# [2011] Beware of the Marriott Destination Program



## second hand Rose (Jan 21, 2011)

Dear "legacy MVCC owners,
 I am looking for any owner, with a deeded timeshare week, who feels that the new "Destination Point Program" has drastically reduced the value of their deeded property. I believe that a "class action suit" will be the only way to capture the value that will be lost in future years. If you choose not to pay $595.00 to participate in the new program,if in fact it doesn't make economic sense to buy into the point system because the value assigned to your timeshare weeks is not the same as it was before this program was instituted...and because as deeded owners, you will now be competing with less available Marriott inventory due to the fact that "non-timeshare" participants will be drawing from the available inventory of MVCC weeks without actually banking any inventory. Not only are they given first option on availble inventory directly through Marriott and if this request is not available, they then will be assigned your weeks that were deposited at II. So now you are not only competing with II owners, but also points owners who have nothing to trade into the system! Also, if you want Marriott to sell your timeshare, think again. Yes, they told you when you bought your weeks that they would find a buyer for a hefty commission...give it a try...I've been on a waiting list for 3 years and nothing is happening. Marriott resales won't even tell me where I stand on the resale waitlist. So much for the credibility of the company that, at one time, stood behind their product!


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 21, 2011)

Oh boy, I can hardly wait for my $5.95 check or, maybe a $25 rebate on some sort of exchange or service fee. 

Class action suits have historically made lawyers rich while returning very little to the individuals who sign up as participants. Just take a look at recent history with the "big" class action against RCI. Thanks but I'll pass.


----------



## emt (Jan 21, 2011)

If you've been on the re-sales waitlist for 3 yrs, you were probably disgruntled prior to the roll out of the DC. 

If you really wanted to sell your obligation, you could probably due so but at a much lower price point than you would prefer.  Wonder why the Marriott resale list moves so slowly? Marriott's gonna move their own inventory first, and most people buying resale know to get a better price elsewhere- and this was the case prior to DC.  

The DC club might not be perfect, and it obviously doesn't benefit you- but no lawsuit can produce a value that wasn't there in the first place...


----------



## Latravel (Jan 21, 2011)

Though it's true consumers get very little in monetary return as a result, class action lawsuits do keep companies in check and in line.

Saying that, we haven't seen any concrete evidence of the statements you are making.  They could all be heresay or just your fears.  Nothing has pointed me in the direction of seeking legal action so I would pass also.  I guess that if in a few years, your statements turn out to be true and fact, I might reconsider.  Right now, I feel they are premature.  Are you a class action attorney?


----------



## ondeadlin (Jan 21, 2011)

dougp26364 said:


> Oh boy, I can hardly wait for my $5.95 check or, maybe a $25 rebate on some sort of exchange or service fee.
> 
> Class action suits have historically made lawyers rich while returning very little to the individuals who sign up as participants. Just take a look at recent history with the "big" class action against RCI. Thanks but I'll pass.



Like the $11 billion class action verdict against Wal-Mart for discriminating against women? 

That's billion. With a b. 

Changed how thousands of companies across America looked at promotions, pay, etc.

The problem isn't class actions as a tool. The problem is that this is a trivial complaint.


----------



## davidn247 (Jan 21, 2011)

This looks like a lawyer wanting to become rich....

While I do not defend Marriott at all, the only thing that they owe you is..... nothing. In fact, you are the proud owner of a deed in a property (maybe managed by Marriott) and unless what you claim against them is in writting somewhere... I wish you good luck. Where is the resale through Marriott written? Do you have it black on white somewhere? Note that you can still go to your timeshare like before, etc...

As dougp said, all class actions for $25 dollars.... at the end. Forget about it! This is a lawyer thing again.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 21, 2011)

Latravel said:


> Though it's true consumers get very little in monetary return as a result, class action lawsuits do keep companies in check and in line.



But in the end they only cost the customers (us) more. The customer pays for everything.



second hand Rose said:


> and because as deeded owners, you will now be competing with less available Marriott inventory due to the fact that "non-timeshare" participants will be drawing from the available inventory of MVCC weeks without actually banking any inventory.



This is false. MVDEC is an exchange company, meaning they have to have inventory go in for inventory to come out. If there is an excess in inventory, then the company can take extra means to unload that inventory. But they can't just arbitrarily give out inventory without keeping their obligations to other depositors.


----------



## rthib (Jan 21, 2011)

*There is no legal action here!!!!!*

Go look at your closing papers.

