# More outrageous moves from II and Westgrate



## timeos2 (May 6, 2007)

In a letter to the editor of Timesharing Today's latest issue a Westgrate fixed week owner, and there aren't any other kind that I know of, reports that II is allowing the resort to deposit "equivalent floating time" rather than the fixed week the owner has deeded to them. While this would seem to be unbelievable, as one of the advantages of owning a fixed week is knowing what you get or have to trade, it is certainly not beyond possibility that the corrupt and sales first management of Westgrate would pull this type of crap. 

Of course any legal challenge to it would win but who is going to pay a lawyer to fight over a practically worthless timeshare week? Westgrate, perhaps better named Sewergrate, knows that so they do as they please. And of course II, ever more than willing to go along with anything a developer might want, happily accepts whatever one of their favorites wants to do - screw the mere paying customer/owner of the fixed use time. 

Thank heavens our section of Sewergrate was originally RCI and THEY automatically give us the value for our fixed week - apparently regardless of whatever games King David and his band of sloths try to do. As RCI also did with Disney when they tried to implement the unfair exchange penalty fee that II eagerly embraced, RCI does, at least in some ways, protect their customers far more than II. At least on the deposit side of the ledger. Although far more recently RCI has allowed the Manhattan Club to pull the same type of move so maybe they have taken on more of an II attitude on fees as well.  Once they have your tme things may be more equal for both of the big two.  

Has anyone here heard or dealt with this from the Sewergrate group? While I tend to believe anything negative that comes out about that sleazy operation only one report may mean its a misunderstanding or simply that others just haven't heard whats happening yet.  If II is allowing this then the value of a so called fixed week is going to be compromised big time. Why wouldn't Marriott and other do the same if they can?  Leave it to Sewergrate  and their buddies at II to be leaders in despicable trampling  on owners rights.


----------



## AwayWeGo (May 6, 2007)

*You Have An Excellent Case.  Now, How Much Justice Can You Afford?*




timeos2 said:


> Of course any legal challenge to it would win but who is going to pay a lawyer to fight over a practically worthless timeshare week?


What about small claims court on a do-it-yourself basis?  A binding court order against WestGrate written by a small claims judge on the basis of a timeshare owner's petition -- wouldn't that be something? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Dave*H (May 6, 2007)

In all fairness to II (and RCI), it is up to the resorts to set their deposit policies.  Most of the time what may seem like unfair policies to owners who exchange may have benefits to owners who use or rent.  One possible explaination in this case is to keep prime time available for higher priced rentals meaning more profits.  If those profits go to reducing MFs, some owners will view that as a good thing even though trading power will suffer.  If those profits go to lining some executives pocket, then it is a bad thing for all owners.  IMHO, 99% of the blame in this case rests with Westgate.

It is up to purchasers to buy at resorts that best fit their needs.  It is unfortunate that timeshare sales is much more interested in a sale than a satisfied customer.


----------



## Mel (May 6, 2007)

What you are suggesting is fine with a floating weeks resort - the resort sets the policies of how weeks are reserved, and cn insist that weeks being deposited be reserved in whatever manner they want.  However, we are talking deeded ownership.  Which that deeded ownership, you have a right to THAT week, and a right to expect YOUR week to be deposited.  I also doubt it would be in the interest of the other owners - except perhaps the developer who happens to still own enough weeks to be eligible to serve on the HOA board.  With a fixed week resort none of the other owners should have access to your week- period.  It sounds to me like Westgate management may be putting the OP's week into a rental pool, where they reap the benefit of a better week getting higher rent.  

To be devil's advocate, maybe Westgate did deposit a different week, but not because the week/unit in question will be unavailable due to maintenance.  However, I doubt that.  I would insist II give the week back, and deposit it with one of the smaller exchange companies, where you will get credit for the week you own.  You probably paid more to get a higher damand week, you are entitled to use it (or exchange it for its full value).


