# Marriott’s Response to My Letter on Our Cancelled Exchange & How They View Exchanges



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

I wanted to close the loop on the thread I started back in September about Marriott cancelling our Interval International exchange into Hilton Head Grande Ocean after Hurricane Irma. Here is a link to that thread:

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...l-cancelled-our-grande-ocean-exchange.262411/

Since this new topic deals with Marriott’s response, I wanted to be sure it didn’t get buried in that long thread, so I’m starting a new one. I think some of the things I was told deserve to be highlighted separately for the TUG community. I apologize in advance for the length.

In early October, I wrote an email to Marriott Vacations Worldwide CEO Steven Weisz, with a copy to the senior manager of Marriott Customer Care. In my letter, I explained the situation where our II exchange was cancelled even though Grande Ocean was open and accepting guests for 6 of the 7 nights of our scheduled stay. I explained how we were first told everything was fine and we could check in, but then our exchange was cancelled at the eleventh hour.

The main focus of my letter were the facts that we subsequently learned that were discussed at length in the other thread – 1) that the Grand Ocean staff told me that guests who were originally scheduled to stay at other closed HHI resorts were being accommodated in GO rooms vacated by the II exchanges; 2) another guest who was staying at GO was told that same fact (thanks Fasttr); and 3) at least one couple with an Encore package at another HHI resort was accommodated at Grande Ocean (thanks again, Fasttr).

I also mentioned in the letter that Interval International was kind enough to provide us with a Marriott-preference replacement week. The main thing I was looking for was not additional restitution, but just an explanation of why Marriott Vacation Club made the decisions they did in the aftermath of the hurricane.

A few days later, I received an email reply from a Customer Advocacy Manager in the Executive Office on behalf of Mr. Weisz. I don’t think I should share the emails themselves in a public forum since they were intended as private communications to me, but I do think every Marriott owner on this forum should know how Marriott Vacation Club now views II exchangers. I think we all can benefit from that information.

This is a summary of the main points made by MVC Customer Advocacy in several back-and-forth emails:

1)    Once an owner deposits an ownership week with Interval International, your confirmation from that deposit is no longer considered an owner reservation. They look primarily at how the reservation is booked, *not* who the person is that has confirmed the reservation. They consider all Interval exchanges to be external inventory.

2)    Owner reservations were honored at GO because they were booked through Marriott using an ownership week. Encore packages were honored because they were booked with “in-house” inventory. Reservations with Destination Points were honored because those were booked with points, “which is still the in-house inventory bucket” according to the person I was communicating with. She also mentioned that Trust points were a high priority, so I got the impression that if it came down to a situation where all DC points owners could not be accommodated, Trust owners might get priority over Legacy points owners.

3)   I was told anyone can be an Interval International member, so when you confirm a stay through an external company, you do not have priority. A reservation that is confirmed on an exchange is considered external inventory, even if it is an MVC owner using that exchange.

The way I interpret all this is that once a week is deposited with Interval, Marriott Vacation Club sees that as an external Interval reservation since Interval now controls who is assigned to that unit, not Marriott. As a result, Marriott gives minimal consideration to whether the incoming guest is an owner or not. They do give some consideration to owners for room assignment, but other than that, the Interval exchanges are viewed as external inventory and will be the first to be cancelled in any situation where all guests cannot be accommodated. In general, I think I agree with this approach.

I tried to get an answer on the other questions about other resort guests being moved to Grande Ocean, but the person from Customer Advocacy continued to just repeat those same three talking points over and over without really addressing my other questions. When I pressed that point further and asked a second or third time, I was told, “To my knowledge everyone that stayed at Grande Ocean had confirmed there,” and “I am sure that any units that were occupied, were occupied by owners who had reservations using their ownership.”

Despite multiple attempts, and restating the facts learned from conversations with staff and guests at GO, all I got were the denials. I have been unable to get Customer Advocacy to even acknowledge what the Grande Ocean front desk told Fasttr and me, or offer any explanation. I got the impression she was only repeating the specific company talking points. Despite my suggesting follow up with the relevant managers to get an explanation, she has so far chosen not to do so.

Thanks to the great response from Mark DelCampo at Interval, I feel like we received reasonable restitution in the form of a relatively unrestricted Marriott-preference replacement week. Sadly, this situation has highlighted for me the low prioritization of Interval exchanges, making it even less likely that I will choose to exchange with II in the future (once I’ve used my two existing deposits). I wasn’t a big fan of the exchanging game to begin with, but this may have put the nail in that coffin. Exchanging will likely now be my usage of last resort, if there is no other option. As an owner who primarily uses his Marriott ownership through DC points and owner week bookings, the low prioritization of Interval exchanges is not as much of a negative for us as it would be for more active exchangers. It does, however, reduce the value of the exchange option, and thus reduces the value of my ownership to some degree.

Having said all of this, I do think providing owner preference is the right overall philosophy, and I don’t take issue with Grande Ocean owners and DC owners using their ownership interests having priority over an II exchanger. I also still like the Marriott network of resorts and the flexibility of the DC Points system. I just disagree with Marriott’s apparent decision to allow their own ad hoc “in-house” exchanges into Grande Ocean, thus marginalizing owners with regular Marriott-to-Marriott II exchanges.

The overall lack of transparency, poor communication, and obfuscation by Marriott Vacation Club in this whole situation has been very disappointing. That is really my biggest gripe.

It’s been almost a month since this whole thing transpired, so I’m eager to put it behind us and consider it a lesson learned.


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I wanted to close the loop on the thread I started back in September about Marriott cancelling our Interval International exchange into Hilton Head Grande Ocean after Hurricane Irma. Here is a link to that thread:
> 
> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...l-cancelled-our-grande-ocean-exchange.262411/
> 
> ...


Jim, I know it's been frustrating but your summary is c/w both my view of how it's handled related to exchanges being essentially non Marriott and my view of how it should be, that owners should come ahead of exchangers.  And while in general terms I would have done it resort by resort, I do think looking at the island as a whole is unreasonable.  There is also info we don't have that could easily sway my view to the way it was done being best which would include the % of exchangers at each resort and how the reservations fit together for villa assignments.  Regardless, a dialogue about the issue can only help, up to a point.  I'd actually rather them stand their ground and defend the choices than to bend whichever way the wind is blowing or even worse, just tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

Dean said:


> Jim, I know it's been frustrating but your summary is c/w both my view of how it's handled related to exchanges being essentially non Marriott and my view of how it should be, that owners should come ahead of exchangers.  And while in general terms I would have done it resort by resort, I do think looking at the island as a whole is unreasonable.  There is also info we don't have that could easily sway my view to the way it was done being best which would include the % of exchangers at each resort and how the reservations fit together for villa assignments.  Regardless, a dialogue about the issue can only help, up to a point.  I'd actually rather them stand their ground and defend the choices than to bend whichever way the wind is blowing or even worse, just tell you what you want to hear.



As I said above, I agree that giving preference to owners actually using their ownership interest (either weeks or DC) over an Interval exchange is the right prioritization approach, so we agree on that. As an owner, that's a good thing, and since we are primarily ownership users not exchangers, someday we may benefit from it just as much as we were hurt by it this time. In one of my emails back to Customer Advocacy I told them the same thing - that I agree 100% with giving ownership usage at a resort and DC ownership usage priority over exchangers, and as an owner that's how I would want them to do it.

The part that rubs me the wrong way a bit here is the decision to view all of HHI as a whole, since what they essentially did was cancel one group of confirmed exchangers - the Interval exchanges - in order to accommodate their own ad hoc "in-house" exchanges. But as you stated, I don't think even that is _totally_ indefensible, even though I don't really agree with that approach. There is certainly an "ownership matters" logic to that decision that I think could be justifiable if we knew more of the facts behind the situation. But that's what bugs me the most about their approach on this - their failure to even acknowledge that happened and explain their rationale. That's really what I was looking for - a professional, mature discussion of why that decision was made. I was totally prepared to hear their explanation and agree with it - but the infuriating part is the total lack of acknowledgement and explanation. It's not that they were "standing their ground and defending their choices", they weren't even acknowledging those choices were made. I got the impression the person I was interacting with was not used to dealing with the more specific, knowledge-based questions I was asking. She just deflected and went back to the "script."


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 11, 2017)

Marriott is not the only operation that considers all incoming exchanges as "external", even if the exchanger is an owner.  It wouldn't surprise me if most resorts operated that way.  If any preferences at all are granted, that owner would come after everyone else except for other exchangers.  

The rationale is simple - when someone deposits a week with an exchange company, they also give up the rights associated with the week.

Beyond that, the resort has no way of knowing whether the deposit you made to get that exchange is based on your ownership.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

Jim,
Thanks for your thorough investigation and explanation. I am going through a similar process regarding my upcoming exchange into Ocean Pointe that may be cancelled. This whole issue raises the question again regarding allocation of inventory, similar to trust vs. enrolled inventory. Doesn't MVC have a legal commitment to allocate inventory to II based on the owned weeks at the resort that are deposited to II for exchange? If 20% of Grand Ocean weeks are deposited to II, doesn't MVC have to allocate 20% of their inventory to II? I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that MVC's policy doesn't follow contractual commitments. My situation is similar to yours in that I only use II as a last resort. I was using a deposited week from Oceana Palms that was prior to Chairman owners being able to bank points for 2 years. I feel sorry for non-enrolled owners who rely on exchanges through II for stays at other MVC resorts.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Marriott is not the only operation that considers all incoming exchanges as "external", even if the exchanger is an owner.  It wouldn't surprise me if most resorts operated that way.  If any preferences at all are granted, that owner would come after everyone else except for other exchangers.
> 
> The rationale is simple - when someone deposits a week with an exchange company, they also give up the rights associated with the week.
> 
> Beyond that, the resort has no way of knowing whether the deposit you made to get that exchange is based on your ownership.