Marriott only sold you the right to use your resort at some time during the period that you own.

That is all you bought.

They specifically made no legal agreement that it would maintain value.
No agreement that it was always be able to trade.

Just you could use it sometime during that week.

If you thought you bought anything else that is your issue.

[Name calling deleted - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 21, 2011)

rthib said:


> Go look at your closing papers.
> 
> Marriott only sold you the right to use your resort at some time during the period that you own.
> 
> ...



It is exactly those contracts and terms and conditions that are used against companies in class action lawsuits. If you tout one type of product but end up delivering something else, it gets you in trouble. 

This is what got RCI in trouble. They sold themselves as an exchange company. Even though their T&C indicated that they could use the week you deposited for anything they wanted, they ultimately lost (while kind of). They sold themselves to customers as an exchange company when they really were a rental company. Those contracts and T&C meant nothing.

Marriott sold a product. A product that is far different today than when they sold it. It doesn't matter what we all signed in the end. If there is enough pressure there, they will settle, lawyers will make lots of money, and we will end up paying more.


----------



## jimf41 (Jan 21, 2011)

ondeadlin said:


> Like the $11 billion class action verdict against Wal-Mart for discriminating against women?
> 
> That's billion. With a b.
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware that this case had gone to trial yet.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 22, 2011)

jimf41 said:


> I wasn't aware that this case had gone to trial yet.



That would make a big difference. Often I find the intial amount requested is set for shock value rather than realistic expectations. Chances are this will be settled for far less, with the stipulation that Walmart doesn't admit to any wrong doing, for far less, just because it will cost less than what it takes to defend their position. Which, IMHO is the goal of most, if not all, class action law suits. It's not about what's right. It's about squeezing money from a company. IOW, it's more like blackmail than anything else. 

A case that hasn't gone to trial yet is sort of like reading and trusting the news in the National Enquirer. Sure a few lines are accurate but, for the most part, it's just entertainment.


----------



## second hand Rose (Jan 22, 2011)

*Beware of the Destination points program*

Yes, Marriott sold us  a deed to a week in the gold season with caveats, that are in writting.
 1. If you purchase 2 weeks, then you have 13 month advance reservation priorities...meaning, first choice of the best weeks within the season. They have taken this option away if I participate in the points program...because they will not value my weeks at the same value as the weeks I traditionally reserved. Hence, I am in a class of MVCC contract holders whose investment has been depreciated.
2. Anyone can purchase Destination Points off the street...you do not have to own a week at the MVCC. Hence the dilution of inventory. 
3. Yes, I have the option to stay where I am and not participate...however..I will not have the trading power that I had in the past, because I can't go directly through Marriott to trade Marriott to Marriott.
4. Whether or not it is in the contracts we signed, it was a verbal commitment on Marriott's part, to sell my week if I chose to have them do so, hence, legally binding. The Custom House is currently sold out and has been for years...hence there should be no reason not to sell my inventory!
5. No, I am not an atty..just a very disapointed MVCC owner!


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 22, 2011)

second hand Rose said:


> Yes, Marriott sold us  a deed to a week in the gold season with caveats, that are in writting.
> 1. If you purchase 2 weeks, then you have 13 month advance reservation priorities...meaning, first choice of the best weeks within the season. They have taken this option away if I participate in the points program...because they will not value my weeks at the same value as the weeks I traditionally reserved. Hence, I am in a class of MVCC contract holders whose investment has been depreciated.



The key word is "if", if you CHOOSE to participate in the points program you may receive less of a priority using points then had you used your home resort weeks.  As this is completely voluntary, there is no depreciation in your investment.   Further, don't forget, you may join the program and NOT participate in points in any given year....in other words even if you join the program you can use your 13 month priority and your home resorts just as you always have.  You can "elect" to participate in points from year to year.  Some have joined with no intention of using the points but rather to save the lock-off and interval fees.



second hand Rose said:


> 2. Anyone can purchase Destination Points off the street...you do not have to own a week at the MVCC. Hence the dilution of inventory.



You need to read a bit more about the program.  Marriott can only sell points for weeks which the points trust owns.  Therefore, no dilution in inventory.  Marriott isn't just making up points and selling them to people, they have converted all the weeks they own into points and are now selling those points.



second hand Rose said:


> 3. Yes, I have the option to stay where I am and not participate...however..I will not have the trading power that I had in the past, because I can't go directly through Marriott to trade Marriott to Marriott.



