My original question was poorly worded as I am new to this noticeboard. However, since posting I have had my invoice through for WK 50 Whinlatter with a cost of £784. This hike in fees from previous years has left me aghast. Is there no stopping these price rises. How can this be justified and where will it end? The unfairness of the situation is that a similar Underscar property in August will be paying the same fees.

The bottom line is that I can rent a similar property at Underscar through Heart of The Lakes for £825 in the same week. After paying for utilities etc. the cost of my week will be the same, or higher, than renting through HOTL. It is no longer economically sensible to keep my week. In fact, I would be better off to give the week away, if that is possible. Do any other owners have a similar issue? Have you managed to get rid of an unpopular week, or even give it away? Are there any rules in place that prevent fees going above a certain level?

Finally, I suspect that the out-of-season weeks, which will not see full occupancy, are subsidising the high season weeks, which will have near full occupancy. It just seems quite wrong and unjust.

The factors that appear to govern relinquishing a property are not just associated with renting comparable properties at a cheaper rate in the same week, but also the fact that the exchange facility currently provided no longer competes with other products on the market (such as holiday property bonds, which now provide far more equivalent highly rated properties as exchange options). Plus I suspect ongoing sales and rental marketing concerns.

The original ”promises” upon purchase at Underscar were to provide the option, if required, equivalent status properties elsewhere both in the UK and abroad. But sadly since the change to Dial and Exchange there is no easy means of identifying equivalent status properties since they are not star rated. Neither does there appear (upon further research) to be a large enough choice of 5 star equivalent properties for exchange on their books.
Also the marketing strategy of Underscar appears flawed, in so much as the website is not user friendly (you have to scroll through all too many pages… there is no simple mechanism to view a list of available rentals and sales with their equivalent pricing structure). You are also directed away from Underscar to competing Heart of the Lakes properties which directly compromises owners.
Neither is there a simple means of viewing Underscar properties on plan and clicking on a property from that plan to gain details of a list of weeks associated with that property currently available for rent or sale).

These factors, together with other concerns as expressed on the owners website, only adds to disillusionment that sadly appears to be leading to a growing desire to relinquish property at Underscar.

The current Director Responsibilites pdf file, whilst being informative of responsibilities, also does not appear to contain contact email details for each Director.
The observation in the August newsletter “if you have a complaint to which you require an answer it is best addressed by email directly to myself or the appropriate Board member (see Board Responsibilities) rather than being posed on the message board.” results in transparency being compromised, as valid complaints and ongoing concerns together with the opportunity for Director responses, should surely be allowed to be reviewed and debated by all members on the owners website, should they not?
It does not appear helpful to owners to only have this opportunity to comprehend ongoing concerns and Director responses at the AGM alone, especially given the limited time available. Surely it’s better for owners to have the opportunity to review and reflect upon issues and responses OPENLY and hopefully productively during the year, prior to the AGM?

These are just a few wider-perspective thoughts to contemplate when considering the possible reasons behind relinquishment of properties, with a view to addressing concerns in as productive a fashion as possible, as opposed to suppressing or ignoring owners’ ongoing valid concerns.