----------



## timeos2 (May 6, 2007)

*II gets a big part of the blame*

Dave - Mel and I agree. If a resort is based on float time and chooses to use bulk banking, management selected deposits or whatever else the documents may allow for deposits to II/RCI with full knowledge and disclosure to the owners I have no problem with that.  But Sewergrate and other fixed weeks resorts were sold with the promise that you owned and got to use/trade/rent what you were deeded. I prefer a float system in year round areas like Orlando but they specifically only sold fixed use weeks. Now they unilaterally decide to deposit as if it was a float time resort? There is no defense to this and II, as the agent for the owner, should refuse any deposit other than the one the owner has provided by proof of ownership (a legally recorded deed). They are being paid and have no business allowing the corrupt resort to change what an owner within the rights they paid plenty to purchase has given them. If Sewergrate tries to say it's something else they should be on the phone to the owner (they can call often enough with unrequested alternate trades, why not with something this important?) and letters sent to the owner, Sewergrate and the FL DBMS clearly stating they are not receiving the correct deposit on behalf of the owner.  By simply accepting it they are part of the problem rather than acting in the best interests of their customer and calling Sewergrate onto the carpet. They have the clout no individual owner has to stop it in its tracks but, it appears, won't do so.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 6, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> In all fairness to II (and RCI), it is up to the resorts to set their deposit policies.  Most of the time what may seem like unfair policies to owners who exchange may have benefits to owners who use or rent.  One possible explaination in this case is to keep prime time available for higher priced rentals meaning more profits.  If those profits go to reducing MFs, some owners will view that as a good thing even though trading power will suffer.  If those profits go to lining some executives pocket, then it is a bad thing for all owners.  IMHO, 99% of the blame in this case rests with Westgate.
> 
> It is up to purchasers to buy at resorts that best fit their needs.  It is unfortunate that timeshare sales is much more interested in a sale than a satisfied customer.



I am a frequent defender of resorts that do exactly this, *provided the resort operates with floating time*.  With fixed week units, it is completely different.  The owner of the week paid for *that week in that unit*.  That is their week to use; they have the exclusive rights to that week.  In fact, when the week was originally sold, the price paid for that week reflected the demand for that week.

What Westgate is doing here is pure and total sleaze, of the type that has infested timesharing through it's history.


----------



## Dave*H (May 6, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> But Sewergrate and other fixed weeks resorts were sold with the promise that you owned and got to use/trade/rent what you were deeded.


I assume this promise came from developer sales.

The last thing we as owners want is for II or RCI to have a strong say in how resorts are run.  IMHO, other than facilitating trades and ranking the satisfaction of people trading in, the exchange companies should be completely hands off with respect to resort operations.  What if 100% of the owners choose via a vote to adopt a Westgate type policy?  What business is it of the exchange companies to override that?  What if the policy was in big, bold letters and properly explained to all buyers?  (I realize that is not likely to happen.)  Is it still within the rights of an exchange company to override that?  Exchange companies are well within their rights to sugguest things to the resorts, but that is it.  As soon as we accept that exchange companies can dictate resort policy, the door is open for them to dictate special assessments for remodels, bigger pools, bigger TVs, etc.

I agree 100% that fixed week owners should get what they own in terms of exchange power, but isn't the final decision up to resort policy?  The mistake, IMO, is buying at a resort where a majority of the board is not owner controlled.  That creates a situation where the board majority does not have a high priority on the best interests of the owners.


----------



## timeos2 (May 6, 2007)

*II can't shirk responibility to their customers*



Dave_H said:


> I assume this promise came from developer sales.
> 
> The last thing we as owners want is for II or RCI to have a strong say in how resorts are run.  IMHO, other than facilitating trades and ranking the satisfaction of people trading in, the exchange companies should be completely hands off with respect to resort operations.  What if 100% of the owners choose via a vote to adopt a Westgate type policy?  What business is it of the exchange companies to override that?  What if the policy was in big, bold letters and properly explained to all buyers?  (I realize that is not likely to happen.)  Is it still within the rights of an exchange company to override that?  Exchange companies are well within their rights to sugguest things to the resorts, but that is it.  As soon as we accept that exchange companies can dictate resort policy, the door is open for them to dictate special assessments for remodels, bigger pools, bigger TVs, etc.
> .