This may be true...read through some of the threads over the past month.  We've all discussed the impact to trading here at length.  Regardless, trading was never a guarantee (no matter what your salesperson may have told you).  When you purchased your only real right was to a week at the resort you own.



second hand Rose said:


> 4. Whether or not it is in the contracts we signed, it was a verbal commitment on Marriott's part, to sell my week if I chose to have them do so, hence, legally binding. The Custom House is currently sold out and has been for years...hence there should be no reason not to sell my inventory!



Even if you could prove this in court, what sort of damages would you claim?  Marriott never promised you a certain resale value for your timeshare...even if they continued to offer to list it, what good would it be if it never sold?



second hand Rose said:


> 5. No, I am not an atty..just a very disapointed MVCC owner!



You're not alone.  A lot of us are less than pleased with the new system,  However, you still have what you purchased (a week at the resort you own).  As for trading, my suggestion is to learn as much as possible and work the system the best you can...even if it ends up not being as "good" as it was before.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 22, 2011)

second hand Rose said:


> 4. Whether or not it is in the contracts we signed, it was a verbal commitment on Marriott's part, to sell my week if I chose to have them do so, hence, legally binding. The Custom House is currently sold out and has been for years...hence there should be no reason not to sell my inventory!



legally, you are entitled to all the things in the contract that you signed, and in the disclosures.  Anything else you may have believed from the presentation has no legal standing, and is excluded in the contract.

MVC has weeks for sale at most resorts, but how many actual weeks do you think people will buy at MVC prices, when they could buy resale (to use) or buy points (for flexibility)?  If people can't sell their houses in this economy, why would MVC be able to sell timeshare weeks at the old asking prices?


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 22, 2011)

*I sympathize with you.  I used to own Monarch (Marriott's first entre into timesharing), Sabal Palms (I think the first TS Marriott built itself) and a couple of others, all except Monarch purchased pre development.  

After Marriott walked away from the rental program and resale programs I believed I was buying, it became apparent to me that Marriott was starting down the road to depreciating the product I thought I had purchased.   I  bailed out about 5 years ago.    All in all, I got my money back plus maybe a couple of bucks.  I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

Corporate greed pushed Marriott into turning a great product into something average at best.  Just look at what you paid vs what you can sell if for today.

Geoge*


----------



## kjd (Jan 22, 2011)

How does one prove the loss of trading power of a unit?  It's such an elusive concept for most of us that no one really knows how their units will trade at any given time.  My impression is that if you trade early and in the shoulder or off seasons you have a better chance of getting what you want.  And, then there is also flextime. However, with all of these variables there is no guarantee of anything.

Using the TDI is somewhat of a help but II has a proprietary trading system that they won't fully explain to owners.  It would seem to me that loss of trading power would be impossible to prove if I can't even explain it to myself.  If you can't explain it, you haven't lost it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 22, 2011)

I honestly don't think that Marriott is perfect and will never be above practicing something that could result in them losing a class action suit against them.  But I will never understand the thought process of folks whose first post to TUG is a rally cry for a class action suit when it's obvious they haven't consulted with a qualified attorney first.

There's nothing wrong with doing an internet search, finding TUG, and posting as a new member to ask if other owners have the same questions or concerns.  That's one of TUG's greatest strengths, actually, in that it provides a relatively simple mechanism to gather like-minded owners (especially since Marriott's documents are written to inhibit such gatherings as much as possible.)  Then if there appears to be a reason to continue with a legal action against Marriott, the group can combine forces to bring a qualified attorney on board and follow his/her lead.

But in all of the threads that I've seen started this way on TUG, with a "join the class action suit!" rallying cry, savvy timeshare owners have been able to point out the defense positions that Marriott would be able to take against the OP's argument.  And if posters here can defend Marriott with such relative ease, think about how easy it will be for Marriott's legal team!  Now that this thread has begun the same way, I hope the OP doesn't go the route of others who simply disregard that wisdom and forge on ahead with actions that end up costing every owner yet result in no changes from or penalties for Marriott.

second hand Rose, it's great you've found TUG because it's the best forum for timeshare discussions, no doubt, but the legal opinions/strength you need to continue with a suit against Marriott probably won't be found here.  I hope that after you've run your thoughts by a qualified attorney, you'll come back to TUG and tell us what you've learned.  Good luck.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 22, 2011)

second hand Rose said:


> Yes, Marriott sold us  a deed to a week in the gold season with caveats, that are in writting.
> 1. If you purchase 2 weeks, then you have 13 month advance reservation priorities...meaning, first choice of the best weeks within the season. They have taken this option away if I participate in the points program...because they will not value my weeks at the same value as the weeks I traditionally reserved. Hence, I am in a class of MVCC contract holders whose investment has been depreciated.
> 2. Anyone can purchase Destination Points off the street...you do not have to own a week at the MVCC. Hence the dilution of inventory.
> 3. Yes, I have the option to stay where I am and not participate...however..I will not have the trading power that I had in the past, because I can't go directly through Marriott to trade Marriott to Marriott.
> ...



