How unfair is Club Ultima? Let's identify it -
I bought my package in Sep 2011
It was a pressure sale, they will require you to decide and to pay on the spot.
They will tell you that they are giving you the price advantage which is offered for that day and time only and you will not find it any where else.
They will further say that you will enjoy 4-5 star standard hotels, when in fact they and all the hotel affiliates they offer are only 3to3.5 star, tantamounting to false representation.
The gross price for the 15 year Vacation package is P230,000
I was given a 30% discounted price of P161,000 (surely many of you paid more)
Adding the P6,720 annual fees x 15 = P100,800
= P261,800 / 15 years / 7 vouchers
= P2,493.33/night for room only
Fully transferrable, you can give it away or sell it.
I did not bring cash, check or credit card that time, they still asked me to sign and sent a collector to my house right after the presentation to swipe my card.
Oct 2012, when I called their membership office, they said they are reselling other members voucher in case I need. I asked how much, they said P2,000.
So comparing the price they sold it to us, against the price they "help" us sell it, obviously Club Ultima put members at a disadvantage for reselling palugi.
So where's the member's advantage here? And who is the only one gaining?
In 2016, I received fliers from their room sales office for sale prices from P2500-P3000 with bfast for their various hotels.
Members had to buy 15 years x 7 nights = 105 vouchers, just to get their so called price advantage but in fact is a disadvantage.
I complained to their office and there was no action.
You can also easily google Crown Regency rates they offer through various booking engines like tripadvisor, trivago, booking.com, agoda, travelbook.ph, etc and you will see the same price drop until present, 2018.
As if the above is not enough, this 2018 they said they are increasing the annual fees for the voucher by adding P7,200 on the annual fees / 7 vouchers = +P1028.57 per night more disadvantage in terms of pricing.
P2,493.33/night previously + P1028.57 increase = P3,521.90/voucher or /night for room only
They think we do not know how to count, they think they can abuse members as much as they can and just easily get away with it.
I complained with DTI. They offered settlement by charging past voucher used at P6,000. On top of the existing false representation, they want to further abuse me by making me pay more.
Their violation -
Republic Act No. 7394
VIOLATED SECTION 50 OF THE CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES ON PROHIBITION AGAINST DECEPTIVE SALES ACTS OR PRACTICES.
Article 2. Declaration of Basic Policy. — It is the policy of the State to protect the interests of the consumer, promote his general welfare and to establish standards of conduct for business and industry. Towards this end, the State shall implement measures to achieve the following objectives:
a) protection against hazards to health and safety;
b) protection against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and practices;
Article 50. Prohibition Against Deceptive Sales Acts or Practices.– A deceptive act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service.
a) a consumer product or service has the sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, ingredients, accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have;
b) a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model when in fact it is not;
c) a consumer product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand state;
d) a consumer product or service is available to the consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;
e) a consumer product or service has been supplied in accordance with the previous representation when in fact it is not;
f) a consumer product or service can be supplied in a quantity greater than the supplier intends;
g) a service, or repair of a consumer product is needed when in fact it is not;
h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it does not;
i) the sales act or practice involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular warranty terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the indication is false; and
j) the seller or supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation he does not have.
Article 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or Practice. – An unfair or unconscionable sales act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Chapter whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by taking advantage of the consumer's physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the general conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.
In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and unconscionable, the following circumstances shall be considered:
a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller took advantage of the inability of the consumer to reasonably protect his interest because of his inability to understand the language of an agreement, or similar factors;
b) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the price grossly exceeded the price at which similar products or services were readily obtainable in similar transaction by like consumers;
c) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the consumer was unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the transaction;
d) that when the consumer was entered into, the seller or supplier was aware that there was no reasonable probability or payment of the obligation in full by the consumer; and
e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier induced the consumer to enter into was excessively one-sided in favor of the seller or supplier.
Use the above. Google. Know your rights. File your complaint today. It's free.
Just go to https://www.dti.gov.ph/consumers/complaints
Club Ultima can only get away when you let them.