Dave - I agree we do not want the exchange co's dictating. But they do have a responsibility to only accept what the owner OK's to give them. If they owner has a fixed week, tells II they are depositing it then Sewergrate says "no - it's a January week rather than the fixed July" II should reject that deposit and let the owner know why. RCI does. Yes it is ultimately between the owners and Sewergrate or whatever resort is trying to play games but if II meekly goes along with the resort management rather than the legal owner I would think they are putting themselves at risk as well. They have zero right to accept and assign the value of a week that the owner did not authorize them to accept.  If the owners did in fact vote to make fixed float then would II deny that? Of course not - it would be a legitimate deposit then.  If the current report is true II is helping to perpetrate a fraud on the owners.  There is no way they should stand by and let it occur.

As for not buying at a resort where the developer refuses to let go such as Sewergrate - amen to that!  As I have often stated we would never buy at Sewergrate knowing what we known about timesharing and resort developers now.  Of course in 1994 it didn't look so bad especially on resale..


----------



## dougp26364 (May 6, 2007)

Dave_H said:


> I assume this promise came from developer sales.




Actually, if it's a fixed deeded week then it should be more than a promise. It's down in writing. To exchange something that is owned, say a spring break week in Orlando for something of less value such as a January week in Orlando seems to me to be nothing short of stealing unless they can prove that I.I. is giving them the EXACT same trading power. Since I.I. provides a demand chart to assist owners in knowing when demand is highest for certain area's, this would be difficult, if not impossible to prove.

Westgate, IMO, is taking something of value rightfully owned by the owner of the week and returning something of lower value when certain conditions exist that may not have been provided for in the owners deed. If it's in the sales contract that Westgate can do this or, that Westgate can change the terms of the ownership contract at their will, then the owners have little say in the matter. 

It's really to bad IMO as changes like this can give timesharing a really bad name in the press, in the courts and eventually in state legislatures which may eventually enact consumer protection laws to stop this sort of value raiding from developers like Westgate.


----------



## taffy19 (May 6, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Dave - I agree we do not want the exchange co's dictating. But they do have a responsibility to only accept what the owner OK's to give them. If they owner has a fixed week, tells II they are depositing it then Sewergrate says "no - it's a January week rather than the fixed July" II should reject that deposit and let the owner know why. RCI does. Yes it is ultimately between the owners and Sewergrate or whatever resort is trying to play games but if II meekly goes along with the resort management rather than the legal owner I would think they are putting themselves at risk as well. They have zero right to accept and assign the value of a week that the owner did not authorize them to accept.  If the owners did in fact vote to make fixed float then would II deny that? Of course not - it would be a legitimate deposit then.  If the current report is true II is helping to perpetrate a fraud on the owners.  There is no way they should stand by and let it occur.
> 
> As for not buying at a resort where the developer refuses to let go such as Sewergrate - amen to that!  As I have often stated we would never buy at Sewergrate knowing what we known about timesharing and resort developers now.  Of course in 1994 it didn't look so bad especially on resale..


John, I don't know who is at fault?  When we bought our fixed week at the Marriott, we were told that II is color blind and we may get a week in return with no ocean view at all at our home resort.  However, our fixed week would be deposited into II as this is how the Marriott still operates, I hope.

That seems to be different with the Starwood properties from what I have read here and I find it unfair because the prices differ from season to season in a floating system too.  I would think twice before depositing any fixed week to the exchange companies if that's how we are going to be treated at our home resort. 

However, there are also the resorts that change the condo allocation around and do not give what is deposited for exchange to the exchangers either because they give the best views to their owners.  Personally, I believe that the exchanger should get what was deposited into RCI or II.  That is what the exchanger most likely intended to happen with his exchange.  JMHO.


----------



## Carolinian (May 6, 2007)

It is absolutely wrong for II to allow Westgate to substitute something else for what the member OWNS.   Has anyone complained to the Florida Real Estate Commission?