I think you've listened to a salesman and allowed them to scare you into thinking what you purchased won't do what it once was. That's just salesman BS to try to get you to buy something different. Don't fall for it and don't let it upset you.

As far as trading power goes, who knows what it will be in the future. Trading power was never guarenteed. It very well could turn out that non-DC weeks have more power than ever before with Interval as they'll be a little more scarce in their system. You might find out down the road that they're valuable enough to have Accomadation Certificates offered if you deposit them. For that matter, we never went "directly" through Marriott. Every exchange I've made with Marriott to Marriott has been facilitated through Interval International. 

Since Marriott only estimates that 10 to 20% (depends on who you listen to) of legacy week owners will join the DC, that leaves 90 to 80% of the weeks inventory alone. For that matter, those legacy week owners who do join may never convert their weeks to points. We joined but, I have no intention of converting our weeks to points. I only want to take advantage of one fee for all services rather than ala carte fee's for locking off, exchange fee's et..... We'll still be exchanging weeks and, Interval is still handling that aspect, even if Marriott tries to tell me they're not (the Corporate account is through Interval after all). 

Resale value is what it is and that's very subjective. Resale values have never been very good and they're worse now with both the economy and the fact Marriott is no longer exercising right of first refusal on contracts. 

Marriott never guarenteed that they could sell you week. Heck, I don't believe they even guarenteed that they'd attempt to sell you week. They do have that service but, they don't accept every week from every owner that wants to sell. Even when you want to rent your week through Marriott, they don't take every single week. 

Verbal contracts are worth the paper they're written on. Since they're not written on paper.......you get the point. They're worthless. In fact, I'm pretty sure if you read you contract, you'll find there's a clause that states that only what's agreed to in writing is binding. Any verbal representations made by their salesmen are invalid. They've got themselves covered there. Forget verbal contracts. You'll never enforce one. 

Marriott really needs to put a leash and muzzle on their sales staff. All they seem to be doing is ticking off their current owners. That's not going to be good for future business. Personally, I'm not to happy with them right now and refuse to even consider giving them referals. Actually, I've started advising friends and family to stay far away from their sales floors. Right now, it seems to me they have a lot of unhappy current owners. Marriott could have and should have done a much better job with this program IMHO.


----------



## ccpinternational (Jan 22, 2011)

Already joined DC. Cannot sue against Marriott anymore............


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 22, 2011)

Wow, we sure have a lot of class action experts on TUG! (Sarcasm.)  This is complicated stuff.  Sometimes class actions result in HUGE recoveries per person (e.g., some tobacco and discrimination cases) and sometimes they do not.  It all depends on the facts.  Also (and often more important), they usually result in orders changing a company's practices going forward.  It is not nearly as simple as some of you are making it out to be.

I, too, however, wonder about someone making his or her first post a rallying cry to start a class action.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 22, 2011)

ccpinternational said:


> Already joined DC. Cannot sue against Marriott anymore............



Marriott has made it pretty easy to un-join the DC. I believe the only stipulation is you can't be a member and vote against it at the same time.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 22, 2011)

ccpinternational said:


> Already joined DC. Cannot sue against Marriott anymore............



Sure you can.  Such contract clauses would be unenforceable as against public policy.  

I think you agreed to an Orlando FL. venue and a non jury trial when you joined --- if I recall correctly.


----------



## jimf41 (Jan 22, 2011)

Somewhere along the line we seemed to have accepted the fact that verbal contracts are not valid. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a sales rep guarantee's you something such as "Marriott will buy your week back..." it is a legal enforceable contract.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was stated however. This is difficult if not impossible to prove in most cases. The fact that verbal or oral contracts are hard to prove does not mean they are not valid.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 22, 2011)

jimf41 said:


> Somewhere along the line we seemed to have accepted the fact that verbal contracts are not valid. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a sales rep guarantee's you something such as "Marriott will buy your week back..." it is a legal enforceable contract.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was stated however. This is difficult if not impossible to prove in most cases. The fact that verbal or oral contracts are hard to prove does not mean they are not valid.