All of my interval exchanges show the week I deposited. I don't understand how MVC can say they have no way of knowing whether it was an owner deposit. For all of my previous exchanges, the front desk always knew I was an Chairman level MVC owner.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Jim,
> Thanks for your thorough investigation and explanation. I am going through a similar process regarding my upcoming exchange into Ocean Pointe that may be cancelled. This whole issue raises the question again regarding allocation of inventory, similar to trust vs. enrolled inventory. Doesn't MVC have a legal commitment to allocate inventory to II based on the owned weeks at the resort that are deposited to II for exchange? If 20% of Grand Ocean weeks are deposited to II, doesn't MVC have to allocate 20% of their inventory to II? I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that MVC's policy doesn't follow contractual commitments. My situation is similar to yours in that I only use II as a last resort. I was using a deposited week from Oceana Palms that was prior to Chairman owners being able to bank points for 2 years. I feel sorry for non-enrolled owners who rely on exchanges through II for stays at other MVC resorts.



In general I think you are right, they have to be able to accommodate the exchangers, but I suspect that there is a clause in Marriott's contract with Interval that gives them considerable leeway in cancelling exchanges at their discretion in situations such as the hurricane where some units are not usable. We can only assume that Interval would not allow them to violate whatever cancellation limitations might exist.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 11, 2017)

To me, MVC is being consistent. They are prioritising the customers most likely to be "sold to" for more MVC product.

I saw the same bias in reservations when there was competition between legacy weeks and the DC trust. It showed the worst with single week and season legacy owners. That is why I exited the MVC system. . .


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Oct 11, 2017)

Superchief said:


> All of my interval exchanges show the week I deposited. I don't understand how MVC can say they have no way of knowing whether it was an owner deposit. For all of my previous exchanges, the front desk always knew I was an Chairman level MVC owner.



They absolutely know because many properties give a level of room priority to MVC owners on an II exchange. Some even have it published as a priority level. But them knowing is beside the point. What they are saying is that in this case they did not give owner priority for cancellations if it was an II exchange.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

Their response hasn't changed my mind one bit.  While I agree with them prioritizing owners using their owned Weeks or DC Points over II exchangers (owners or not) within a single resort, I completely disagree that it was correct for them to move ANY guests who were confirmed into the other HHI resorts into units in GO for which confirmed reservations were held by others.  I don't care what priority placement metric is in play - the HHI resorts do not in any way constitute a "cluster" with reciprocal reservation rights, and their denial that it happened at all simply doesn't ring true.

The front desk staff who told Jim that other resort guests were being moved to GO, and the onsite guests at GO who told Fasttr later that week that they'd been moved from other resorts to GO, didn't have any reason to lie to him I don't think. But MVW certainly does have an impetus to not tell the truth about any reciprocity they enacted among the HHI resorts, because by all accounts they were completely wrong in doing so.  I understand, Jim, that you feel fairly compensated by II and that you've taken this as far as MVW will allow you to do - in your shoes I would feel the same way.  But that doesn't stop me from hoping that any of those guests who were moved from other resorts to GO will see this and contact you privately, to give you the opportunity to present proof to MVW of what was reported to you.

And like you, Jim, what's most disappointing to me is MVW's failure to acknowledge the seriousness with which you took this situation.  Sure, they and all of the impacted guests were dealing with a difficult situation, but they failed in both their unprecedented solution and incomplete explanation as far as I'm concerned.

_[Moderator Note:  Thanks, Jim, for the follow-up.  I agree this is important enough to warrant its own thread.  But to prevent duplicate posts I'm going to close your other thread with a link to this one in it. ]_


----------



## GregT (Oct 11, 2017)

Jim,

Thank you for posting your experience, it is very interesting to see the MVC perspective and how this was viewed.   I am hopeful that this was an unusual enough circumstance and future Interval exchangers won't be subjected to the same problem.   I do think that 99.99% of the exchanges are uneventful, and it becomes primarily a room assignment issue.  

I am confronted with this a little bit for 2018 -- I've got a 1BR OF reserved at MM1 for July of next year, and I just matched a trade for a 1BR OV in MMO.   It's actually a 10 day trip and I can match up the three missing days with a 1BR OV using points -- so if I cancel my points reservation and keep the II trade, then I save 6,000 points.   So looking purely at it as a room assignment issue, it is an interesting question -- and not sure what I will do.

But I do appreciate your posting the update on your experience and am glad II did a very professional thing for you.   

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

GregT said:


> Jim,
> 
> Thank you for posting your experience, it is very interesting to see the MVC perspective and how this was viewed.   I am hopeful that this was an unusual enough circumstance and future Interval exchangers won't be subjected to the same problem.   I do think that 99.99% of the exchanges are uneventful, and it becomes primarily a room assignment issue.
> 
> ...



Imagine if you get a call a few days before your trip in which you're told that your II reservation has to be cancelled because units have been unexpectedly taken out of service, and then you find out sometime after from both MVW staff and other guests that one of Kauai's resorts had to close and Weeks Owners/DC Members booked there were moved to the Maui unit booked by/for you.

I know I wouldn't ever expect that to happen, and "interesting" would probably be the nicest word I could find to attribute to MVW in that situation!

That's how I'm looking at this, because I don't think for one minute that the front desk staff Jim spoke with and the folks Fasttr spoke with at GO were lying.  What reason would they have to do so?!  It's not a matter of how MVW applied the usual priority placement metric of II exchangers falling below Weeks Owners/DC Members (which metric I don't question at all when it's applied within a single resort) - it's that they cancelled reservations rightfully held by exchangers into one resort, to accommodate owners/members booked into units at another completely separate resort that unexpectedly came out of service.

It defies explanation, which is why they couldn't provide one to Jim and instead danced all around his questions.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

Greg,
They are applying this same policy at Ocean Pointe right now due to some villas being out of commission. All II reservations are being cancelled, while MVC is providing higher priority to cash and MR reservations as well as Encore/Sales packages.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Greg,
> They are applying this same policy at Ocean Pointe right now due to some villas being out of commission. All II reservations are being cancelled, while MVC is providing higher priority to cash and MR reservations as well as Encore/Sales packages.



But you haven't heard anything, have you, about Weeks Owners/DC Members using their owned Weeks/Points at other impacted Florida resorts, being placed into the units booked for these II cancellations?


----------



## GregT (Oct 11, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Greg,
> They are applying this same policy at Ocean Pointe right now due to some villas being out of commission. All II reservations are being cancelled, while MVC is providing higher priority to cash and MR reservations as well as Encore/Sales packages.



SuperChief,

I just read your comments in the other (now closed) thread and I do agree with your comments (and KLCPA's highlights) that it seems like Marriott is disproportionately favoring points/trust point users versus legacy week owners (that are trading in).  I do think that is terrible, and another example of unexpected (inappropriate?) benefit to points users.

Sue, I apologize if my comment suggested I agreed with Marriott's actions -- I had only intended to express that I won't stop using II because of this event, and regrettably, it appears that II has little power in how their customers are treated by MVC when the natural disaster occurs.

Best,

Greg


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> But you haven't heard anything, have you, about Weeks Owners/DC Members using their owned Weeks/Points at other Florida resorts, being placed into the units booked for these II cancellations?


No. I agree that that situation would be even worse. I doubt that Oceana Palms is cancelling anyone's reservations to accommodate those displaced from Ocean Pointe.

However, I still  have a major problem with Marriott totally disregarding II exchangers in their hierarchy, and providing priority of cash/MR/Encore stays over MVC /home resort owner II exchangers who have paid MF's for their MVC week that then becomes worthless. Those who rent/use MR points to reserve a timeshare can cancel without penalty 7 days in advance and have no investment with MVC. They should be cancelled before MVC II exchanges.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

Superchief said:


> No. I agree that that situation would be even worse. I doubt that Oceana Palms is cancelling anyone's reservations to accommodate those displaced from Ocean Pointe.



Hmm...do we know that for sure they are *not* accommodating displaced Ocean Pointe owners at Oceana Palms?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 11, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Hmm...do we know that for sure they are *not* accommodating displaced Ocean Pointe owners at Oceana Palms?


We don't really. I am mainly concerned with Marriott creating mini exchange systems on the fly to suit their needs at a given time with no disclosure. What is really preventing them from prioritizing owner stays at any HHI resort in to the prime beach properties and moving all II exchanges to the non beach resorts? While I doubt they would do this and in this situation it was because of the extreme circumstances, it is hypothetically possible.

Marriott needs to remember that these aren't simply hotel reservations when owners are using their ownership rights, whether it be an owner week or an exchange. Owners are using their owned real estate interests. If they did move owners from other resorts on HHI and displace II exchanges, I do feel that they violated ownership rights and also possible the law as it relates to timeshare ownership and exchange programs. Perhaps that is why they are being mum on that specific subject?


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> As I said above, I agree that giving preference to owners actually using their ownership interest (either weeks or DC) over an Interval exchange is the right prioritization approach, so we agree on that. As an owner, that's a good thing, and since we are primarily ownership users not exchangers, someday we may benefit from it just as much as we were hurt by it this time. In one of my emails back to Customer Advocacy I told them the same thing - that I agree 100% with giving ownership usage at a resort and DC ownership usage priority over exchangers, and as an owner that's how I would want them to do it.
> 
> The part that rubs me the wrong way a bit here is the decision to view all of HHI as a whole, since what they essentially did was cancel one group of confirmed exchangers - the Interval exchanges - in order to accommodate their own ad hoc "in-house" exchanges. But as you stated, I don't think even that is _totally_ indefensible, even though I don't really agree with that approach. There is certainly an "ownership matters" logic to that decision that I think could be justifiable if we knew more of the facts behind the situation. But that's what bugs me the most about their approach on this - their failure to even acknowledge that happened and explain their rationale. That's really what I was looking for - a professional, mature discussion of why that decision was made. I was totally prepared to hear their explanation and agree with it - but the infuriating part is the total lack of acknowledgement and explanation. It's not that they were "standing their ground and defending their choices", they weren't even acknowledging those choices were made. I got the impression the person I was interacting with was not used to dealing with the more specific, knowledge-based questions I was asking. She just deflected and went back to the "script."


I understand it's an issue for you but, IMO, the only way to hold the opinion that it's inappropriate is to also hold the opinion they don't have the legal/contractual right to do so.  Otherwise it just a choice they made and the priorities they created that are slightly different than you and I would likely have chosen.  IMO it's not a big stretch to treat HH as a unit and look at them globally in such a large scale situation.  