----------



## Kola (May 6, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> It is absolutely wrong for II to allow Westgate to substitute something else for what the member OWNS.   Has anyone complained to the Florida Real Estate Commission?



Frankly, I don't get it ! *I never request or allow *my resorts to deposit my weeks on my behalf. I do it myself when and where I feel appropriate. It follows that it is the owner himself who "allows" Westgate (or any other resort) to make a substitution.  II keeps the record of deposited weeks for us as owners and its up to us to make sure the record reflects the true facts. 
So, why blame II ??? 

Kola


----------



## timeos2 (May 6, 2007)

*How doyu stop it*



Kola said:


> Frankly, I don't get it ! *I never request or allow *my resorts to deposit my weeks on my behalf. I do it myself when and where I feel appropriate. It follows that it is the owner himself who "allows" Westgate (or any other resort) to make a substitution.  II keeps the record of deposited weeks for us as owners and its up to us to make sure the record reflects the true facts.
> So, why blame II ???
> 
> Kola



If you call II and say you want your week at Sewergrate (the FIXED week you own) deposited and they say "fine" you assume things are set and you can now trade with the proper value.  But what if then the Sewergrate resort says to II, "Nope. Not fixed 1st week of July but an equivalent 2nd week of May is what this owner has to offer  in exchange".  Do you know it because II calls/emails/writes and says your approved deposit wasn't made by Sewergrate or when you go to exchange and the usual pitiful choices are even worse than expected?  It is a duty, or it should be, for II to inform you that your request for deposit was not completed as requested and that "your" resort has attempted to shortchange you. How else would you know as you have every reason to think that your fixed week ownership will be used to create your deposit value.   It is up to II to follow through, as RCI does by the way, and if they don't they are as much to blame as the resort.  The owner is the innocent in this sordid play but, as usual, would be the big loser if it stands.  If II allows it they share at least equally with the resort in the blame.


----------



## Mel (May 7, 2007)

There are several issues here, now that I think about it.

1 - As for allowing Westgate to deposit a week for you - that's not necessarily the case.  Whenever you deposit a week to RCI (and I'm sure II too), they call the resort to confirm that you still have the right to deposit the week.  They can deny the deposit for a variety of reasons - you no longer own it according to their records, or maybe you're behind on maintenance fees, or if they financed it you might be behind on loan payments.  I had one of my weeks held up at RCI recently because the office got behind in crediting our maintenance fee payment.  Because of this, you as the owner can't prevent Westgate or any other resort from denying your deposit.

2 - Deposits to exchange companies may be addressed in the Condo Documents.  If they are, Westgate could have quietly amended them to allow this type of abuse.  However, if they did, a lawsuit could be filed against the board members for violating thier fiduciary responsibility to the HOA - there is a conflict of interest if they implement policy only of benefit to their employer.

3 - trade power is not the only thing changed by this switch of deposits.  I don't know if II gives better trade power for earlier deposits, but RCI does.  If I called in July of 2006 to deposit my July 4th 2007 week, I am maximizing my trade power.  Now Waste-gate wants to put a January 207 week in my account.  That week is not only of lower demand, but it also is being deposited only 6 months out, lowering the trade power even further (like I said, I don't know how II handles this, so it may not be a factor).  Further, I can use that week to trade out until January 2009 - not July 2009.  I have had weeks come close to expiring before using them (and have even extended 1 week) with RCI.  I can see where the same could happen with II.  Now you're going to tell me I have 6 months LESS to use my deposit?  If II offers an extension for a fee, is Westgate planning on paying that fee for me?

I think I recall Madge saying online trading still only accounts for a small percentage of exchange activity, so most owners wouldn't even know what had happened - they just end up with lower trade power for their week, and their week expires sooner than they expect.  I don't know if II sends a written confirmation for deposits, but even if they do, most owners probably don't check the details other than to see that a week was deposited to their account.  And even if they do, what is II going to do if they can and insist the info on the card is wrong?  Only "correct" it for those who actually call them on it?


