THE LANCASHIRE TRADING STANDARDS LETTER CLEARLY ADDRESSED TO COX CAN BE SEEN BY CLICKING HERE
ALL REFERENCES AND PARAGRAPHS COPIED FROM THE TRADING STANDARDS LETTER CAN BE SEEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY WITHIN THE ORIGINAL TRADING STANDARDS LETTER PUBLISHED (Simply click the images to the right of this text to enlarge the letters)
The content of the letter is self-explanatory to the reader. Suffice to say Trading Standards, amongst other things, warn him that: –
this service (Lancashire Trading Standards) has a number of concerns with the way TESS operates.
the way clients of TESS are introduced to TESS and with the information provided to the potential clients of TESS.
this service believes that some actions of TESS may be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs).
Ironically, these are the very same regulations Cox so pointedly highlights that Eze Group have recently been found to be in breach of. However, it would appear that Cox can be in breach of consumer regulations and receive prior warning that he is breaching them, but when it is others who breach them, Cox considers it is ‘his civic duty’ to highlight it……..Cox the hypocrite!
It can be clearly seen at paragraph 4 of the Trading Standards letter that Cox advised Trading Standards, having incorporated TESS on 2 January 2015, that he had obtained 303 timeshare owners referred to him from SellMyTimeshare/Monster. He was paid upfront fees to the value of £ 150,000 of money from SellMyTimeshare/Monster.
What is interesting from the documentation we have seen first-hand, is that the client, a SellMyTimeshare/ Monster client, hasn’t signed any authority for their details to be passed directly to TESS. We believe clients complained of having received TESS’s documentation with no prior introduction or warning, and no permission or authority for TESS to contact them. If the client did not authorise or agree to contact from TESS, this would be considered to be ‘unauthorised’ contact.
The correct procedure is for the referrer to obtain a signed authority from the client, or for the referrer to pass on TESS’ details onto the client and leave it to the client to make initial contact.
In light of the above, it would appear from the Trading Standards letter, in paragraph 15, that TESS readily admitted that it knew that the clients it was receiving from SellMyTimeshare/Monster had been ‘cold-called’. This didn’t appear to phase Cox or TESS, but he makes a song and a dance about others who partake in such a practice…….Cox the hypocrite!
The Trading Standards go on to point out that the clients are being misled: –
A commercial practice can be a misleading action if it contains false or misleading information regarding the existence or nature of the product Regulation 5(4)(a), and the extent of the trader’s commitments 5(4)(c).
Owners are invited to visit the business (at a cost) to obtain more detailed advice’…….’During these visits owners are often sold products with promises that they can get out of their existing timeshare obligations.’ ………… ‘These Sales can run into amounts over £10,000.00’. ………… ‘Owners are vulnerable to exaggerated claims that resales and exits are guaranteed and often find themselves having paid money for points, vouchers or other timeshare products (which they previously had no intention or interest in purchasing) and still have liability for their original timeshare’………’It seems likely that consumers could be being mis-sold further timeshare/ holiday products when in reality they could have paid less money to relinquish their timeshare direct.
Trading Standards go on to say: –
Whilst your argument against these concerns is that you (TESS) have no control over the actions of the introducers, consumers are often paying vast sums of money solely on the understanding that your service will achieve an exit for them.
Cox explains the SellMyTimeshare/Monster business model to Trading Standards and Trading Standards unmistakably advise Cox that they think he is part of the cause of these timeshare owners having to spend large amounts of money for an ‘alternative product’. Sales that can run to more than £10,000.00.
Cox’s reply, is: ‘I have no control over the actions of the introducers’. This is how Cox justifies TESS’ role in all of this. Regardless of Trading Standard’s advice, Cox ignores it and goes about receiving his monies on the back of SelllMyTimeshare/Monster’s alleged misleading sales. SelllMyTimeshare/Monster promote TESS on their sales decks and TESS is considered an integral part of the sales process. Cox now criticises the SellMyTimshare/Monster selling practices, labelling it all a SCAM. Presumably, it wasn’t a scam when Cox was taking Mark Rowe’s money?……Cox the hypocrite!
The question for Cox is this: ‘what was it that made it NOT a scam, when he was taking Mark Rowe’s money, to it now being a grand SCAM?’ Answer: Cox fell out with Mark Rowe and decided to exact revenge upon him, by utilising Rowe’s own data to contact all of Rowe’s clients. Regardless of what went on between Cox and Rowe, the data held by Cox was provided to him upon trust and, without signed authority, he would not have been authorised to indiscriminately contact Rowe’s data for the purpose of obtaining claims against Rowe. However, this is exactly what he did.