Superchief said:


> All of my interval exchanges show the week I deposited. I don't understand how MVC can say they have no way of knowing whether it was an owner deposit. For all of my previous exchanges, the front desk always knew I was an Chairman level MVC owner.


My understanding is they know you're an owner, not what you used to exchange into.  It's not that they don't have the ability to know just like II has the ability to know and care about view type, they just chose not to and IMO, this is the right choice given the II setup.  But I would agree with above, it's really irrelevant unless they were going to draw the line in a different place.



SueDonJ said:


> Imagine if you get a call a few days before your trip in which you're told that your II reservation has to be cancelled because units have been unexpectedly taken out of service, and then you find out sometime after from both MVW staff and other guests that one of Kauai's resorts had to close and Weeks Owners/DC Members booked there were moved to the Maui unit booked by/for you.
> 
> I know I wouldn't ever expect that to happen, and "interesting" would probably be the nicest word I could find to attribute to MVW in that situation!
> 
> ...


I understand the emotions which is what you're referring to but discussing it here I'd hope we're looking past the emotions and the impact on a given family addressing the big picture.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

GregT said:


> SuperChief,
> 
> I just read your comments in the other (now closed) thread and I do agree with your comments (and KLCPA's highlights) that it seems like Marriott is disproportionately favoring points/trust point users versus legacy week owners (that are trading in).  I do think that is terrible, and another example of unexpected (inappropriate?) benefit to points users.
> 
> ...



Oh! No apology necessary!


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

Dean said:


> I understand it's an issue for you but, IMO, the only way to hold the opinion that it's inappropriate is to also hold the opinion they don't have the legal/contractual right to do so.  Otherwise it just a choice they made and the priorities they created that are slightly different than you and I would likely have chosen.  IMO it's not a big stretch to treat HH as a unit and look at them globally in such a large scale situation. ...
> 
> I understand the emotions which is what you're referring to but discussing it here I'd hope we're looking past the emotions and the impact on a given family addressing the big picture.



That's the thing, though, Dean, it IS a big stretch to treat all HHI resorts as a single unit, and it is a matter of whether what they're doing is legal or not!  I think you're giving MVW too much power here, not questioning enough whatever rights they actually have.  It may be that they can move owners/guests among the resorts at will which I'm questioning because I don't see anything in the docs that support it.  So if there's nothing to say that they have the right, there's also nothing to say that they must limit that right to only the HHI resorts, meaning nothing to say that they can't do it among the entire portfolio.  As far as any of us know it's never been done before, and now they've proven themselves unwilling to explain the reasoning and process to Jim when he inquired.  Simply, if MVW was in the right then they have nothing to hide but they sure didn't respond to Jim as if that's the case.

I'd be okay with the hierarchy that they established for this event if they'd enacted it within the individual resorts.  It makes sense to me that they'd prioritize Weeks Owners, DC Trust Members and DC Exchange Members in that order as "internal users" because those reservations are confirmed directly through MVW.  It makes sense that II exchangers (whether owners or not) are considered "external users" with the lowest priority if mass cancellations have to occur due to such events, because those reservations are confirmed through an external entity.  It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW/MI-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory.  What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> ... I am mainly concerned with Marriott creating mini exchange systems on the fly to suit their needs at a given time with no disclosure. ...



Exactly.


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> That's the thing, though, Dean, it IS a big stretch to treat all HHI resorts as a single unit!  I think you're giving MVW too much power here, not questioning enough whatever rights they actually have.  It may be that they can move owners/guests among the resorts at will which I'm questioning because I don't see anything in the docs that support it.  So if there's nothing to say that they have the right, there's also nothing to say that they must limit that right to only the HHI resorts, meaning nothing to say that they can't do it among the entire portfolio.  As far as any of us know it's never been done before, and now they've proven themselves unwilling to explain the reasoning and process to Jim when he inquired.  Simply, if MVW was in the right then they have nothing to hide but they sure didn't respond to Jim as if that's the case.
> 
> I'd be okay with the hierarchy that they established for this event if they'd enacted it within the individual resorts.  It makes sense to me that they'd prioritize Weeks Owners, DC Trust Members and DC Exchange Members in that order as "internal users" because those reservations are confirmed directly through MVW.  It makes sense that II exchangers (whether owners or not) are considered "external users" with the lowest priority if mass cancellations have to occur due to such events, because those reservations are confirmed through an external entity.  It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW/MI-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory.  What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.


We'll have to disagree as did Marriott.  But the thing is that unless one can say they don't have the right legally, contractually they can't say it's a big stretch.  I believe they are one and the same just like you can't say it's legal but it's unfair for almost anything in the timeshare world.  They can but they shouldn't doesn't fit with timeshares IMO.  If one feels they can't but they did, different ballgame and one that lawyers might need to be involved.  I know most here believe otherwise but I don't see it as a big stretch to treat them as a group in this situation and to favor owners over exchangers in general.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 11, 2017)

Florida State Statute Chapter 721.18 -Exchange programs; filing of information and other materials; filing fees; unlawful acts in connection with an exchange program covers this. It may or may not apply to Marriott in this situation since they did this in South Carolina.


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Florida State Statute Chapter 721.18 -Exchange programs; filing of information and other materials; filing fees; unlawful acts in connection with an exchange program covers this. It may or may not apply to Marriott in this situation since they did this in South Carolina.


I don't see how it would apply as that's related to offering the exchange option.  All in question I believe were already enrolled in a property noticed exchange program meeting those guidelines.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 11, 2017)

Dean said:


> I don't see how it would apply as that's related to offering the exchange option.  All in question I believe were already enrolled in a property noticed exchange program meeting those guidelines.


My point is that by moving owners between resorts, Marriott setup an undisclosed exchange company.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> T  It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW/MI-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory.  What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.


I'm not sure that this is true. We know that there is a lot of exchange deposit activity at older resorts because there are several owners who never joined the VC program. I also believe that there aren't a lot of owners who deposit their weeks for points due to the deflated value of MR points. VC point deposits should equal VC points reservations. Currently, MVC is cancelling all II exchanges into Ocean Pointe. How can this be justified when a substantial portion of the inventory is due to Ocean Pointe exchange deposits. We have no visibility to MVW/MI controlled inventory. Are they truly taking their fair share? I no longer trust them.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> That's the thing, though, Dean, it IS a big stretch to treat all HHI resorts as a single unit!  I think you're giving MVW too much power here, not questioning enough whatever rights they actually have.  It may be that they can move owners/guests among the resorts at will which I'm questioning because I don't see anything in the docs that support it.  So if there's nothing to say that they have the right, there's also nothing to say that they must limit that right to only the HHI resorts, meaning nothing to say that they can't do it among the entire portfolio.  As far as any of us know it's never been done before, and now they've proven themselves unwilling to explain the reasoning and process to Jim when he inquired.  Simply, if MVW was in the right then they have nothing to hide but they sure didn't respond to Jim as if that's the case.
> 
> I'd be okay with the hierarchy that they established for this event if they'd enacted it within the individual resorts.  It makes sense to me that they'd prioritize Weeks Owners, DC Trust Members and DC Exchange Members in that order as "internal users" because those reservations are confirmed directly through MVW.  It makes sense that II exchangers (whether owners or not) are considered "external users" with the lowest priority if mass cancellations have to occur due to such events, because those reservations are confirmed through an external entity.  It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory.  What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.



Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...

1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable *IF* they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket."

2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving _within _different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control_._ I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket. *But,* what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me?

Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 11, 2017)

I've been a MVC owner since the early years with my first purchases of Royal Palms, shortly followed by Newport Coast. I always trusted the company and appreciated their respect for owners. Until recently, the individual resorts were the primary decision makers regarding inventory and villa assignments. This control seems to have shifted to corporate, which really concerns me. This reminds me of the transfer of customer contacts at banks from the local branch to an 800 number in corporate. Has anyone experiences improved customer experience with a corporate customer service person compared to previously being able to call a local branch and talking to someone they've worked with for several years? Local resorts care about each individual owners. Corporate is primarily motivated by how much more profit they can make.


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> My point is that by moving owners between resorts, Marriott setup an undisclosed exchange company.


I think that's a stretch at best  but given that the Marriott system is based in FL, I believe the FL statues would apply where they were applicable.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 11, 2017)

Dean said:


> I think that's a stretch at best  but given that the Marriott system is based in FL, I believe the FL statues would apply where they were applicable.


Not necessarily a stretch at all. It is a timeshare system and they were working with timeshare components, not hotel reservations.


----------



## Dean (Oct 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not necessarily a stretch at all. It is a timeshare system and they were working with timeshare components, not hotel reservations.


As the statute reads it's related to the act of offering an exchange company not the performance of an exchange itself.  But if one is so inclined, I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be happy to take the case though likely not on contingency.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 11, 2017)

Dean said:


> As the statute reads it's related to the act of offering an exchange company not the performance of an exchange itself.  But if one is so inclined, I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be happy to take the case though likely not on contingency.


I would expect the class would also be so small since it would only impact those with cancelled reservations, it wouldn't be worth the effort.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Oct 11, 2017)

I view an exchanger as having a contract via II (or RCI) to a stay for x number of night in a y size unit. Marriott deposited a week in the exchange company and the exchange company "SOLD/rented/assigned" the unit Marriott provided for a like-kind of cash payment  and item of value .. called the "deposited week" plus CASH paid for the exchange fee.

The resort did NOT close nor were units placed out of service. The resort DID NOT call *any or ALL* inbound guests to OFFER a bribe to "NOT COME". They chose the weakest guests (the exchangers) and just declared "It is the WEATHER who cancelled your pre-paid and booked vacation stay at our (OPEN to use, but closed to YOU) resort."

Next time .. will Marriott decide anyone who booked first or had higher member status or who was old or who was just plain old & ugly?

*Should have offered a BRIDE/reward for a "DO NO COME" to all inbound guest or onsite guests ... just like SWA does for overbooked flights.*

WAIT ... do Marriott managers/executives fly SWA?