Verbal contracts are valid but, they're nearly unenforcable. Especially when you sign a written contract with a clause that excuses them from any verbage the salesman might have spewed.


----------



## jimf41 (Jan 22, 2011)

Doug,

The written clause excluding them from oral promises is about as valid as the sign in a restaurant coat check that states "Not responsible for personal articles". Not everything in a contract is legally enforceable. If I sold you my 3BDR OP unit, hey then you'd have two, and I wrote the contract saying you only had to pay MF's that you considered reasonable that would be a non-binding clause on MVCI. When the deed transferred so did the normal encumbrances such as paying MF's be they reasonable or not.

I'm sure MVCI puts a lot of stuff in their contracts that they know they couldn't get away with if push came to shove.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 22, 2011)

jimf41 said:


> Doug,
> 
> The written clause excluding them from oral promises is about as valid as the sign in a restaurant coat check that states "Not responsible for personal articles". Not everything in a contract is legally enforceable. If I sold you my 3BDR OP unit, hey then you'd have two, and I wrote the contract saying you only had to pay MF's that you considered reasonable that would be a non-binding clause on MVCI. When the deed transferred so did the normal encumbrances such as paying MF's be they reasonable or not.
> 
> I'm sure MVCI puts a lot of stuff in their contracts that they know they couldn't get away with if push came to shove.



The difference between a coat check reciept and a signed contract is, one is a signed contract, the other is just a receipt. There are certain legal standards for both. When you sign an agreement stating that the only things agreed to are what's in writing, you're pretty tightly bound by that contract. When you hand over your coat to the coat check girl and get a reciept, the business is held to the civil standards set forth by years of civil law. They are two very different standards.


----------



## sharo (Jan 27, 2011)

*destination program*

The Destination Program as near as I can figure it will eventually reduce the value of any property that is not platinum. Now it is a bit benign but if time shares suddenly become in demand then Marriott has right to keep it in their control and not release to Interval so exchanges upgrading will become harder and harder.
Also since secondary sales cannot be enrolled it makes them less valued and 
now the red, blue gold etc weeks will, in the future, (and now with Marriott) only be worth what you paid whereas before you always had the chance of getting lucky in upgrading (a better season, larger unit  etc.,through Interval.
I did notice that when you sign the agreement you have agreed not to sue them-so assume they knew this would come (class action). But they say you can leave (guess you lose the money paid to join though).
The program is good for the people who pay top price-they keep the value-a devaluation for the rest of us...It certainly was all (duh)in Marriott's benefit.


----------



## brianfox (Feb 2, 2011)

I don't think class actions are pointless.

Hasn't the butt-slapping that RCI gotten caused them to stop renting valuable deposits?  If there hadn't been the class action against RCI, maybe Interval would be pulling the same shenanigans.

I'd be happy if a class action against Marriott resulted in no cash award, but instead forcing them to allow resales into DC.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 2, 2011)

brianfox said:


> I don't think class actions are pointless.
> 
> Hasn't the butt-slapping that RCI gotten caused them to stop renting valuable deposits?  If there hadn't been the class action against RCI, maybe Interval would be pulling the same shenanigans.
> 
> I'd be happy if a class action against Marriott resulted in no cash award, but instead forcing them to allow resales into DC.



If I remember correctly there were a lot of people outraged by the initial settlement of the RCI class action. It actually validated their buisiness model of renting weeks taken in for exchange. Perhaps what I originally saw was not the final settlement.


----------



## brianfox (Feb 2, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> If I remember correctly there were a lot of people outraged by the initial settlement of the RCI class action. It actually validated their buisiness model of renting weeks taken in for exchange. Perhaps what I originally saw was not the final settlement.



Well, maybe I did speak too quickly.  I do see what you're talking about, and don't see any newer settlement.  Maybe Sue would know more about what happened.


----------



## tessaca (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree. In my case I trade I lock off my unit and make 2 Marriott to Marriott trades each year. I have 2 deposits and must keep my II membership until these trades are used which means at least thru 2013. This makes the breakeven point  4 years away at the end of 2016 if I join and the $165 annual fee stays the same. Note the 800 bonus points expire one year after you join and cannot be converted to Marriot Reward points. Note that people who only own trust points cannot use these points for trades at a sold out property unless another owner elects to take points instead of a trade and deposits their points. This makes the trading system a mess because there are now 3 pools for trades - trust, deposits converted into points, and unit to unit trades like we have been making.