----------



## dougp26364 (May 7, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> .....Do you know it because II calls/emails/writes and says your approved deposit wasn't made by Sewergrate or when you go to exchange and the usual pitiful choices are even worse than expected?  It is a duty, or it should be, for II to inform you that your request for deposit was not completed as requested and that "your" resort has attempted to shortchange you.......



That is what I.I. did when the Villa's at Polo Towers attempted to change the week I had reserved and deposited with them. They sent me a post-card that had the revised date on it plus I saw it online. In my case I had to call the resort and chew them out for changing my prime week to a low trading January week that had little demand according to I.I.'s demand index. 

But, I.I. DID notify me of the change and what my resort had attempted to pull behind my back. 

Not that this has anything to do with what Westgate is attempting to pull. I.I. or any exchange company can only use what the resort gives them. They don't have a lot of say in he matter as they can't see the contract or the week the owner claims to have. All they see is whats given to them as a deposit by the resort ownership/developer. If Westgate chooses to play this game with their inventory then I don't see where any exchange company has any choice but to go along with it. Even SFX or other independant exchange companies can use nothing else but what is released by the resort for exchange. If Westgate refuses to release the week owned by the owner, the exchange company has little recourse unless they want to refuse the deposit all together. Westgate owners are going to have to challange this if it is in fact happening to them. 

Perhaps a few calls and formal complaints filed with the appropriate states Attorney General's office might get some attention. I know the AG's office in Missouri takes a dim view to TS developers shinanigans and acts upon them to try to keep them honest.

BTW, since calling and challenging VPT's right to change my reserved week without my permission, it hasn't happened again. I can't say if it still happens with other owners who don't know any better.


----------



## Crouching_tiger (May 10, 2007)

*Westgate / II*

I own a 3 br lockoff at Westgate Town Center. Today I try looking online with II for potential exchage, but I wasn't able to. I call II and the agent told me that in order for me to look online, I must first deposit my unit by calling Westgate (they have to deposit for me). This is the first time that I have encounter this problem. Is this what you guys are talking about? Westgate will take my fixed week and not necessary deposit the same week to II?


----------



## timeos2 (May 10, 2007)

*Thats what is seems like*



Crouching_tiger said:


> I own a 3 br lockoff at Westgate Town Center. Today I try looking online with II for potential exchage, but I wasn't able to. I call II and the agent told me that in order for me to look online, I must first deposit my unit by calling Westgate (they have to deposit for me). This is the first time that I have encounter this problem. Is this what you guys are talking about? Westgate will take my fixed week and not necessary deposit the same week to II?



Sounds that way. Was your purchase a fixed week, fixed unit as ours is?  If so you should raise holy heck if they try to substitute something else. If you need the contacts for the Florida Department of Timeshares (not the actual name, I'd have to look it up) to report this and get Wastegate to honor your ownership rights just say the word.  It is up to the owners to hold Wastegate accountable rather than simply accepting that they will take any opportunity to trample the rights of the owners while padding their pockets.


----------



## merc (May 10, 2007)

I'm sorry but the original post here doesn't actually provide factual proof of any of this, as it just quotes a letter to an editor, not an actual document.  My experience is that I can go to my fixed week or trade my fixed week at Westgate Lakes exactly as in the past.  Are you perhaps speaking of Westgate Vacation Villas only?


----------



## timeos2 (May 10, 2007)

merc said:


> I'm sorry but the original post here doesn't actually provide factual proof of any of this, as it just quotes a letter to an editor, not an actual document.  My experience is that I can go to my fixed week or trade my fixed week at Westgate Lakes exactly as in the past.  Are you perhaps speaking of Westgate Vacation Villas only?



I was careful to say that the letter to the editor says this happened - it has not happened to me (but then again I use RCI, not II for my Wastegate exchanges).  It may be the Villas only, all fixed weeks at all Wastegate resorts or maybe it isn't happening at all and the original author of the letter got it wrong.  It is no surprise that you can't get an answer from Wastegate management (3 unanswered voice mails since last week) and even of they answered there is no way to know if its fact or fiction. You can't trust them period.


----------



## Crouching_tiger (May 11, 2007)

I own a fixed week. I can not trade with II like I used to. I have to first get Westgate to deposit my week for me before I can even look for look for possible trade.