SWA is Southwest Airlines.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

vacationhopeful said:


> I view an exchanger as having a contract via II (or RCI) to a stay for x number of night in a y size unit. Marriott deposited a week in the exchange company and the exchange company "SOLD/rented/assigned" the unit Marriott provided for a like-kind of cash payment  and item of value .. called the "deposited week" plus CASH paid for the exchange fee.
> 
> The resort did NOT close nor were units placed out of service. The resort DID NOT call *any or ALL* inbound guests to OFFER a bribe to "NOT COME". They chose the weakest guests (the exchangers) and just declared "It is the WEATHER who cancelled your pre-paid and booked vacation stay at our (OPEN to use, but closed to YOU) resort."
> 
> ...



Linda, there were some units at Grande Ocean that were out of service due to water intrusion - I think the number Fasttr was told was 15 (out of 290) - and the resort was closed for one day of our scheduled stay (the first one). But my understanding is all II exchanges for that weekend were cancelled, which I presume accounted for more than 15 reservations (but I don't know for sure).


----------



## kds4 (Oct 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> We don't really. I am mainly concerned with Marriott creating mini exchange systems on the fly to suit their needs at a given time with no disclosure. What is really preventing them from prioritizing owner stays at any HHI resort in to the prime beach properties and moving all II exchanges to the non beach resorts? While I doubt they would do this and in this situation it was because of the extreme circumstances, it is hypothetically possible.
> 
> Marriott needs to remember that these aren't simply hotel reservations when owners are using their ownership rights, whether it be an owner week or an exchange. Owners are using their owned real estate interests. If they did move owners from other resorts on HHI and displace II exchanges, I do feel that they violated ownership rights and also possible the law as it relates to timeshare ownership and exchange programs. Perhaps that is why they are being mum on that specific subject?



I can't think of an instance where I saw the type of behavior displayed with the HHI resorts before what happened to Jim. I agree that this could be the start of a 'slippery slope' with the potential for additional _*'as needed adjustments as determined exclusively by MVW corporate'*_ occurring at will until there is ultimately litigation.


----------



## kds4 (Oct 11, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...
> 
> 1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable *IF* they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket."
> 
> ...



I agree with your Point 1 (based on your IF). In looking at your Point 2, I have no doubt that MVW probably put this level of thought into coming up with their plans to cancel/displace/reassign/accomodate. However, I am skeptical they would have invested this level of thought into 'how to keep it fair'...


----------



## frank808 (Oct 11, 2017)

Shouldn't most of the exchange inventory in II come from owners of those weeks depositing their weeks for trade to other resorts?  I don't see how mvw can now take those weeks that were deposited by owners and say so sad it is too bad since you exchanged in.

Then take those weeks and give it to their "internal" customers.  Remember all these exchange weeks started as owner weeks being deposited with II.  

Why is it an owner using their week or renting it out be given preference over owners that deposit their week for exchange?  So when i deposit my platinum weeks and someone else exchanges in for it they get the short end of the stick?  Why is renting my week or exchanging it any different as both are going to non owners?

I believe it has to do with the fact they can do this to exchangers because they can.  With owners and renters (of owner units) they will face more backlash and complaints.  But exchanged units, the owners that deposited them will not complain because it does not affect them.  And if an exchanger complains mvw says you are not the owner of the unit and puts blame on interval.

Remember, mvw do not own the units deposited for exchange, the owners do.  Mvw is saying since you gave them up for II exchange it is now our inventory and we can do whatever we wish with it.  Dangerous precedence to set up.  Lets mvw play owner instead of being manager.  I know mvw owns their own units and they are free to do whatever it is they want with their units.  Seems like they are placing themselves ahead of everyone else.  Analogy of the fox watching the henhouse.

More logical and fair way to deny access would be by date units were reserved by owners.  Does not matter if owner is using them, renting them or depositing to exchange company.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 11, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...
> 
> 1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable *IF* they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket." ...



Yes, we're on the same page here.  Considering that Preview/Encore guests can only reserve MVW-held intervals, and cash and MRP guests can only reserve MAR-held intervals, then it appears there is no wrongdoing IF displaced guests at one resort were moved into like inventory at another.  So as long as the Preview/Encore/cash/MAR displaced guests from Monarch, etc. were placed into available units at GO that were designated for those types of stays, no problem.



JIMinNC said:


> 2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving _within _different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control_._ I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket. *But,* what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me? ...



To me this is where MVW may have walked, if not stepped over, a very fine line with inventory management.  True, MVW controls the two inventory pools, Weeks and DC Points.  But regardless of whether you're talking Weeks or DC Points reservations booked via MVW's system, at some point in the reservation process the intervals were designated for use at Grande Ocean by owners/members who followed the particular Reservation Procedures rules in order to secure confirmation of those specific reservations.  We all expect MVW to follow their contractual obligations with reservations, just as they expect us to follow ours.  There's nothing in my governing docs, and certainly there's no historical context, that leads us to an expectation that MVW can at will substitute intervals at one resort for intervals at another in order to satisfy confirmed reservations.

Adding II reservations to the mix - I do understand why in the rare instances that mass cancellations have to be made unexpectedly, it's II exchange inventory that will be the first cancelled.  II's rules state explicitly that if the resort notifies them that the inventory is unavailable, they must cancel the confirmation (after which I think each timeshare company's contractual arrangement with II determines whether and in which form replacement usage is due.)  That's an awful situation but understandable if the reason is that the cancelled units are uninhabitable by anyone.  Is that what happened here, though?  I'd like to know definitively if/how/why MVW took the position that they could order II to cancel exchange reservations at one resort, so that they could use those now-unoccupied units to place MAR- or MVW-reserved guests displaced from uninhabitable units at another resort.



JIMinNC said:


> Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.



It's definitely frustrating knowing that no matter how much time and thought we give to this, we have no hope of ever getting an explanation unless we're willing to legally challenge MVW.  What's disappointing, for me, is that I just can't find in the governing docs where any of this is either supported or disallowed.  That's usually what puts my mind at rest, regardless of whether it hurts or helps me.  This all just feels unresolved.


----------



## klpca (Oct 11, 2017)

Having Marriott both manage the properties and manage the inventory is asking for some shenanigans, imho. And as Jim found out, it appears that complaining to Marriott gets you nowhere. Their lack of transparency, plus their own sense of ownership of the units doesn't sit right with me at all. I hope that the owners get some resolution on this issue.


----------



## bogey21 (Oct 12, 2017)

It has been a long, long time since I was a Marriott Owner but my recollection is that Marriott first designated RCI as their designated Exchange Company then switched to II and in fact had a Marriott Representative handling Marriott Exchanges at II.  If my recollection is correct and if II is still their designated Exchange Company, it seems to me that Marriott to Marriott Exchanges within II should still be considered in the family.  As I said it has been a long time and much has changed but if the Marriott/II relationship still is in effect, I think OP *may* have been treated unfairly.

George


----------



## Dean (Oct 12, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> It's definitely frustrating knowing that no matter how much time and thought we give to this, we have no hope of ever getting an explanation unless we're willing to legally challenge MVW.  What's disappointing, for me, is that I just can't find in the governing docs where any of this is either supported or disallowed.  That's usually what puts my mind at rest, regardless of whether it hurts or helps me.  This all just feels unresolved.


I haven't gone through the POS specifically looking for info related to this issue but a few thoughts come to mind.  The complete control over the reservation system and unit assignment  would cover it to a degree and there isn't going to be anything that specifically addresses the issue in question either way.  As for explanation, I'm not really sure what they can say we don't already know.  Basically they had a difficult situation and some difficult decisions and this was the easy way out and possibly the best one as well.  The obvious answer is the answer I believe, that they had to make a decision, they made one that not everyone agrees with but they thought best and let's move on.  What they are not going to do and shouldn't, is try to explain the nuances raised in these threads sufficiently to appease those who are already concerned or upset about the choices.  The answer to the question of whether this creates, in the legal sense, an exchange company thus violating the laws of SC & FL by not following the other steps required is simply no.


----------



## Dean (Oct 12, 2017)

bogey21 said:


> It has been a long, long time since I was a Marriott Owner but my recollection is that Marriott first designated RCI as their designated Exchange Company then switched to II and in fact had a Marriott Representative handling Marriott Exchanges at II.  If my recollection is correct and if II is still their designated Exchange Company, it seems to me that Marriott to Marriott Exchanges within II should still be considered in the family.  As I said it has been a long time and much has changed but if the Marriott/II relationship still is in effect, I think OP *may* have been treated unfairly.
> 
> George


I don't believe the connection is nearly as tight as it once was but even if Marriott employees had access into they system to act on II's behalf, it doesn't cause a legal connection sufficiently to use that angle IMO.  They are legally and functionally separate companies.  Even for the DC where Marriott provides a corporate account, I don't think one could make this point sufficiently.  I think it fair to say that while Marriott is a big player and II has to be delicate in their responses, if this were truly in violation of the contract with Marriott, II would have balked and would be willing to say so to members.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 12, 2017)

If MVC feels justified in making decisions about inventory they don't 'own', what's to stop them from overbooking resorts and walking those who are low on their priority list?


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 12, 2017)

The notion that MVW is only harming II exchangers who are 'external' is missing one somewhat hidden repercussion of the II cancellation.  MVW is also harming Grand Ocean owners.  Here's why.

As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this and I will delete this post), if I deposit a week into II . . . and through no fault of my own the resort is closed, . . . II comes back to me regarding that  deposit and says time out - your deposit became worthless.  

II cancels my deposit and I assume also cancels any occupancy that resulted from that deposit or seeks compensation for exchange occupancy already used.  I basically lose my week.

The Grand Ocean owner who deposited that week in good faith with the MVW chosen exchange company got screwed by MVW's action just as much as JiminNC, perhaps more so if that owner did not have insurance.  That owners occupancy was cancelled in favor of a non owner selected by MVW.  

The specific Grand Ocean owner . . . who deposited the week that JiminNC exchanged for . . . is a hidden victim of the MVW cancellation of JiminNC's exchange.  MVW did this for their own benefit.  This is probably is the reason MVW is behaving/stonewalling the way JiminNC has described.  