These are not the actions of a legal professional or an ethical business, regardless of what has happened between Cox and Rowe; Cox should not have been allowed to make financial gain from his tort.
Trading Standards now go further and point out to Cox: –
consumers are often paying vast sums of money solely on the understanding that your service will achieve an exit for them. The TESS paperwork provided to them during the meeting with the introducer specifically states that TESS ‘will assist consumers obtaining an exit’. However, on further reading of the Engagement Letter, and confirmed in the meeting, an exit is not guaranteed and that your obligations to the consumer will cease after six years. We therefore believe that your services may be being misrepresented by the introducers, and in the correspondence provided to potential clients. You also confirmed in the meeting that the services carried out by TESS can easily be followed by the timeshare owner themselves and this advice is provided to owners who contact the TCA direct.
exits from timeshare contracts’ (Deed of Understanding), and that TESS will ‘act for you in order to extricate you from your timeshare liability’ and ‘you have a wish to engage us to act on your behalf to carry out this task’ (Engagement Letter). The Engagement Letter continues to indicate that an exit will be facilitated by TESS.
The final sentence just proves what Cox and TESS were doing was worthless. This is what Cox told Trading Standards. He was clearly in conflict with himself, which it is laughable. Cox admits he is charging clients for a service they can do themselves and readily admits that, whilst wearing his TCA ‘hat’, this is the advice he gives consumers.
With a quick change of ‘hat’, to his TESS hat, he now charges them £550.00 for the service he told his TCA clients they could do themselves for nothing. IS DAVID COX FOR REAL AND WOULD ANYONE TRUST A MAN WHO CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS AFFAIRS IN THIS WAY?
Cox then proceeds to tell even more LIES when he says that TCA clients will never be referred to TESS.
“You confirmed that those owners who do contact the TCA will never be referred to the services of TESS.”
Cox made the above statement to the Trading Standards, who confirmed that he told them this, within their letter dated 18 March 2015.
This was an interesting statement and we recall from our reading of another site called ‘The David Cox Story >>>> http://www.tess-timeshare.com/ that a similar comment about TCA referrals was made on there.
We think the link below is the very same link referred to by the author of The David Cox Story. The article was written by Cox and published upon the TCA website on the 21 October 2015.
These are the words verbatim that appear in the final two paragraphs of above article link:
“We don’t tend to send many clients over to Praetorian Legal now which some might believe that to be a slur against them. It’s not!
“The only reason is that we have a very close tie-in with TESS. If TESS did not exist then we would be recommending Praetorian Legal in the same manner as we always have.”
Based on the evidence attached, Cox is a HABITUAL LIAR and will twist the truth to suit his own agenda, as can be seen here. He has categorically lied to the Trading Standards and just a few months later admits that he is sending TCA enquiries to TESS.
Are these the actions of an ethical professional person who claims in his numerous poorly written TESS articles to be truthful and upstanding? Unlike Cox’s self-opinionated rubbish, we have evidenced substantive proof of his shortcoming and lies, for all to see.
The Trading Standards letter continues and they state the following:
A commercial practice can be a misleading action if it contains false or misleading information regarding the nature, attributes and rights of the trader including approvals, affiliations and connections (5(4)(j).
The paperwork provided to the consumer indicates that TESS is connected to a number of organisations and sources of information. The Deed of Understanding makes reference to:
Here below are the organisations Cox professed to be associated with:
- being one of the main affiliate members of the McKenzie Friend Organisation,
- having an application to become a member of the Law Society and compliance with SRA procedures
- engagement with the University of Central Lancashire and De Montfort University who undertake extensive research for TESS.
- procuring intricate legal advice from a variety of barrister chambers under public access rules.
Cox alleged, amongst other things, that he had applied to the Law Society (SRA) for approval. This is the sheer ignorance of the man. He tried to hoodwink the Trading Standards into believing that he could ‘apply’ to the Law Society to become a member. It’s quite unbelievable, to anyone with the briefest of legal knowledge, that to become a member of the Law Society you have to be admitted to the Roll of Solicitors.
Cox, without any legal qualifications, practice experience, a Law Degree or the mandatory Legal Practice Course and a two-year training contract, believed he could apply for membership of the Law Society……. laughable. He presumably believed in his own hype to have imparted such stupidity to the Trading Standards.