----------



## acesgame (May 11, 2007)

My westgate is floating, not fixed and trades through II.  It used to show up automatically for me to search for exchanges.  Now, I have to pick a check in date and supply the confirm#.  Of course, you can put in any date and bogus # you want to search.  If you find what you want, you reserve it and call Westgate.  I have never failed to get the check in date I reserved with.


----------



## timeos2 (May 11, 2007)

acesgame said:


> My westgate is floating, not fixed and trades through II.  It used to show up automatically for me to search for exchanges.  Now, I have to pick a check in date and supply the confirm#.  Of course, you can put in any date and bogus # you want to search.  If you find what you want, you reserve it and call Westgate.  I have never failed to get the check in date I reserved with.



That is the way float time works, not an issue. The problem, if it exists, is with a fixed week ownership.


----------



## Lee B (May 11, 2007)

There is one thing that points companies like Trendwest brought to the table that I like, although other TUGgers may not:  They arrange with the exchange companies to have certain "deposits" of their resort intervals in advance, knowing that owners will want exchanges in some fairly predictable amount.  Now when an owner contacts either the exchange company directly or the points company for an exchange, they give the exchange requesting member the requested exchange interval and then use an interval of equal value out of the deposited pool.  They don't "deposit" more value than the requester needs for the exchange.

Bulk banking resorts can do the same thing by depositing high-value intervals and lesser-value intervals way in advance to (achieve the value that early deposits get), then assign one of them to an exchange requesting owner.  The problem here is when they only have low-value deposits available for an owner to use when requesting a high-value exchange.

This thread is about an owner of a fixed high-value interval not being able to deposit that exact one into the system because the resort management seemingly lies about it.  This is ugly and the exchange company _ought_ to be on the owner's side because the owner will be disappointed in the exchange company because of the resort management's duplicity.  We know, however, that resort managements and exchange companies love each other and have no respect for owners.


----------



## wcfr1 (May 12, 2007)

1- The letter was accurate. I have deposited several of my Westgate fixed weeks and noticed different weeks were deposited.

2- Deposits made by an owner on line are still submitted by II (or RCI for that matter) to the home resort for confirmation of ownership and payment of fees etc. of the unit. There is nothing an owner can do to ensure they are depositing their own unit by doing it on line versus calling and talking to a II rep.

3- Westgate claims that when they deposit a "like week" they are staying within their seasons. As most of us now know, their weeks now fall into either Value Season, All Season or Fixed Season. (Fixed Season has nothing to do with fixed weeks). In Orlando for example weeks 5, 8-13, 22-25, 27-34 and 47 are the mid grade weeks known as All Season. Fixed Season or the highest value weeks are 6,7,14,15,26,51,52. All other weeks are Value Season or lowest value weeks. So if you own week 6 and deposit it with II, Westgate will assign any week that falls into their "similiar weeks" thing. They wont put that dog Value week into your account if you own a higher value season, so that is not really a concern.

Does that make the weeks equal as far as trading with II is concerend? Probably not. Just look at II's demand index. You will definetly see a different value for weeks in each season. Althought week 6 is a good week, and it is in Westgate's highest season, it still isn't as high in the demand index as weeks 9, 13, 51 and 52 which II has listed in the highest demand, but Westgate will say they are equal if you do an internal exchange.

4- Last year I noticed that when I checked my II account that they had changed the notation on my weeks from "Fixed Week" to "Floating Week". I happened to be on property at Westgate Lakes so I went to the II office on site.  According to the II rep I spoke to, Westgate does sell floating time as well as fixed time. That is what caused a change in how II handles Westgate weeks. At that time, all that meant was when I was conducting a search on line all I had to do was include my actual check in date, not just the week number. At the time that was no big deal.  

5- Concerning the comment about depositing your week first before doing a search with II. When I first read that I chuckled thinking yeah right. So I just checked myself with one of my own units. Holy Cow, that is new! That really sucks! That was the main reason I liked II over RCI to begin with. It is too late tonight to call anyone to look into that but right now I see no other way to do a search. Will have to do more research on that and post later.