IANAL, but I can certainly see that particular owner having a case against MVW for an unlawful taking.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Oct 12, 2017)

The OP clarifies an existing policy that many folks forgot because the usual MVC booking & stay experience is almost always smooth & accommodative. Disruptive events like hurricanes & other extraordinary events require flexibility by all parties.

From day one, when you do an II trade, it's always made clear that you can't retrieve a traded unit -- an *implicit*  (legal) acknowledgment that you've strayed outside of MVC territory  & your relationship for that reservation is no longer with MVC. Same idea occurs when you declare points usage for your enrolled weeks. They tell you there's no going back to legacy usage for the points assigned to your enrolled legacy week. You're now bound by policy established between MVC & II, both of which have cancellation clauses & company algorithms for dealing with disruptive events. Under ordinary circumstance, Marriott might have some accommodative options when an MVC owner's booking needs "tweaking." 

The other interesting thing the OP reminds us about is that Marriott & MVC do have small amounts of resort inventory dedicated to themselves outside of the Trust bucket & legacy weeks. These units may be used as Marriott sees fit. 

I absolutely understand how frustrating it can be when these rare travel interruptions occur. In this instance, it looks to me that MVC tries hard to accommodate MVC owner reservations, but unfortunately, those MVC folks whose reservations fall outside of MVC territory can't be addressed.

It seems unfair, but taken in the larger context of events, it's the only solution available; and it follows a clear policy that's oft forgotten by most of us. Definitely not fun being one of the many left outside of MVC doors. But that's why all of those extra explanatory paragraphs exist in the documents we sign & reservations we make. Not exactly the time or place we want to be reminded of them. 

I think the more important dilemma for some MVC owners is how to protect themselves from these sorts of travel disruptive events. For a multiple week owner, the answer is straight forward. Get the travel insurance. It's folks who own only one or 2 weeks who might be on the fence about whether to go with travel insurance.

All that said, it's no fun when travel plans go awry. Ordinarily our travel problems are more about delayed flights, lost bags, or dodgy weather. Hurricanes are unpredictably disruptive. Hope that disrupted travelers can coddle together some sort of trip to make up for their holiday that didn't happen.

Barry


----------



## Superchief (Oct 12, 2017)

From what I've read, II exchanges have born the brunt of the impact because all II reservations are being cancelled. II should have a right to a proportion of villas at each resort. How does MVC compensate II (and exchangers) for the disproportionate number of cancellations. 

MVC has also stated that it has 'no control' over II inventory. Does II truly have absolute control over this inventory and how reservations are allocated for their inventory? Can they choose their own priority for which reservations are honored and which are cancelled? Can they allow non-owners to have priority over a MVC home resort owner? MVC implies this to be the case, but I have to believe there are some standards in place to assure MVC owners would have priority. Up til now, all II exchanges are being cancelled so II isn't getting any opportunity to prioritize their reservations so that at least a few exchangers can enjoy their planned vacations. Instead, MVC thinks renters through Marriott and MR redeemers and Encore guests are more important.


----------



## MALC9990 (Oct 12, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> The notion that MVW is only harming II exchangers who are 'external' is missing one somewhat hidden repercussion of the II cancellation.  MVW is also harming Grand Ocean owners.  Here's why.
> 
> As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this and I will delete this post), if I deposit a week into II . . . and through no fault of my own the resort is closed, . . . II comes back to me regarding that  deposit and says time out - your deposit became worthless.
> 
> ...


All of this tends to confirm my decision to switch away from II to using D.C. points for my exchanges. But this particulat post raises a question in my mind. If I book a week and deposit it with II 12 months out. Then I use that deposit for an exchange in 6 months time. The 6 months pass by, I take my vacation using the II exchange and all is well. Then the hurricane hits and the week I deposited with II is cancelled by MVC. The person who took my deposited week for their exchange is out of luck, their vacation week is cancelled by MVC. II cannot come back to me and say your deposit was cancelled so you lose your exchange because I took my vacation using the exchange 6 months in the past. 

What compensation can II demand of me? I deposited within their rules, I exchanged within their rules, I paid my exchange fee (if any) and I used the vacation week I exchanged into.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 12, 2017)

MALC9990 said:


> All of this tends to confirm my decision to switch away from II to using D.C. points for my exchanges. But this particulat post raises a question in my mind. If I book a week and deposit it with II 12 months out. Then I use that deposit for an exchange in 6 months time. The 6 months pass by, I take my vacation using the II exchange and all is well. Then the hurricane hits and the week I deposited with II is cancelled by MVC. The person who took my deposited week for their exchange is out of luck, their vacation week is cancelled by MVC. II cannot come back to me and say your deposit was cancelled so you lose your exchange because I took my vacation using the exchange 6 months in the past.
> 
> What compensation can II demand of me? I deposited within their rules, I exchanged within their rules, I paid my exchange fee (if any) and I used the vacation week I exchanged into.


I believe once your week is deposited, II cannot come back to you and tell you that since your week was damaged/cancelled due to hurricane and as a result your deposit is not good.  Even if you have not used it to exchange with another resort yet, you still have a week in II.  I do not believe windje2000 was correct.


----------



## frank808 (Oct 12, 2017)

Superchief said:


> From what I've read, II exchanges have born the brunt of the impact because all II reservations are being cancelled. II should have a right to a proportion of villas at each resort. How does MVC compensate II (and exchangers) for the disproportionate number of cancellations.
> 
> MVC has also stated that it has 'no control' over II inventory. Does II truly have absolute control over this inventory and how reservations are allocated for their inventory? Can they choose their own priority for which reservations are honored and which are cancelled? Can they allow non-owners to have priority over a MVC home resort owner? MVC implies this to be the case, but I have to believe there are some standards in place to assure MVC owners would have priority. Up til now, all II exchanges are being cancelled so II isn't getting any opportunity to prioritize their reservations so that at least a few exchangers can enjoy their planned vacations. Instead, MVC thinks renters through Marriott and MR redeemers and Encore guests are more important.


MVC is penalizing the people that they can deflect the blame to.  All the reservations they honored have a direct way of complaining to marriott.  Easiest to tell II exchangers that they have to deal with II and we have no control with what II does.  It is a game of deflection and misdirection sort of like selling their dc points  

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


----------



## Superchief (Oct 12, 2017)

frank808 said:


> MVC is penalizing the people that they can deflect the blame to.  All the reservations they honored have a direct way of complaining to marriott.  Easiest to tell II exchangers that they have to deal with II and we have no control with what II does.  It is a game of deflection and misdirection sort of like selling their dc points
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk


However, a large portion of II exchangers to MVC resorts are MVC owners. They are very shortsighted to not recognize this. My future investment and recommendation decisions regarding MVC will never be the same. I also plan to complain to MVC management as well as the BOD's and GM's at the resort regarding how MVC handled this issue. I hope other owners do the same. TUG members can be a force to reckon with! If we don't speak out now, they will continue to think they can do what they want.


----------



## klpca (Oct 12, 2017)

Superchief said:


> However, a large portion of II exchangers to MVC resorts are MVC owners. They are very shortsighted to not recognize this. My future investment and recommendation decisions regarding MVC will never be the same. I also plan to complain to MVC management as well as the BOD's and GM's at the resort regarding how MVC handled this issue. I hope other owners do the same. TUG members can be a force to reckon with! If we don't speak out now, they will continue to think they can do what they want.


It's interesting that you say that. We sold our Marriott weeks because we had too many weeks and not enough time. I figured that I would work through the backlog then buy another resale week - somewhere where we would like to stay - so as to not have to exchange. But after our last presentation (the infamous "Marriott People" presentation), the closer pretending to be insulted that I didn't trust Marriott, the way that resale owners are treated by the company, the skim on DP, and now this, well I am on the fence. Not that it will matter one iota to Marriott - or other owners for that matter. But this just feels like a shift in corporate culture. I just don't understand why they think that they can do whatever they want to do with weeks owned by others. Those weeks are not at their disposal to use however they want.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 12, 2017)

klpca said:


> It's interesting that you say that. We sold our Marriott weeks because we had too many weeks and not enough time. I figured that I would work through the backlog then buy another resale week - somewhere where we would like to stay - so as to not have to exchange. But after our last presentation (the infamous "Marriott People" presentation), the closer pretending to be insulted that I didn't trust Marriott, the way that resale owners are treated by the company, the skim on DP, and now this, well I am on the fence. Not that it will matter one iota to Marriott - or other owners for that matter. But this just feels like a shift in corporate culture. I just don't understand why they think that they can do whatever they want to do with weeks owned by others. Those weeks are not at their disposal to use however they want.



I do not think this entire saga was handled properly.  Only recently, we decided to hitch our wagon to the Marriott horse (quoting Jim) and slowly ditching our other timeshares, and we are getting away from II exchanges altogether.  At the expense of Marriott owners, Marriott is making their stockholders happy, in which I am not one - but maybe one indirectly through my managed portfolio.  At the end of the day, all timeshare systems are out to make the most $ out of their customers and I do believe Marriott is more successful than their counterparts with schemes like skimming off DC/Exchange points.  As owners we have to decide who we want to play with.  Worldmark is probably the most cost effective and fairest timeshare system for owners but we just sold it off when we decided to focus on Marriott.  Our next decision is whether to keep our Vistana timeshare.  Sometimes being cost effective or being treated fairly may not be the most important criterion.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 12, 2017)

That is always an Individual choice. I personally place treated fairly quite high, but that is me.

From my observation of the Marriott Timeshare system, there is a clear pecking order.
#1 - DC/Trust Owners
#2 - Multi week Owners (Same season)
#3 - Single Week owners
#4 - Exchangers

If you think about the money made off of the customer (both historically and currently), you will notice that this is also the profitability order of the customers.

Marriott has been steadily trying to separate the "customer" from actual ownership, in which the company acts in a quasi-fiduciary position, maintaining the property owned by (and being paid to provide upkeep for said property) other owners - and not by Marriott! Instead, Marriott seems to view the "owner" as someone to provide the capital to build the timeshare, for Marriott to use as the most profitable way it can for Marriott, without actually breaking any laws.