----------



## kjd (Jun 4, 2012)

I fully understand the breakeven point in the last post but I don't understand the illusion of there being three pools of inventory.  As an un-enrolled owner you have no access to the trust or the points for units pool.  You have only one pool to draw from which Marriott claims that for you "nothing has changed".  You're in one pool.

If you enroll in the DC you are then in that pool which contains an II feature that allows week to week trades at no cost except the yearly fee.  I'm not sure whether you're seeing a combination of the two pools for week to week trades or something else.  

New purchasers get only trust points which we're told is a separate pool.  DC owners may also purchase trust points.  New purchasers are in one pool and have no reason to join II.

The only owners that I could imagine being in three pools would be enrolled owner who purchased additional trust points and kept their old II accounts which may have had unredeemed deposits.  Your point is well taken however, the system is a big mess.


----------



## net123 (Dec 30, 2012)

*I agree with you...would you like to discuss further?*



second hand Rose said:


> Dear "legacy MVCC owners,
> I am looking for any owner, with a deeded timeshare week, who feels that the new "Destination Point Program" has drastically reduced the value of their deeded property. I believe that a "class action suit" will be the only way to capture the value that will be lost in future years. If you choose not to pay $595.00 to participate in the new program,if in fact it doesn't make economic sense to buy into the point system because the value assigned to your timeshare weeks is not the same as it was before this program was instituted...and because as deeded owners, you will now be competing with less available Marriott inventory due to the fact that "non-timeshare" participants will be drawing from the available inventory of MVCC weeks without actually banking any inventory. Not only are they given first option on availble inventory directly through Marriott and if this request is not available, they then will be assigned your weeks that were deposited at II. So now you are not only competing with II owners, but also points owners who have nothing to trade into the system! Also, if you want Marriott to sell your timeshare, think again. Yes, they told you when you bought your weeks that they would find a buyer for a hefty commission...give it a try...I've been on a waiting list for 3 years and nothing is happening. Marriott resales won't even tell me where I stand on the resale waitlist. So much for the credibility of the company that, at one time, stood behind their product!



I agree with you.  Would you like to discuss this further?


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 30, 2012)

second hand Rose said:


> If you choose not to pay $595.00 to participate in the new program,if in fact it doesn't make economic sense to buy into the point system because the value assigned to your timeshare weeks is not the same as it was before this program was instituted...and because as deeded owners, you will now be competing with less available Marriott inventory due to the fact that "non-timeshare" participants will be drawing from the available inventory of MVCC weeks without actually banking any inventory. Not only are they given first option on availble inventory directly through Marriott and if this request is not available, they then will be assigned your weeks that were deposited at II. So now you are not only competing with II owners, but also points owners who have nothing to trade into the system!



The above makes sense to me.  Will someone please tell me where OP is off base with her analysis.

George


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 30, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> The above makes sense to me.  Will someone please tell me where OP is off base with her analysis.
> 
> George



Two and a half years of experience so far has shown that DC doesn't seem to be significantly impacting peoples usage of II. Trades that were easy in II are still easy, trades that were difficult before are still difficult.

As far as home resort reservations, the same thing applies. February and March in Maui are still frustrating for many owners. I have found my gold season Orlando reservations are easier, being able to call in weeks after the inventory release date and still being able to make the desired holiday week reservations.

We know several things though; owners making weeks based reservations are not competing against points users. It seems that MVCI has done a good job of keeping the inventory separate and allocated accordingly. As for MVCI pulling inventory from II to fulfill points requests, while it seems they can do it, it doesn't seem that they do it in all cases to meet a points wait-list request. People have had wait-list requests out using points and seen similar inventory available in II or had like II requests match. This seems to indicate that MVCI would rather have DC point wait-lists fulfilled from expected inventory that will come in through DC deposits rather than pulling from II.


----------



## suzannesimon (Dec 30, 2012)

This is our first trip back to our home resort since the Destination Club.  I own 2 Holiday fixed weeks and I joined the DC and I'm glad I did because it is some consolation for the disappointment this week that I and other weeks owners have experienced.  We had a Sunday check -in, which we prefer, but I've heard several owners complaining about the Destination Club to management because they were stuck with Friday check-in.  I've personally seen people checking out on Wednesday after Christmas and moving to the hotel.  This took a prime unit and week away from a weeks owner.  We were in 2 units in relatively poor locations.  The carpets were filthy, large holes in the tile, no king bed in the 3BR master, sharp bed frame cut 2 of us in the 2 Bedroom unit.  I think we'll probably rent them next year and hope they get their act together .  Fixed week owners should not have to compete with points users for prime check -in and units.