----------



## Kola (May 13, 2007)

wcfr1 said:


> 1-
> 5- Concerning the comment about depositing your week first before doing a search with II. When I first read that I chuckled thinking yeah right. So I just checked myself with one of my own units. Holy Cow, that is new! That really sucks! That was the main reason I liked II over RCI to begin with. It is too late tonight to call anyone to look into that but right now I see no other way to do a search. Will have to do more research on that and post later.



What's new about depositing your week first before doing a search with II ?
Thousands of owners do it every year to maximise their trading power. I have been doing it for at least 15 years. What is there to research ?

Kola


----------



## wcfr1 (May 13, 2007)

What is there to research? I think you miss the point.

Until recently one could check for exchanges without making a deposit.

Now you have to deposit first. That's a BIG difference.


----------



## Kola (May 13, 2007)

wcfr1 said:


> What is there to research? I think you miss the point.
> 
> Until recently one could check for exchanges without making a deposit.
> 
> Now you have to deposit first. That's a BIG difference.




Oh, really ?
*From II website*: Interval is the only exchange company that offers two methods of exchange — Deposit First and Request First — so you always have maximum flexibility and maximum opportunity to confirm the perfect vacation.
You can keep checking Interval website ten times each day if you want, but the only way to get a shot at decent weeks as they become available is by entering a request. That's A BIG DIFFERENCE !

Kola


----------



## wcfr1 (May 13, 2007)

Kola said:


> Oh, really ?
> *From II website*: Interval is the only exchange company that offers two methods of exchange — Deposit First and Request First — so you always have maximum flexibility and maximum opportunity to confirm the perfect vacation.
> You can keep checking Interval website ten times each day if you want, but the only way to get a shot at decent weeks as they become available is by entering a request. That's A BIG DIFFERENCE !
> 
> Kola



Exactly my point! They offer two ways to exchange. Deposit first which I don't care to do with some of my units or Request first which they have apparently stopped allowing with the Westgate units.

Do you think this means that your chances of making an exchange changes drastically if you deposit first versus just searching with an undeposited unit? 

If so I must disagree. You may get a little more pulling power by depositing early (at least that is what they always tell you isn't it) but the fact remains unchanged. Previously I could make a search with out first making a deposit. Now I can not. Big change especially if I wanted to use II's Flexchange program for a last minute trip.

BTW, I have made some pretty good exchanges without ever depositing first over the years.


----------



## Mel (May 14, 2007)

Both options have their advantages:

Deposit first allows for ongoing searches, which will grab weeks that never make it past the stage of ongoing search.  So yes, with a good trader it will pull trades that will never show up online (because if you don't have a search, someone else will and will grab the week before you even knew it was available).

Request First allows you to see if there is something you are willing to trade for already in the pool, without giving up your week first.  Again, the advantage goes to the person with a highly requested week.  It may be possible to get your week back for II, if you can't find something you want, but that isn't always possible - particularly if someone else has a request in for what you've deposited.  Request first means someone else doesn't come along and take your week before II finds something you want.  As I understand, you can't put a search in this way - you can only look at what's in inventory.  But for some that is fine - and avoids certain disappointments.

I bet Westgate doesn't want owners using request first because they would then have to give up the correct week to II, when an exchange is made.

If Westgate won't budge, I would press II to make things right.  II has a contract with you as well as with Westgate.  Your contract gives you the right to exchange the week you own.  Westgate's contract gives them the right to substitute equivalent weeks (particularly if your unit is undergoing refurbishment).  If II is accepting these weeks into your account, they are agreeing they are equivalent, and should give you equivalent trade power.

Even if Westgate restores the correct week to your account, I would contact the legal authorities.  I would bet they will only "correct" this in accounts where someone complains - and if Madge is right on the numbers for RCI, I suspect they are similar to II, and only a small percentage of owners use online features.  The majority won't read the deposit confirmations thoroughly enough to realize there is a problem, and Westgate is counting on that.


----------