If this seems too dark of a viewpoint, I apologise for that, but it is still my evaluation of the situation. For those not concerned by this viewpoint, I wish you happiness and the best enjoyment from your ownership. . .


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 12, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> I believe once your week is deposited, II cannot come back to you and tell you that since your week was damaged/cancelled due to hurricane and as a result your deposit is not good.  Even if you have not used it to exchange with another resort yet, you still have a week in II.  I do not believe windje2000 was correct.



You may want to read these posts.

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-2#post-2052537

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-5#post-2054762


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 12, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> You may want to read these posts.
> 
> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-2#post-2052537
> 
> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-5#post-2054762


I am interested to know if anyone reported that they lost their Marriott deposits in II due to their week being rendered uninhabitable from Irma and other hurricanes/disasters.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 12, 2017)

Dean said:


> The answer to the question of whether this creates, in the legal sense, an exchange company thus violating the laws of SC & FL by not following the other steps required is simply no.


Interesting that you state your opinion as a solid fact? I believe that MVC may have setup what amounts to an exchange company, you don't, but I am not sure any of us here can definitively answer that they did or didn't violate any laws.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 12, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> I am interested to know if anyone reported that they lost their Marriott deposits in II due to their week being rendered uninhabitable from Irma and other hurricanes/disasters.


I don't think anyone has suffered such a loss. Though it is within II's rules that they can do this. For owners at the Westin St John who won't be able to occupy their weeks in early 2018 because of the property being closed, Vistana is telling them that one of their options for use is to deposit their week in to II. I believe that many (some) of these are fixed weeks. So it is definitely accurate to say that these deposits will not be able to put in to the exchange pool.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 12, 2017)

Superchief said:


> However, a large portion of II exchangers to MVC resorts are MVC owners. They are very shortsighted to not recognize this. My future investment and recommendation decisions regarding MVC will never be the same. I also plan to complain to MVC management as well as the BOD's and GM's at the resort regarding how MVC handled this issue. I hope other owners do the same. TUG members can be a force to reckon with! If we don't speak out now, they will continue to think they can do what they want.


If enough people complain, they may at least go with a different option the next time something like this happens.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 12, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> For owners at the Westin St John who won't be able to occupy their weeks in early 2018 because of the property being closed, Vistana is telling them that one of their options for use is to deposit their week in to II. I believe that many (some) of these are fixed weeks. So it is definitely accurate to say that these deposits will not be able to put in to the exchange pool.


Just to clarify... Vistana is asking owners to deposit into II.  But obviously these weeks won't be available to be exchanged into.  I can imagine if the weeks were deposited before the hurricane hit, the weeks were "available" for exchange and the ones exchanging into these resorts lose the exchange.  But after hurricane came through, wouldn't II reject these new deposits?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 12, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> Just to clarify... Vistana is asking owners to deposit into II.  But obviously these weeks won't be available to be exchanged into.  I can imagine if the weeks were deposited before the hurricane hit, the weeks were "available" for exchange and the ones exchanging into these resorts lose the exchange.  But after hurricane came through, wouldn't II reject these new deposits?


No, for owners that are unable to stay in their home unit because it is unavailable, they are telling people that one of their options is to deposit it to II. Owners with StarOptions have the option to use their options within the Vistana Network. However, anyone that owns a resale week at any of the phases except one won't have StarOptions and their only option for use is to trade within II. So they will be pulling something from II but the unit they deposit will be worthless to II. I suspect II and VSN has enough breakage in their system that this won't be an issue.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 12, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> No, for owners that are unable to stay in their home unit because it is unavailable, they are telling people that one of their options is to deposit it to II. Owners with StarOptions have the option to use their options within the Vistana Network. However, anyone that owns a resale week at any of the phases except one won't have StarOptions and their only option for use is to trade within II. So they will be pulling something from II but the unit they deposit will be worthless to II. I suspect II and VSN has enough breakage in their system that this won't be an issue.


never mind... I replied before your msg was finished... ... although I wonder if anyone of these owners tried depositing into II...


----------



## Dean (Oct 12, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Interesting that you state your opinion as a solid fact? I believe that MVC may have setup what amounts to an exchange company, you don't, but I am not sure any of us here can definitively answer that they did or didn't violate any laws.


Stated this way for emphasis, obviously even if I were a lawyer specializing in FL & SC timeshares, it'd still just be an opinion.  As I read through the FL statute 721 & SC Title 27/chapter 32; neither would support the position of this issue creating a de facto exchange company and thus violating state rules on the offering of exchange companies.  



dioxide45 said:


> If enough people complain, they may at least go with a different option the next time something like this happens.


As a minimum they'll have the opportunity to better work through the ins and outs of the choices.



VacationForever said:


> Just to clarify... Vistana is asking owners to deposit into II.  But obviously these weeks won't be available to be exchanged into.  I can imagine if the weeks were deposited before the hurricane hit, the weeks were "available" for exchange and the ones exchanging into these resorts lose the exchange.  But after hurricane came through, wouldn't II reject these new deposits?


As I understand it, if the week deposited is unavailable, II can and should wipe out the deposit based on their rules.  I haven't heard of it happening though but that doesn't mean it hasn't.


----------



## youppi (Oct 14, 2017)

They should not cancel based on ownership. They should ask for volunteer first like airline do. If there is no volunteer, they should cancel first people that live close (drive to go there).
Imagine the nightmare of an exchanger flying for a 3 weeks trip on the US East Coast at 3 different resorts and they cancel the week in the middle. The guy doesn't need a replacement week valid for 1 year, he needs a replacement in the area for that week.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 14, 2017)

We now have at least two confirmed cases of Encore package customers getting priority over MVC owner/exchangers. Encore visits can easily be refunded or rescheduled, while exchanges have MVC weeks deposited and and lost investments. Encore packages should be lowest in priority. The more we allow MVC corporate to take control of inventory, they will abuse their authority and ignore owners rights. Ocean Pointe and Grand Ocean are heavily owned and high demand resorts. There should be very limited inventory that MVC should have access to because few owners redeem for MR points or turn over to Marriott for rental.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 14, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> You may want to read these posts.
> 
> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-2#post-2052537
> 
> https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...nde-ocean-exchange.262411/page-5#post-2054762


I read these as applying to the owned week before it is exchanged or the Host accommodations after the underlying week is exchanged.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 14, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> I believe once your week is deposited, II cannot come back to you and tell you that since your week was damaged/cancelled due to hurricane and as a result your deposit is not good.  Even if you have not used it to exchange with another resort yet, you still have a week in II.  I do not believe windje2000 was correct.


I agree with you.


----------



## Fairwinds (Oct 14, 2017)

I deposited my Nov 10 week the minute I saw a picture of a boat on the FC Beach. No cancellations had yet happened but based on my past experience with huricains in that area and the fact that I was just outside the restricted deposit window I rushed to deposit. The week still shows in my II units and I have a pending request. I’m not sure if it’s policy, oversight, or charity but I am grateful to have it as I expected to lose it. I keep thinking they just haven’t caught up with me yet.

Many years ago I was in PR for Hugo and parts of the Island didn’t get power for months.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2017)

BocaBoy said:


> I read these as applying to the owned week before it is exchanged or the Host accommodations after the underlying week is exchanged.


Not sure how you are reading that;

II Exchange Cancellation Policy — Other than Club Interval Points–Based Exchange Confirmations* (a) The only circumstances under which a Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use and occupancy of the Home Resort accommodations or relinquished points (including Preferred Points) without being provided Host Accommodations are if a Member:* (i) using the Deposit First method of exchange fails to submit a valid exchange request within the time periods specified; (ii) using the Deposit First method of exchange requests accommodations that are not available and fails to accept any alternate locations and/or time periods offered; (iii) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (iv) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (v) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (vi) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations that was previously issued to the Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (vii) *where the use of the Home Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control.*

In the case of vii, if II loses the use of the home resort accommodation, it seems they could pull your deposit? I would suspect that if you have already stayed in the Host Accommodation, II is out of luck. In either case, these are usually CYA type of situations for the company.

If I deposit a unit that II can't use, I would suspect II to not allow me to use another week in exchange.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 14, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure how you are reading that;
> 
> II Exchange Cancellation Policy — Other than Club Interval Points–Based Exchange Confirmations* (a) The only circumstances under which a Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use and occupancy of the Home Resort accommodations or relinquished points (including Preferred Points) without being provided Host Accommodations are if a Member:* (i) using the Deposit First method of exchange fails to submit a valid exchange request within the time periods specified; (ii) using the Deposit First method of exchange requests accommodations that are not available and fails to accept any alternate locations and/or time periods offered; (iii) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (iv) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (v) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (vi) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations that was previously issued to the Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (vii) *where the use of the Home Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control.*
> 
> ...


Whichever II decides to do...  in light of this, Vistana's practice of depositing a blended week into II for a floating week ownership is better for the owner, unless the entire resort is unhabitable for the entire use year.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 14, 2017)

As a Marriott multi-week owner, I seem to be in the minority here when I say that I find what Marriott did to be wholly unacceptable.  Marriott has two separate roles at our resorts.  The first is to clean our toilets (as PerryM used to say) and the second is as an owner of some of the units.  The two are completely distinct and what I decide to do with my week, I expect them to honor it as part of the first role that I've hired them to perform.  If I decide to deposit my week into into interval, I expect it to be used by Interval exchanger, not to be unilaterally taken by Marriott simply because they've sold an Encore week as part of their second role so that they can simply sell more points.  This was not an emergency situation or anything like that, this is simply greed by Marriott.

Perhaps an analogy would help people to become more passionate about their rights regarding their owned week.  Lets say I have a vacation home and I've hired a cleaner/handyman to maintain my vacation home.  For one week, lets say I've swapped my vacation home with another family's home and I've told the cleaner/handyman to give them my keys for that week.  The week before the house swap a really bad storm comes in and damages some of the homes in the town but my vacation home is fine.  Afterwards, I've found out that the cleaner/handyman called up the other family a day before they arrived to say that my vacation home is not available due to the storm.  Now, the cleaner/handyman is successful and so he has bought a number of other vacation properties across town over the years.  And some of them have been damaged so he allowed his own guests to use my vacation home so that he didn't have to refund their money.  He never told me he was doing this and I had to piece all this together by doing a bit of detective work.