Below is what the Trading Standards advice to Cox was within their letter: –
We would advise that reference to organisations such as these in your correspondence may lead consumers to infer approval or closer association than actually exists. For instance you clarified that the link to the University of Central Lancashire is a future intention to offer work placements to students, that the link to De Montfort is that one of their lecturers is a director of TESS, and that procuring advice from a variety of barrister chambers under public access rules involves informal links to a barrister who shares information with TESS. I was unable to find any evidence that TESS are an affiliate member of the, McKenzie Friend Organisation, and believe it misleading to refer to regulation by the SRA, or compliance with the SRA, when this organisation does not govern or audit your business in any way.
The final part of the Trading Standards letter relates to the following: –
A commercial practice can be misleading if it contains false or misleading information regarding the consumer’s rights or the risks he may face 5(4)(k).
The Engagement Letter advises clients to withhold their maintenance fees in instances where you are unable to effect an early exit from the contract. This service considers this to be unfair without also advising clients of the consequences of breaching their obligations under the contract.
The Engagement Letter infers that consumer have a legal right to exit their timeshare contracts. We are unaware of any legal basis which would support this claim except by specific reference to the circumstances of each individual case
Harassment Act 1977 (Protection from Harassment Act 1977)
The Engagement Letter makes various claims about a consumers rights under this Act.
It is believed that these claims could be misleading as they exaggerate the action that could be taken and the level of damages which could be obtained. The act requires proof that the timeshare company has engaged in a course of conduct that alarms a person or causes them distress on at least two occasions. Any damages will be awarded for anxiety and financial loss and any contractual rights and obligations will remain. The Engagement Letter does not explain the limitations of any potential action and extent of damages that the consumer may be awarded.
Limitation Act 1980
The Engagement Letter indicates that any action which the timeshare company can take against the consumer for breach of contract will cease six years and one day from signing the Engagement Letter. The view of this service of the Limitation Act 1980, in relation to obligations under a contract, is that the timeshare company will become statute barred six years after the cause of action occurred. It is the view of this service that the cause of action occurs when the consumer fails to carry out their obligations under the contract (usually payment of the management fee when it becomes due).
Neither the signing of the engagement letter, nor informing the timeshare company that they are in breach of the contract, would trigger the six year limitation period.
Misrepresentation Act 1967
Appendix 1c of the Engagement Letter indicates that any verbal statements made during
the sales process which are designed to induce the consumer into a purchase can be relied upon and that if they materialise as falsehoods the consumer can claim the contract void and obtain a full refund of monies paid for the timeshare.
This statement is untrue and misleading for a number of reasons
– the consumer may be out of time under the Limitation Act;
-rescission is not an option if it would be unfair (e.g. not possible to restore the parties to the pre-contract position);
-if it will upset the rights of third parties; there has been a lapse of more than a reasonable time since the contract was made;
-the consumer has affirmed the contract by continuing with it knowing of the misrepresentation; or the timeshare company can show that, up to the date the contract as entered into he had reasonable grounds to believe it was true.”
The above was what Cox sent out to TESS clients whilst he was conducting SellMyTimeshare/Monster timeshare terminations. It is clear from the Trading Standards that his Business Model was fatally flawed and we would wholly agree with what Trading Standards have advised Cox.
Trading Standards concluded by stating this: –
In summary our concerns relate to the promises being made by the introducing companies relating to the ease of exiting existing timeshare agreements, on payment of a large fee and entrance into further timeshare/ holiday related products and also the information provided to consumers in the form of the Deed of Understanding and the Engagement Letter produced by TESS. Consumers who enter into these contracts are often vulnerable and desperate to free themselves from their obligations under their timeshare agreements. It is the view of this service that the information provided by the introducers and in the paperwork are constructed in such a way that consumers are led to believe that exit is guaranteed. For this reason we believe that consumers could be making a transactional decision they may not have made if the extent of the service offered by TESS was made clear. At the point where consumers have had the opportunity to read the paperwork in full or have had the opportunity to seek legal advice on their contract with TESS, they will have already signed up to contracts for other products which may carry with them further long term commitments.
The above conclusion says it all. However, Cox was only interested in the money, approximately one ‘cool’ million pounds of SellMyTimeshare/Monster money, so we are lead to believe.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE THE LANCASHIRE TRADING STANDARDS LETTER CLEARLY ADDRESSED TO DAVID COX