But it is not something the timeshare industry can be proud of.
Timeshare companies have continued to get the most number of complaints filed with Singapore's consumer rights body, year after year.
That's why the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) says it's time for a Timeshare Act to tackle the problem once and for all.
Mr Seah Seng Choon, 56, executive director of Case, said that in each of the last three years, more than 2,000 complaints were received about the timeshare industry. No other industry drew more than 2,000 complaints a year in that time.
Common complaints include pressure-selling tactics to make people buy memberships, how timeshare companies promise products they do not have and that consumers have no way of terminating their contracts once they sign on the dotted line.
Why has there been no solution to the problem after all these years and despite the persistent number of complaints?
On November 24, The New Paper ran two reports - one on a woman who spent nearly $34,000 on timeshare contracts and could not get out, and another on a former timeshare employee who said he quit the company after a fortnight as he did not agree with its business practices.
Since those reports, The New Paper has received several e-mails and phone calls from readers who shared similar experiences, saying they regretted getting involved in timeshare products.
They all wanted a resolution to a problem they had been saddled with for years. And they wanted to know which government ministry was regulating the timeshare industry.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) said more was being done to protect timeshare consumers.
In an interview with The New Paper on 28 Nov at the Case headquarters on Ghim Moh Road, Mr Seah said it was time for a Timeshare Act to be passed.
These companies fall under the provisions of the Companies Act and come under the MTI, he said.
But as long as they do not breach any of the provisions of the act, for instance those relating to the payment of corporate tax, they were more or less left alone.
He said timeshare companies were legitimate businesses and legal entities here. Unfortunately, he added, many of them were not operating at the standards Case expected of them.
He said: 'The law does not prevent anyone from setting up a company to provide timeshare services without the backing up of assets and facilities. This can be disastrous because after collecting the fees, these companies can disappear.
'More often than not, people will be left in the lurch after paying the fees.
'I feel strongly there should be proper timeshare regulations and the relevant authority (MTI) should seriously look into it.'
Timeshare companies had been allowed to sign up 1,000 people for facilities meant for only 100.
'That's why they keep saying you have to wait three, four or five months (to use the facilities), which is unacceptable. There is clearly a lack of transparency in the way they operate.'
Another issue Mr Seah wanted looked at was whether more could be done against timeshare companies which closed down after Case had taken injunctions against them, only to reappear as other timeshare companies.
These injunctions are court orders to stop a company from continuing with unfair practices. Since 2006, Case has taken three injunctions against companies - two of which were timeshare companies.
They were Orion's Belt Network Pte Ltd and Global Europ Asia Pte Ltd.
No termination clauses
Also, timeshare contracts have not included termination clauses. This means members have had to pay annual maintenance fees that could amount to five-figure sums over the years.
And these fees have resulted in another set of vultures joining the fray since 2004 - liquidation companies which claim to be able to terminate timeshare contracts.
But first, clients had to cough up thousands of dollars to hire such companies.
Can you simply stop paying your annual fee?
Mr Seah said you have no choice but to continue paying under the terms of the contract which you had signed.
Some consumers have told The New Paper that they stopped paying, but started again after getting lawyers' letters.
But there is hope: Consumers can go to Case (hotline 64631811) for help or hire a lawyer themselves.
Case has also managed to help some customers recover some money. In 2006, the amount recovered, in cash and kind, was almost $1 million.
Last year, it nearly doubled to $1.89 million and so far this year, consumers have got back more than $888,000.
'In kind' refers to travel vouchers, air tickets, or hotel stay vouchers which were not timeshare-related.
Mr Seah said those who had signed up with timeshare companies were probably unprepared when they were stopped on the streets, enticed with gifts and persuaded to attend seminars and presentations.
He said many signed up with their credit cards, thinking they could cancel their deposits later, not realising they couldn't get a refund.
The pressure-selling led to some having to stay for presentations that lasted four to six hours.
Said Mr Seah: 'Some stayed till past midnight and signed up just to get out of the place.'
He hoped the Timeshare Act could be implemented to regulate an industry he called 'unusual'.
Why unusual?
He said: 'They are selling a service that is not there. The service is offered in the future (booking the resorts later) and you can only use it after you have paid the membership fees in full.'
He said for other club membership fees, consumers would get a membership card once you had paid a deposit and you would be allowed to use the facilities soon after that. You could also pay off the rest of the fee over a period of time.
But for timeshare facilities, you are allowed to use the facilities only after paying the membership fee in full.
He added: 'This has resulted in many abuses because the company might not be there by the time you have finished paying.'
Watchdog's recommendations
CASE executive director Seah Seng Choon has the following recommendations:
A Timeshare Act
This can be a set of regulations, perhaps similar to what Malaysia has, to regulate such companies.
Readily available information
The company's financial position, membership size, and assets to back up timesharing claims must be published so that consumers can be better informed before deciding to sign up.
A trust
Timeshare property, which the member have paid for, should be put in a trust so the interests of the buyers would be protected if company folds.
Mr Seah said: 'We have seen this happen before and members lose everything.'
No payment
Timeshare companies should not be allowed to collect any money during the three-day cooling-off period provided for under the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act.
This means consumers will be able to change their minds easily.
Cooling-off period extended from next year
THE Government has strengthened the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act (CPFTA) to better protect consumers in timeshare contracts.
In an e-mail reply, a Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) spokesman told The New Paper that the cooling-off period provided under the Act would be extended from three to five days. This is the time that consumers get after signing the contract to rethink and, if they wish to, cancel the deal.
She said the amendments had been passed by Parliament and would take effect early next year.
The spokesman explained that the CPFTA already covered timeshare contracts and protected consumers against unfair practices like false claims, omission of material information, and high-pressure sales tactics at the point of sale.
The Act also enables consumers to take their cases to the civil courts.
Specified organisations, like Case, can enter into voluntary compliance agreements with, or apply for injunction orders against, errant traders.
The MTI spokesman added that timeshare companies were also subject to common and contract law and the Penal Code provisions on cheating and fraud.
She said MTI will continue to work closely with Case to review and improve their consumer protection framework.
But she added: 'Consumers must play their part and be vigilant when making purchases.'
This article was first published in The New Paper on December 8, 2008.
