New policy - confirming Guest Reservations [MORE CHANGES]

[DeniseM]

Vistana Owner Services (reservations) will no longer confirm reservations for guests/renters - in other words, they won't speak directly to your guest and confirm their reservation over the phone.

A couple of options to work around this:

1) Do a conference call along with your guest to reservations.

2) Have your guest call the resort front desk instead - but check with the front desk first to make sure they have received the reservation, because when they receive it from Owner Services seems to vary widely.

If you are unhappy about this new policy, you can send a message to Vistana through the dashboard on your Vistana Acct.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I am VERY unhappy with the new policy. That is ridiculous. I will send a message to Vistana.

 

[dioxide45]

Seems like they want to make it harder on renters and hope they give up and stop renting or make it herder to find renters that don't want the hassle. A bad policy IMO.

 

[vacationhopeful]

Having renting in the past, some renters seem to like calling the resort almost daily to confirm their reservation still exists or to beg for the best unit in the resort. And more than once, a Front Desk supervisor has called ME to ask, "what is the problem?". And most Front Desk staff, are "people" people .. wanting to help an inbound guest.

In fixed week resorts, I explain the view and unit before taking money. I still get repeated requests for "best" view ... oceanfront unit .... etc. If I have a LOW unit .... or intercoastal view unit ... I disclosed that verbally and in the paperwork. These rentals are when a resort is 100% occupied. And many times, units are occupied by the owners (and for multiple weeks). And if I have a multiple week guest, I ask ... do you want to move each week or would you take a lesser view, to NOT MOVE each week? Ocean side (with the early morning sun) OR the intercoastal (for the sunset?).

Surprisingly, many owners and repeat guests, are happy campers with the intercoastal view. Or happier still with NOT MOVING each week.

 

[PamMo]

I guess I'm the contrarian on this one (even though I rent some of my weeks). I can totally understand the rationale behind the new policy. You've made the reservation, put in your requests, and have received confirmation. You've given that information to your renter, but he wants extra reassurance you're legit. Apparently an email directly from Vistana.com isn't good enough for some people. I've read recommendations on TUG that renters call the resort several times prior to check-in to verify and make sure the reservation hasn't been changed. Add in time to discuss special requests for unit views, early check-in, etc., and the costs add up. Vistana customer service and hotel front desk time is paid for by all owners. Why should Vistana (Vistana timeshare owners) subsidize owners who rent out their weeks for a profit?

Perhaps this is an over reaction to reports of renters calling in a lot? Hopefully a reasonable compromise can be made. Why not a simple automated email confirmation of the reservation from Vistana to your rental customer?

 

[okwiater]

Perhaps this is an over reaction to reports of renters calling in a lot? Hopefully a reasonable compromise can be made. Why not a simple automated email confirmation of the reservation from Vistana to your rental customer?

FWIW, I agree with you. There is no reason that Vistana needs to confirm reservations with anybody's renters. The contract is between the unit owner and the renter; Vistana is not party to that transaction and should not be involved. In addition, it's very easy to click the "E-mail My Confirmation" button on the Villa Finder, type in the guest's e-mail address, and let them receive a copy of the official confirmation. If the guest wants to confirm 6 times before check-in, it should be the owner's hassle, not Vistana's.

 

[DeniseM]

1) Actually, Vistana is employeed by owners to provide whatever services we ask them to perform. We own the timeshares - they are the management company.

2) If there is going to be a change - owners should be informed.

3) This doesn't just apply to "renters" - this applies to any guest that you have in your timeshare. Even when using my own timeshares, I always confirm the reservation before check-in - it is the prudent thing to do. I'd hate to show up in Hawaii, or Scotland, or any where else, to find out there was a problem with my reservation.

 

[okwiater]

1) Actually, Vistana is employeed by owners to provide whatever services we ask them to perform. We own the timeshares - they are the management company.

I don't think anybody has disputed this. PamMo and I are simply arguing that since a rental is a transaction between owner and renter, there isn't a good reason to impose a burden on Vistana "the management company" to confirm reservations since this results in costs which are borne by all owners. As PamMo stated, "why should Vistana (Vistana timeshare owners) subsidize owners who rent out their weeks for a profit?"

2) If there is going to be a change - owners should be informed.

I agree; policy changes should always be communicated rather than discovered in an ad hoc manner.

3) This doesn't just apply to "renters" - this applies to any guest that you have in your timeshare. Even when using my own timeshares, I always confirm the reservation before check-in - it is the prudent thing to do. I'd hate to show up in Hawaii, or Scotland, or any where else, to find out there was a problem with my reservation.

Are e-mail confirmations sent directly from Vistana a less reliable indicator of the status of your reservation than a phone call? I'd argue the opposite -- that your phone call "confirmation" is far less reliable and useful than a written e-mail.

 

[DeniseM]

Vistana has a vested interest in hindering owners who want to rent their timeshares, because they can and do Hoover up all unreserved inventory at 60 days before check-in - for their OWN rental program and their OWN profit.