----------



## MALC9990 (Dec 30, 2012)

suzannesimon said:


> I've personally seen people checking out on Wednesday after Christmas and moving to the hotel.  This took a prime unit and week away from a weeks owner.



For a DC points reservation to have been available for that fixed Christmas week, would it not have been given up for DC points by a fixed week owner or perhaps it was never sold and was transferred to the trust - thus in either case no fixed week owner was deprived of a week. I guess it is also possible that it was an II deposited week that Marriott took to allow a DC Trust points owner to make a reservation but there is no evidence that that was the case.

I do agree that the introduction of the DC and the ability of premier plus owners to book 13 months out and to break up the traditional week stays into broken weeks with check-in days outside of the normal Fri, Sat, & Sun will be causing some issues but I would have thought that it was unlikely that that was the cause of your poor unit assignments.

At this point I should admit to being a premier plus DC point enrolled owner and also to having used DC points for a reservation at MFC in 2013 for 13 nights starting on a Tuesday - however in late Oct thru early Nov so not in a prime season time.

I do hope that you ensured that the GM and other relevant resort management staff were made very aware of the faults and problems with your assigned units and that they took appropriate action.


----------



## suzannesimon (Dec 30, 2012)

Oh yes.  The mgr told me everyone here this week were fixed week Holiday owners, which wasn't  true as I talked to others who had converted their Hilton Head weeks to points and came here.  I've also heard the poor vacation counselors getting beat up constantly by the pool from owners who are blaming the DC for not getting Sat check in dates.   Bottom line is that there are a lot more people chasing prime check-ins and good unit locations.  I 'd better get a great view in Vegas in March!


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 30, 2012)

suzannesimon said:


> This is our first trip back to our home resort since the Destination Club.  I own 2 Holiday fixed weeks and I joined the DC and I'm glad I did because it is some consolation for the disappointment this week that I and other weeks owners have experienced.  We had a Sunday check -in, which we prefer, but I've heard several owners complaining about the Destination Club to management because they were stuck with Friday check-in.  I've personally seen people checking out on Wednesday after Christmas and moving to the hotel.  This took a prime unit and week away from a weeks owner.  We were in 2 units in relatively poor locations.  The carpets were filthy, large holes in the tile, no king bed in the 3BR master, sharp bed frame cut 2 of us in the 2 Bedroom unit.  I think we'll probably rent them next year and hope they get their act together .  Fixed week owners should not have to compete with points users for prime check -in and units.



The issues with the unit are more a reflection of a poor HOA than the DC. 

For a unit to be available to trust owners, the unit either has to be owned by the trust or a legacy week owner had to exchange their week for DC points. The fact someone checked out on Weds would not affect weeks owners. 

*This thread is from Jan. 2011*. So far any legal action has failed to gain traction. Class actions are typically the result of poor presentations by salesmen where they try to scare you into believing what you own is no longer any good and the poor prospect believes them. 

Since joining the DC we've played in the weeks exchange pool and the DC points pool. As far as I can see, DC points are just an option. I've seen no really affect on my ablility to use our home resort weeks, exchange in the weeks program or reserve using DC points.


----------



## drlee (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm not sure a class action suit would do much. Having said that, I really don't like the new program, and have the following problems with it:

1. The inability to book into new properties (or properties that are largely sold with Destination Points) since sales people continue to say you must buy trust points to get into trust property.
2. While there is no "evidence" that inventory is reduced, my own experience would say that it is harder than ever to get trades into desirable property. If the property is largely filled with owners (like Maui), then you should be able to get into those properties, but the sales folks will admit that they are trying to get weeks inventory converted to points, as owners sell, return or deposit their weeks.
3. The devaluation of our properties is one of principle. I didn't ask for 2 day occupancy, and I don't think I should have to "pay" so others can have it. Having said that, as long as I don't try to USE the destination program, and continue to use weeks, that shouldn't matter. When it will matter, is when enough inventory has been rolled into points that we will be unable to book weeks. And, it just isn't fair that I can't get enough points for my own week to get a comparable week somewhere else because of the devaluation. (19% is alot)
4. The loss of lock-offs and the ability to trade up again doesn't matter if you don't use the new system. However, both features were strong sales perks when we bought, and only works via the old system. So if, that should ever go, then we're really being punished for buying into the old program.
5. The maintenance fees aren't necessarily equitable. If you had points to use, you would not have been charged an assessment when the roof failed in Aruba, or the parking lot in Kuai. Weeks owners were charged a large assessment for this, and points owners weren't, since they didn't "own" there. Sales will tell you that the MF for points is "higher" than for weeks, but it's hard to actually do a price compare.