If this happened in real life, I'm sure we would all fire that cleaner/handyman and hire another one called "Park Hyatt" or "Four Seasons" or "Conrad/Hilton".  I, for one, would pay more to hire a cleaner/handyman that was trustworthy and wouldn't put their interests ahead of my own.

The bottom line is that I think we should all be outraged and have the board of the affected properties put Marriott in their place.  I do not own at Hilton Head but if this happened at one of the resorts that I owned at, I would be much more vigilant and active about this situation.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 14, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> As a Marriott multi-week owner, I seem to be in the minority here when I say that I find what Marriott did to be wholly unacceptable.  Marriott has two separate roles at our resorts.  The first is to clean our toilets (as PerryM used to say) and the second is as an owner of some of the units.  The two are completely distinct and what I decide to do with my week, I expect them to honor it as part of the first role that I've hired them to perform.  If I decide to deposit my week into into interval, I expect it to be used by Interval exchanger, not to be unilaterally taken by Marriott simply because they've sold an Encore week as part of their second role so that they can simply sell more points.  This was not an emergency situation or anything like that, this is simply greed by Marriott.
> 
> Perhaps an analogy would help people to become more passionate about their rights regarding their owned week.  Lets say I have a vacation home and I've hired a cleaner/handyman to maintain my vacation home.  For one week, lets say I've swapped my vacation home with another family's home and I've told the cleaner/handyman to give them my keys for that week.  The week before the house swap a really bad storm comes in and damages some of the homes in the town but my vacation home is fine.  Afterwards, I've found out that the cleaner/handyman called up the other family a day before they arrived to say that my vacation home is not available due to the storm.  Now, the cleaner/handyman is successful and so he has bought a number of other vacation properties across town over the years.  And some of them have been damaged so he allowed his own guests to use my vacation home so that he didn't have to refund their money.  He never told me he was doing this and I had to piece all this together by doing a bit of detective work.
> 
> ...



The are several issues in the timeshare world that is different from the scenario described by you. 

Firstly, from II's response, it appears that II and Marriott collaborated in the action of cancelling II exchangers out.  I believe II should be held as accountable as Marriott.  We do not have visibility of the contract between II and Marriott, but it might have included a clause that II will give up its rights to the units whenever Marriott informs II that the units are no longer available.  But since we, the II exchangers, give our $ to II, we should press for changes in their dealings with Marriott. 

Secondly, there is not a specific unit tied with ownership in a timeshare system.  Timeshare is unlike owning your own home where you know for certain whether your home is damaged or not.  Timesharing throws everything into a pot.  What Marriott owners can request for is a ledger of proportion of Marriott owned weeks vs. owner weeks and to make sure that in future, that the available units are allocated in proportion.  I think By Laws and such will need to be changed, and good luck with that...

It is impossible to boot Marriott out and hire a different cleaner/handyman - that is why Marriott has the upper hand.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 14, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> The are several issues in the timeshare world that is different from the scenario described by you.
> 
> Firstly, from II's response, it appears that II and Marriott collaborated in the action of cancelling II exchangers out.  I believe II should be held as accountable as Marriott.  We do not have visibility of the contract between II and Marriott, but it might have included a clause that II will give up its rights to the units whenever Marriott informs II that the units are no longer available.  But since we, the II exchangers, give our $ to II, we should press for changes in their dealings with Marriott.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily all that different. Some of the HHI properties are fixed unit fixed week. So those are more like traditional real estate, you just happen to own a small slice of time. Floating week, floating unit doesn't necessarily change that it is real ownership behind all the weeks that were reserved. In the end, the exchange companies are a puppet to the developers. If II were to ever lose the Marriott affiliation, it would be devastating to their bottom line. So when Marriott says "jump", II doesn't even take time to ask "how high", they just do it.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 15, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not necessarily all that different. Some of the HHI properties are fixed unit fixed week. So those are more like traditional real estate, you just happen to own a small slice of time. Floating week, floating unit doesn't necessarily change that it is real ownership behind all the weeks that were reserved. In the end, the exchange companies are a puppet to the developers. If II were to ever lose the Marriott affiliation, it would be devastating to their bottom line. So when Marriott says "jump", II doesn't even take time to ask "how high", they just do it.


Also,at some resorts anyway, it is possible to boot Marriott out and hire a different cleaner/handyman. 
It is difficult to imagine situations where this might be the best outcome for owners, but I have seen a HOPA agreement which provides for a process to allow this for failure to perform.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 15, 2017)

Superchief said:


> We now have at least two confirmed cases of Encore package customers getting priority over MVC owner/exchangers. Encore visits can easily be refunded or rescheduled, while exchanges have MVC weeks deposited and and lost investments. Encore packages should be lowest in priority. The more we allow MVC corporate to take control of inventory, they will abuse their authority and ignore owners rights. Ocean Pointe and Grand Ocean are heavily owned and high demand resorts. There should be very limited inventory that MVC should have access to because few owners redeem for MR points or turn over to Marriott for rental.



Superchief, of course this is the case. Encore package customers are the hottest sales prospects they have. Sales takes precedence over everything else. . . .


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 15, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure how you are reading that;
> 
> II Exchange Cancellation Policy — Other than Club Interval Points–Based Exchange Confirmations* (a) The only circumstances under which a Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use and occupancy of the Home Resort accommodations or relinquished points (including Preferred Points) without being provided Host Accommodations are if a Member:* (i) using the Deposit First method of exchange fails to submit a valid exchange request within the time periods specified; (ii) using the Deposit First method of exchange requests accommodations that are not available and fails to accept any alternate locations and/or time periods offered; (iii) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (iv) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (v) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (vi) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations that was previously issued to the Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (vii) *where the use of the Home Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control.*
> 
> ...


If your reading is correct, how can Vistana be telling owners they can deposit an uninhabitable week in to II?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 15, 2017)

BocaBoy said:


> If your reading is correct, how can Vistana be telling owners they can deposit an uninhabitable week in to II?


As I said, the terms are more of a CYA. They don't have to ever enforce to the letter of the T&C. I have never heard of a situation of them pulling someones deposit because the resort became uninhabitable, but that doesn't mean they can't. From Vistana's standpoint with WSJ, they don't want a revolt from owners, and since Vistana is owned by WSJ, they figure it is a way to keep the peace. They have enough breakage to keep everything whole. But I suspect that exchanging may be a little tougher the next couple years both in II and in VSN.


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 15, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> As I said, the terms are more of a CYA. They don't have to ever enforce to the letter of the T&C. I have never heard of a situation of them pulling someones deposit because the resort became uninhabitable, but that doesn't mean they can't. From Vistana's standpoint with WSJ, they don't want a revolt from owners, and since Vistana is owned by WSJ, they figure it is a way to keep the peace. They have enough breakage to keep everything whole. But I suspect that exchanging may be a little tougher the next couple years both in II and in VSN.



The way II likely addresses that issue is by 'adjusting' the trading power of the deposited week.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 15, 2017)

Does anyone know whether II receives any compensation from MVC for all of their cancelled reservations (some of which were done to accommodate Encore packages)?


----------



## urfriend (Oct 16, 2017)

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 16, 2017)

urfriend said:


> This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.
> 
> Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.
> 
> When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.


So at least there could be one positive outcome if MVW acquires ILG!


----------



## Superchief (Oct 16, 2017)

However, since II is utilizing owner deposit weeks, there has to be some agreement regarding how much inventory II should have access to in any given week. When I deposit my MVC week, my exchange isn't confirmed until an MVC owner has reserved and deposited my desired week. In any given period, a percentage of the inventory is based on owner deposited weeks. II isn't the one cancelling access to reserved inventory. MVC is cancelling these reservations and informing II to contact the owners. 

By doing this, MVC deflects the blame to II who has no control over the cancellations. This is another reason why I would never want another acquisition because any transparency regarding how inventory is being allocated would be lost. MVC is already making decisions at the corporate level for each resort which removes accountability and owner influence from the equation.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 16, 2017)

urfriend said:


> This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.
> 
> Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.
> 
> When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.


Sorry if this sounds harsh...but from my perspective, in addition to disliking MVC (your employer) as you have posted elsewhere, it also appears that you don't have a lot of empathy for owners utilizing the MVC program.  There are reasons why MVC does not like folks like you posting on forums like this in a pseudo MVC representative fashion.  Perhaps if you are as unhappy of an employee as your posts make you sound, you should ponder seeking a different employer/position/profession.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 16, 2017)

urfriend said:


> This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.
> 
> Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.
> 
> When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.



You don't appear to understand the situation or the questions posed by MVW's handling of it.  Many of us understand why reservations booked via MVW are afforded a higher priority during a mass-cancellation event than those booked via II.  We also understand - even if we see why MVW doesn't agree with - the perspective of owners who think that if a Marriott ownership was exchanged via II, then those II reservations should be considered as quasi-MVW reservations during these events.  What's at question here, though, is whether or not MVW ordered II to cancel all incoming exchange reservations at Grande Ocean, Ocean Pointe and wherever else, in order to open up availability for MVW Preview/Encore/DC guests and MI cash/Marriott Rewards redemption guests being displaced from closed resorts.  Your post doesn't answer those questions which speak directly to whether intra-/inter-resort inventory was properly managed during this event.

Aside from that I would like to know if your post is an official statement from an official representative designated by MVW to respond to our concerns, or if you're just another TUGger offering an opinion?


----------



## Superchief (Oct 16, 2017)

I find it interesting that MVC has been selling II exchanges as an important benefit to MVC ownership. Has anyone ever attended a sales presentation when they weren't shown how many resorts they could access via II exchanges? There is a direct link to II on their website and membership and exchanges are covered by our annual fees. Now they are throwing II and owner exchangers under the bus and acting like II is the enemy. II isn't making the decision to cancel these reservations. MVC management is making this decision. Additionally, MVC doesn't own these resorts and therefore doesn't have the right to decide who gets denied inventory access. I still haven't seen any explanation regarding how II gets compensated for the cancellations of confirmed reservations for weeks they turned over inventory for. 