Do you really believe that any savings that Vistana realizes from cutting services to owners will go back to owners? NO CHANCE

 

[rickandcindy23]

I don't think my guests call a lot to confirm their reservations. I think an occasional person does call. I pay a lot in MF's, and I can rent my weeks I cannot use myself, and I deserve the service I am paying Vistana to provide, even if that means my renter gets a verbal confirmation from them that the reservation is valid. If you have one week and rent it because you don't want to deposit your week in II or RCI, you also deserve the service you are paying for. Doesn't matter how many weeks one owns.

 

[okwiater]

Vistana has a vested interest in hindering owners who want to rent their timeshares, because they can and do Hoover up all unreserved inventory at 60 days before check-in - for their OWN rental program and their OWN profit.

Do you really believe that any savings that Vistana realizes from cutting services to owners will go back to owners? NO CHANCE

I can be just as much of a conspiracy theorist as the next person, but this is a bit too much for me. Vistana's policy change is merely for the resort management company -- whose job is to manage the resort on behalf of its owners -- to no longer confirm reservations to third parties. Third parties have no relationship with Vistana. Renters have no relationship with Vistana. Their only relationship is with the individual owner who happens to have a unit they wish to rent.

Although an impact of this policy change might be that it could become slightly more difficult for an individual to rent their unit (although in this age of Airbnb and VRBO, I doubt it), it really takes some wild speculation to chalk this up to a sinister Vistana plot to preserve more rental inventory for themselves. Much more likely is that third party renters were taking up a significant amount of phone agent time by calling repeatedly to confirm reservations. An agent whose time is spent helping a third party renter is an agent who isn't available to help an owner. Whether or not Vistana would actually pass any savings back to the owners is a separate issue, but is not itself an argument that Vistana "the management company" should be subsidizing any aspect of providing customer service to third party renters.

 

[okwiater]

I deserve the service I am paying Vistana to provide, even if that means my renter gets a verbal confirmation from them that the reservation is valid.

In what part of the management agreement does Vistana promise to provide customer service to third parties who are party to an independent rental agreement with you?

 

[DeniseM]

As someone who have been observing Starwood/Vistana for many years, when management makes changes - it benefits management - it's naive to believe anything else. The fact that they did this behind closed doors, with no notification to owners says it all.

 

[okwiater]

As someone who have been observing Starwood/Vistana for many years, when management makes changes - it benefits management - it's naive to believe anything else. The fact that they did this behind closed doors, with no notification to owners says it all.

I certainly grant that you've been in this ecosystem longer than I have. Given what you know, is it possible that this isn't a policy change at all, but rather a tightening of the existing rules? I'm not aware of any published material stating anything along the lines of, "if you have a renter or other third party who wishes to confirm their reservation, feel free to provide them with the Owner Services number and we'll be happy to confirm it for them." I wonder if it may have just been a feature that existed by chance and was never officially sanctioned.

 

[DeniseM]

If you use this as your standard for what management can and cannot do, you are in deep water, because many details are not documented, which means of course, that management can do whatever they please, which is pretty much what they do.

The past practice of 15+ years sets the precedent. Changing that with no notice is not acceptable.

This is the deal: If owners don't hold Vistana accountable, who do you think will?

 

[okwiater]

If you use this as your standard for what management can and cannot do, you are in deep water, because many details are not documented, which means of course, that management can do whatever they please, which is pretty much what they do.

The past practice of 15+ years sets the precedent. Changing that with no notice is not acceptable.

This is the deal: If owners don't hold Vistana accountable, who do you think will?

I don't disagree that communicating even perceived policy changes is preferable to the alternative; however, I'm not sure what you mean by holding Vistana accountable. Hold them accountable to what? To a set of services that they never officially provided but that a small subset of owners had discovered in an ad hoc manner? I'm under no illusion that management leaves themselves lots of leeway to adjust their business practices as they see fit, but I'm not going to imagine that I'm entitled to a level of service that hasn't been promised.

I think it's only fair for owners to expect Vistana to provide the services necessary to administer and reserve their fractional shares of ownership and not to expect Vistana to provide anything else. If owners want additional services, they should pay for them. Certainly an owner could outsource the management of their timeshare rentals to a third party company if it's important to them, right?

 

[DeniseM]

Okiwater - If you are happy to be treated as if Vistana is your boss, instead of the other way around, that is your choice. But the fact is that Vistana works for owners - not the other way around.

Arguing that Vistana can do anything they want, as long as it isn't specifically forbidden, is dangerous ground.

YMMV

 

[DeniseM]

Okwiater - Just curious - did you buy all your TS's from the developer?

 

[okwiater]

Okiwater - If you are happy to be treated as if Vistana is your boss, instead of the other way around, that is your choice. But the fact is that Vistana works for owners - not the other way around.

Arguing that Vistana can do anything they want, as long as it isn't specifically forbidden, is dangerous ground.

I'm not arguing that Vistana can do anything they want as long as it isn't specifically forbidden. That's simply a fact, not an opinion that can be argued one way or the other.