So, again a class action suit would net little for us, but it might force Marriott to re-evaluate its program and treat its existing customers with more respect. Who knows. I'd join if there was one, but I probably won't live long enough to see any meaningful reform. (Sort of like our government).


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 30, 2012)

drlee said:


> I'm not sure a class action suit would do much. Having said that, I really don't like the new program, and have the following problems with it:
> 
> 1. The inability to book into new properties (or properties that are largely sold with Destination Points) since sales people continue to say you must buy trust points to get into trust property.



You never had the ability to book in to new properties under the weeks system. You could only book what you own. You could trade in through II, and chances are that new properties will find their inventory in DC, but that isn't to say that the inventory will never make it to II. New properties were always difficult to get in to, even with II. Though we have seen points based inventroy make it to II since DC has been introduced. So I wouldn't believe everything the sales reps want us to believe.



> 2. While there is no "evidence" that inventory is reduced, my own experience would say that it is harder than ever to get trades into desirable property. If the property is largely filled with owners (like Maui), then you should be able to get into those properties, but the sales folks will admit that they are trying to get weeks inventory converted to points, as owners sell, return or deposit their weeks.



This is a hard thing to verify. It seems that people are still getting their II exchanges though. Of course the prime summer HHI and Hawaii weeks are hard if not impossible, but they were also hard if not impossible before 6/20/2010.



> 3. The devaluation of our properties is one of principle. I didn't ask for 2 day occupancy, and I don't think I should have to "pay" so others can have it. Having said that, as long as I don't try to USE the destination program, and continue to use weeks, that shouldn't matter. When it will matter, is when enough inventory has been rolled into points that we will be unable to book weeks. And, it just isn't fair that I can't get enough points for my own week to get a comparable week somewhere else because of the devaluation. (19% is alot)



In the end you still have the 7 nights that you bought when you purchased a week. So that hasn't and won't be taken away. If you trade for DC points, you have to determine if the points skim is worth the added flexibility that points gives you. 

I do agree that it seems that owners at resorts are bearing the added housekeeping costs of short stays that DC provides. I think we need to ask our HOAs what they are doing to make sure that we are being reimbursed properly for those additional costs.



> 4. The loss of lock-offs and the ability to trade up again doesn't matter if you don't use the new system. However, both features were strong sales perks when we bought, and only works via the old system. So if, that should ever go, then we're really being punished for buying into the old program.



You won't lose the ability to lock off if you own that type of ownership. We bought two lock off weeks and have the ability to lock off. I don't see why or how this could change.



> 5. The maintenance fees aren't necessarily equitable. If you had points to use, you would not have been charged an assessment when the roof failed in Aruba, or the parking lot in Kuai. Weeks owners were charged a large assessment for this, and points owners weren't, since they didn't "own" there. Sales will tell you that the MF for points is "higher" than for weeks, but it's hard to actually do a price compare.



I agree that it is hard to compare the MF costs. However if there is a special assessment for a resort and the trust has ownership in that resort, then the trust owners will pay that. However since the MF for all resorts is spread out across all points in the trust, the pain isn't as much as a weeks owner at the actual resort. Take NCV for example. If they were to have a $250 special assessment, the trust MF would only see about a $0.012 MF increase that year, but the weeks owner would be paying $250 extra. It is just how it works. But the trust owners are still paying their share.



> So, again a class action suit would net little for us, but it might force Marriott to re-evaluate its program and treat its existing customers with more respect. Who knows. I'd join if there was one, but I probably won't live long enough to see any meaningful reform. (Sort of like our government).



In the end, it would be us and trust owners that would end up paying any settlement in a class action. Sure it may hit the MVCI bottom line, but remember the customer always pays for everything.


----------



## suzannesimon (Dec 30, 2012)

Class action suits make no sense.  The Owners might win 75 cents each, the lawyers will get $75 million and the Vacation Club goes bankrupt  - and who will that hurt the most?  Owners and stockholders!


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 30, 2012)

Please note that this thread is 2 years old, and the OP has not been back to TUG for 2 years...


----------

