fee), with awareness of the “ piggybacking” to other properties within the management company’s property portfolio.
So long as there is no effective selective marketing of 5* properties as a unique product range there will always be the risk that clients will be lost to Underscar.

Sykes Cottages who now apparently own Fisherbeck and Heart of the Lakes are predominantly a rental platform, so can we be resassured that they will adequately accommodate our 5* status without undermining our rental values?
And will they, as management agents, give due consideration to sales when every sale is a potential rental opportunity lost?

Likewise with the exchange mechanism ( DAE is now apparently owned by Wyndhams) that currently have no comparable star ratings and have very few equivalent 5* exchange properties within their portfolio, hence the apparent very low take up of exchanges (which is one of the flexible arrangements that when required forms part of the principle of buying a timeshare week in the first place).

These and many other issues need to be given greater transparency for ongoing discussion throughout the year, and encouragement should be given to the need for wider owner participation, so that all owners can be kept informed and influence solutions to important issues that they might not be aware of.
All with a view to allowing the Committee to review the whole family of owners concerns when problems arise, and thereby hopefully minimise instances of misunderstandings or mistrust and seek to maximise accountability and value for money with regard to management fees for all owners in that process.
A win win scenario.

I posted on May 27th . Unfortunately the details about Board Membership were significantly out of date at that time, but those details have now been corrected. I confirm that owners’ views will be carefully considered as we move forward and a letter from our Chairman will follow today’s government announcement with details of future arrangements. Mary Sackree Board Member

I feel that we should support our directors through this difficult time and feel pretty sure that they never thought that they would be having to make such immense decisions on our behalf.
I am one of the unfortunate ones who paid up knowing that we could not attend due to Covid 19. Yes it hurt! But it was the right thing to do in my view.
Going forward as an idea maybe all owners should be able to voice their views through a questionnaire and perhaps a short comment section.
Maybe the directors will appreciate hearing our collective views.

A different way to look at it is that the rebate for those that couldn’t use their week was about £230. This is, apparently, just the marginal costs, such as cleaning labour (and materials) and laundry that could be taken away by closure. So that’s for 3 – 4 hours of cleaning each week, plus laundry. Wish I was on that rate per hour! It really needs more transparency and a proper look by the Board.

Take out FML (now owned by Sykes Cottages 17,500 owners with over a 1000 properties to rent in Lakes)and a more proportional cost comes for Time share Owners emerges.As admin costs for 2 bedrooms are £800 per week, then pro- rata, rate for year is £40,000. plus your electricity usage… every year! Some going when most of the time the majority of owners, at wild guess, are out walking and just want clean accommodation with fresh linen and towels and a telly that works when they get back. How often have you refurbished your kitchen, changed your appliances or put a new bathroom in. The pool is a luxury item, but can’t even walk in the garden now.A fair rate would be around 30%., in my humble opinion.

I agree that the management fee for those whose weeks are not usable should be reduced more than it has been. I raised a question a few weeks ago about whether or not FML has reduced its fee at all, in line with other businesses and, so far, have not received a response on this point. Please would Maggie say who she is as her answers seem very ”official” and she is not listed as a board member on the website. I would be grateful to know. Thank you.

Owners undertake to pay the annual management fee when they purchase their timeshare. It is a contractual obligation whatever the circumstances. When the COVID -19 emergency forced the closure of the Underscar site, the Board looked carefully at the financial situation and decided that one-off net savings in direct costs arising from the closure should be used to give an initial reduction in the 2020 Management Fee to those owners prevented from using their week. These costs relate to salary and laundry costs for the cleaning and servicing of the apartments.

The Board will review the overall financial situation when the Underscar site reopens. There will then be a clearer picture of the overall financial impact of COVID-19 on the long term finances and plans and the Board will consider whether financial relief can be given to those who were unable to use their week. There will also be a full review of the future refurbishment programme, as the Board currently plans to refit the remaining 6 en suite bathrooms during 2020. UOCL Board Member

I don’t know how the reduced rate has been calculated but some costs just don’t go away, so it is reasonable to expect those to be paid. Some transparency in the calculation would help