I do understand your point that Vistana works at the pleasure of the owners, but I also understand that their responsibilities are limited to those specified in the legal agreements to which they (Vistana) and we (the Owners) have committed -- that's it. I don't expect them to go outside of those bounds particularly if it increases costs, and I think it's unreasonable for Owners to expect otherwise.

Okwiater - Just curious - did you buy all your TS's from the developer?

No, my first was a resale WKV Plat+. Since then, I have combined a mix of developer and resale purchases (using strategies learned on TUG!).

 

[DeniseM]

I strongly disagree. Small changes over time devalue ownership. Owners can't simply sit on their hands and accept anything that Vistana wants to do. YMMV

 

[rickandcindy23]

On the Wyndham forum, I argued with another TUG poster about mid-week housekeeping at Shearwater. We own at Shearwater and pay fees to Wyndham to maintain the property. Wyndham gets 52 MF's out of each unit. I pay fees on two weeks, but this time, I exchanged through RCI into SW because I converted my weeks to points in 2010.

All owners and those using Wyndham points for their ressies get mid-week cleaning, but exchangers do not get that service. If 52 weeks get MF's, why are weeks in the exchange system not getting mid-week tidy? Exchangers are probably new to the island and do not know about damp towels left on the floor and taking trash out often to avoid bug problems.

It's kind of the same thing: a service paid for but no longer given. It was always done in the past, and for the sake of the entire complex. It's not a good idea in a climate like the north shore of Kauai (and no AC) to not put someone into a unit mid-week to make sure trash is taken out. We had roaches in our unit, and it was one by the pool, so probably a unit exchangers get most of the time.

This is a service taken away arbitrarily by management. Did they lower their management fees and reduce staff by a person to make up for this loss of service? Probably not. What new benefit did we get for the loss of that benefit?

 

[okwiater]

On the Wyndham forum, I argued with another TUG poster about mid-week housekeeping at Shearwater. We own at Shearwater and pay fees to Wyndham to maintain the property. Wyndham gets 52 MF's out of each unit. I pay fees on two weeks, but this time, I exchanged through RCI into SW because I converted my weeks to points in 2010.

All owners and those using Wyndham points for their ressies get mid-week cleaning, but exchangers do not get that service. If 52 weeks get MF's, why are weeks in the exchange system not getting mid-week tidy? Exchangers are probably new to the island and do not know about damp towels left on the floor and taking trash out often to avoid bug problems.

It's kind of the same thing: a service paid for but no longer given. It was always done in the past, and for the sake of the entire complex. It's not a good idea in a climate like the north shore of Kauai (and no AC) to not put someone into a unit mid-week to make sure trash is taken out. We had roaches in our unit, and it was one by the pool, so probably a unit exchangers get most of the time.

This is a service taken away arbitrarily by management. Did they lower their management fees and reduce staff by a person to make up for this loss of service? Probably not. What new benefit did we get for the loss of that benefit?

What you're describing is a legitimate problem, and the remedy in such a scenario is to escalate concerns and ultimately fire the management company if unresolved. And if what we were talking about in this thread was related to the services, amenities, or upkeep provided as part of operating the resorts themselves, I would wholeheartedly join you in your criticisms regarding gradual deterioration. However, what we are talking about is NOT removing a midweek tidy, is NOT removing services or amenities, is NOT reducing cleaning/upkeep standards. We're simply talking about owners expecting the Owner Services phone number to provide customer service on behalf of their third party rentals, which is pretty far removed from the example you're citing.

 

[dioxide45]

I wasn't even able to get any information from Vistana regarding a week I was looking to purchase and doing due diligence. I had the week and unit number. All they would give me was "averages". Like the average MF was between z and y and the average StarOptions was between a and b. Not really helpful. Not sure why all the secrecy. It isn't like I was asking for personal information about the owner or their account. Heck, I didn't even have the owners name.

 

[okwiater]

I wasn't even able to get any information from Vistana regarding a week I was looking to purchase and doing due diligence. I had the week and unit number. All they would give me was "averages". Like the average MF was between z and y and the average StarOptions was between a and b. Not really helpful. Not sure why all the secrecy. It isn't like I was asking for personal information about the owner or their account. Heck, I didn't even have the owners name.

Given the frequency with which incorrect information is provided by the reservations agents, do you really want Vistana opening themselves up to the legal liability of allowing those same agents to validate the deeded specifics of each ownership? There's a process for validating that information, it's called an estoppel...

 

[dioxide45]

Given the frequency with which incorrect information is provided by the reservations agents, do you really want Vistana opening themselves up to the legal liability of allowing those same agents to validate the deeded specifics of each ownership? There's a process for validating that information, it's called an estoppel...

I do understand to a degree. Though it wasn't Owner Services that wouldn't give me the MF information. They gave me another number to call to speak with the HOA agents. I don't think I was actually speaking with someone at the HOA, but just another call center employee in Owner Services that answers as the HOA for whatever resort you are calling. As far as I know though, they don't officially provide StarOption information on the estoppel. Though MF amounts are covered. Of course, estoppels have been known to be wrong too.