Is anyone from the Committee prepared to respond?

So the question then becomes Julie, is there a legal limit as to how many lodges a single entity can own within the Underscar rules of ownership or leasing arrangements, if your inference is that a large holiday park company could start buying up any financially depreciated owners weeks or stock weeks for that matter?
Whatever the scenario it would be reassuring to know how the Committee plan to further address and support an ageing demographic who own longer term leases within the Underscar ownership, a growing oversupply of sales and thereby leave them with little option but to pay to relinquish their weeks, as opposed to widening the scope to maximise sales?

Probably one of the large holiday park companies.

Marketing has always been the issue, I’ve lost count of how many emails/conversations I’ve had over the years and nothing has changed.

Probably one of the large holiday park companies.

Marketing has always been the issue, I’ve lost count of how many emails/conversations I’ve had over the years and nothing has changed.

A holiday complex owned by whom in the interim prior to the long term lease end-date Julie? It will be owned in the interim by UOCL?
Even this scenario requires an effective National marketing campaign to gain effective rentals for a growing number of lodges that will have been handed back to UOCL.
A catch 22 scenario?

There’s a tipping point where failure to address effective marketing of Underscar, at national level, for both rentals and sales, leaves owners of long term leases with a downward spiral of events, having no option but to pay for the privilege of relinquishment so long as they cannot sell , or having to meet increasing management fees to cover for an increasing number of unrented lodges that will be owned by the club ( as stock weeks).

Effective marketing becomes key to it all, so why wait for a downward spiral to occur, impacting all owners of longer term leasehold lodges ,when this has the potential to be avoided now?

And the irony is that Underscar has the potential to be effectively marketed if only more people knew of its existence across the country. A higher profile needs addressing urgently does it not?

I would imagine, in time, Underscar will become a holiday complex as ownership continues to decline.

Has this aspect of a significant proportion of owners needing to sell as they age been addressed as yet by the committee in terms of a collapsing business model?
The five year bonds appear a short term solution for stock weeks currently owned by UOCL, but the requirement for UOCL to sell at the end of the five years reappears.
Those original owners with long leases however will not only have their own week(s) to sell ,but as sales diminish ( if marketing is not effectively addressed on a National scale) will then be exposed to additional management fees to meet the increases in unsold stock weeks from a growing relinquishment scenario.
For years the aspect of sales marketing Underscar to its full potential has always been dismissed as being a cost not worthy of perusing, for the majority of owners, but as the demographic of Underscar owners ages, surely this needs swift resolution to the benefit of all, does it not?
How long can UOCL depend upon sales marketing from within, (existing owners) , so long as Underscar remains unknown on a national scale?
To find ourselves with an oversupply of stock weeks through an ageing demographic where owners cannot sell their longer lease properties ,and thereby have to relinquish their properties, creating an oversupply of stock weeks, is a grave concern that directly impacts the marketing strategy and poses a threat to all owners marketing fees as they will be expected to pick up the cost of unsold or unrented stock weeks from growing relinquishment’s?.
Is it therefore worth pursuing a more effective National sales marketing strategy before the threat of model collapse , (as sidaway has identified), becomes a reality?
Given the number of Underscar properties already for sale surely this needs addressing as a matter of urgency?
Short term solutions will sadly not resolve an ongoing longer term problem for ageing owners endeavouring to sell their properties.
Can the committee please respond to this grave concern which has the potential to impact all owners with longer term leases?

We tried to sell ours for years, in the end, Underscar offered, for a very limited time, for owners to give the property back for a fee. We paid £2k but it was £2k well spent. I guess if occupancy is low, this won’t be on the table anytime soon. I honestly feel you pain, when my husband was unable to visit, I’d visit alone but my biggest concern was what happened after we’d ”gone” – having no children, I didn’t want my neices to have to deal with the complex issues of owenership (not that they’d want to)

This is the big question that I guess many owners are asking. I don’t have the answer unless you just walk away but not sure of the legal liabilties with doing this… perhaps someone can help? You won’t get a response from the Board/Committee as this is a topic they don’t want to face up to (the elephant in the room if you like) but many owners are becoming less mobile and just purely getting older (or worse!) and not as interested in walking the Lakes as they once were, it’s as simple as that.
If you think about it and say 30/40% wanted ’out’ then the whole business model collapses and then goodness knows what happens. Is there anyone out there who can maybe advise?