Public urged to share timeshare scam details

27 Oct 2025News

The Serious Fraud Office seeks public information on a fraudulent timeshare scheme involving multiple companies

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has launched a public appeal for information regarding a multi-million-pound timeshare services scheme as it broadens its ongoing fraud investigation into 24 UK-based companies. This operation is suspected to be part of an organised crime network. Investigators are focusing on firms such as Guardian Executives Ltd, McLaren Consultants Ltd, Prime Engagement Ltd, Regulat Consulting Group Ltd, and Sparks Wiseman and Rafe Ltd, which are located in cities including London, Manchester, Hove, and York.

The SFO has urged individuals contacted by representatives from these companies, especially those who purchased services, to come forward. Many of those targeted would have been cold-called and offered exit solutions or compensation for timeshares or holiday clubs based in Tenerife, Lanzarote, and mainland Spain, requiring an upfront fee since January 2018. Reports indicate that no services were delivered in most instances.

Furthermore, those who engaged with the companies may have been contacted again, pushed to pay another upfront fee with promises of recovering their initial payments based on claims of fraud. The public can submit information to the SFO through the designated link.

Emma Luxton, SFO Director of Operations, stated "The investigation continues to develop as new material is reviewed, building a clearer picture of how these companies operated. Our renewed appeal is an important step in our investigation and we’re urging anyone with information on these new companies to come forward and support our enquiries."

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Latest Articles

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...