II has been much better than MVC in communicating with members during this whole process. However, they will suffer the most since many of us will be afraid to use our weeks for exchanges in the future.


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 16, 2017)

_This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company._​
*In other words, when you exchange MVW occupancy using II, Marriott’s chosen exchange company, your MVW reservation becomes conditional, subject to a Marriott right or option to take your reservation at will.  If you don’t like it – rules.  

I challenge you to show me where my contract with II states that when I obtain MVW occupancy from II in an exchange, it is conditional and subject to a MVW option.  *

*That’s the price I pay for using an exchange company?  I don’t think so.*

_Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel._​
*This is completely irrelevant to the question at bar.*

_When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again._​
*The hurricane is not the issue; and never was.  *

*The issue is whether or not the process by which reduced occupancy was rationed among interested parties is equitable or represents a simple taking of ownership rights transferred through an intermediary for the benefit of MVW.  *

*Sure looks like that is exactly what happened.*

*If you are in fact an employee of MVW and speak for it, your response is telling.   *


----------



## Dean (Oct 16, 2017)

Superchief said:


> I find it interesting that MVC has been selling II exchanges as an important benefit to MVC ownership. Has anyone ever attended a sales presentation when they weren't shown how many resorts they could access via II exchanges? There is a direct link to II on their website and membership and exchanges are covered by our annual fees. Now they are throwing II and owner exchangers under the bus and acting like II is the enemy. II isn't making the decision to cancel these reservations. MVC management is making this decision. Additionally, MVC doesn't own these resorts and therefore doesn't have the right to decide who gets denied inventory access. I still haven't seen any explanation regarding how II gets compensated for the cancellations of confirmed reservations for weeks they turned over inventory for.
> 
> II has been much better than MVC in communicating with members during this whole process. However, they will suffer the most since many of us will be afraid to use our weeks for exchanges in the future.


I think sales speak is irrelevant, just like it is in all other situations if it's not contractual.  I doubt II gets compensation directly, I suspect they may get some additional developer controlled inventory as a replacement but it likely won't be HH during the summer.  Does anyone know if Marriott has any direct cost for the corporate account members in DC/Trust points?  Using Bluegreen and RCI as a discussion starter, I know that in the past BG paid RCI about $50 a year for each corporate member then a few years ago the model changed.  The change was that BG no longer paid RCI directly but compensated them in kind in terms of volume and developer deposits.  I wonder the setup for the corporate II/MVCI arrangement in this regard.


----------



## urfriend (Oct 17, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> Sorry if this sounds harsh...but from my perspective, in addition to disliking MVC (your employer) as you have posted elsewhere, it also appears that you don't have a lot of empathy for owners utilizing the MVC program.  There are reasons why MVC does not like folks like you posting on forums like this in a pseudo MVC representative fashion.  Perhaps if you are as unhappy of an employee as your posts make you sound, you should ponder seeking a different employer/position/profession.


I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 17, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.


Unfortunately for owners who trusted MVC, these hard rules are being made by MVC management and were never in place previously. Many of us also don't believe that MVC has the legal right to determine how inventory provided by owners is allocated.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 17, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.


If there are rules as you say...they must be written somewhere.  Please post the rules that govern the specific instance discussed in this thread.    You speak as if you know...but in reality, its more likely that you do not.  MVC made these decisions on the fly in the wake of the hurricane.  We are merely challenging their decisions, how and why they made them... and thus far, they do not seem to want to explain themselves, and your attempt was way off topic.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 17, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.



You know, I like the Marriott timeshare company.  I usually am able to understand, even when it doesn't benefit us, how and why they operate in certain ways.  It's not my norm to charge them with activity that may actually be in violation of inventory management rules and mandates.  And I can honestly say that the only distasteful encounters I've had with MVW reps have happened here on TUG.  What is it about this site that makes any of you think that you can be as condescendingly dismissive as you please, and not expect it to reflect poorly on you as a TUG poster AND on the company?  It doesn't matter that you're as anonymous as the rest of us - you still don't get to say, unchallenged, on the one hand that you're an MVW rep and then on the other generate owner/customer service that's basically useless.  In fact it's worse than useless, it's harmful to the company.

If you really want to "offer assistance" that's meaningful then you should re-direct our concerns up the ladder to someone who's empowered to speak officially for the company as to whether or not the II mass-cancellations that occurred due to the two recent hurricanes were done in order to free up accommodations for guests who were displaced from other impacted resorts.  And if so, what exact inventory management machinations came into play, and, where in the governing docs can we find the language that supports MVW's handling of these events?

You're correct in one way - the hard truth is what it is.  And if we ever get it officially from MVW, we'll be sure to educate you on it.


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 17, 2017)

> I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.



This is the second post of *urfriend* that asserts the existence of "rules" which justify and/or legally entitle MVC to engage in the behavior being discussed in this thread that he/she is unwilling to share or reference.

What "rules" are he/she referring to?  Got me to thinking about a post I made in connection with a class action suit alleging DClub negatively affected the trading ability of non-DClub enrolled owners.  

The link to the first post of that thread is here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/class-action-suit-desantis-v-marriott.211157/

The post I am quoting can be found here:  https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...esantis-v-marriott.211157/page-2#post-1629019

_QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II. 

We are members of DClub. That's where we pay our membership dues. 

Sure, we have 'access' to an II 'corporate account, but we're not members of II, and we are not covered by its rules.

IIRC, the DClub rules give Marriott broad powers to manage exchange activities. When I first read the DC docs, I never thought about whether or not those broad powers would apply to the corporate II account. 

I am starting to wonder if it does, and if that is contributing to the slowness in II trading. 

There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.[/QUOTE]_​
I am starting to wonder if the observation I made in that old post is exactly how MVC is justifying its behavior.  

In other words, 

1.  DClub members are not members of II but rather members of DClub.

2.  MVC has broad powers to manage DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory.  

3.  These broad powers provide MVC with the ability to consider the HHI resorts as a portfolio.

4.  These broad powers allow MVC to manage DClub exchange reservations (including II reservations) between and among the various HHI resorts virtually any way they want to.​


----------



## kds4 (Oct 17, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> This is the second post of *urfriend* that asserts the existence of "rules" which justify and/or legally entitle MVC to engage in the behavior being discussed in this thread that he/she is unwilling to share or reference.
> 
> What "rules" are he/she referring to?  Got me to thinking about a post I made in connection with a class action suit alleging DClub negatively affected the trading ability of non-DClub enrolled owners.
> 
> ...



Your logic seems reasonable to me. However, it would only provide 'cover' for MVC to take action over the DClub inventory you describe if it was exchanged using the corporate account. I don't think it would address manipulating exchanges from deposited weeks or of points reservation exchanges made by DClub members through their personal II account (instead of the DClub provided account) if they still maintain one (as I do)? In the OP's example at the start of the original thread for this discussion, do we know the source/method of Jim's deposit/exchange?


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 17, 2017)

kds4 said:


> Your logic seems reasonable to me. However, it would only provide 'cover' for MVC to take action over the DClub inventory you describe if it was exchanged using the corporate account. I don't think it would address manipulating exchanges from deposited weeks or of points reservation exchanges made by DClub members through their personal II account (instead of the DClub provided account) if they still maintain one (as I do)? In the OP's example at the start of the original thread for this discussion, do we know the source/method of Jim's deposit/exchange?



To answer your question, I used our enrolled Barony week as the deposit to II, so it was using the DClub II account. I don't think that mattered in this case in that both Marriott and II told me Marriott cancelled all II exchanges last month at Grande Ocean, so I assume that any exchanges from a personal II account would have been cancelled as well.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 17, 2017)

I would really like to know how the whole agreement with MVC and II works. An owner can deposit their week with II, and then can only confirm an exchange into a resort if an owner at that resort deposits a week for the dates they want. Therefore, there is available inventory only for weeks that are deposited by an owner at that resort. II inventory at that resort for any given week is clearly defined by the number of exchanges. I still don't understand how MVC can cancel all II exchanges saying that inventory is not in their control. It shouldn't be in their control because owners at that resort have decided to go outside of MVC to use the week that they paid MF's for. II doesn't really own that inventory, the resort owners who deposited that week 'own' the inventory. 

By cancelling all II reservations, MVC is breaching their agreement to allocate inventory based on 'ownership' of that time period. At resorts like Ocean Pointe and Grand Ocean, I doubt that MVC has much inventory available for Encore, MR, or cash stays because that would have to come from inventory not owned by resort legacy weeks (including those who convert to VC points) or the trust. That leaves only a small amount of inventory primarily from those renting their weeks through MVC or converting to MR points, both of which represent low value to owners. Cancelling only II exchanges for several weeks at any resort would result in MVC owing II a lot of inventory in order to maintain the appropriate proportions.

It gets down to MVC making rules that do not meet their contractual commitments for inventory allocation. Somebody will likely need to sue in order to get access to what is going on in MVC's inventory control black box.


----------



## urfriend (Oct 18, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> You know, I like the Marriott timeshare company.  I usually am able to understand, even when it doesn't benefit us, how and why they operate in certain ways.  It's not my norm to charge them with activity that may actually be in violation of inventory management rules and mandates.  And I can honestly say that the only distasteful encounters I've had with MVW reps have happened here on TUG.  What is it about this site that makes any of you think that you can be as condescendingly dismissive as you please, and not expect it to reflect poorly on you as a TUG poster AND on the company?  It doesn't matter that you're as anonymous as the rest of us - you still don't get to say, unchallenged, on the one hand that you're an MVW rep and then on the other generate owner/customer service that's basically useless.  In fact it's worse than useless, it's harmful to the company.
> 
> If you really want to "offer assistance" that's meaningful then you should re-direct our concerns up the ladder to someone who's empowered to speak officially for the company as to whether or not the II mass-cancellations that occurred due to the two recent hurricanes were done in order to free up accommodations for guests who were displaced from other impacted resorts.  And if so, what exact inventory management machinations came into play, and, where in the governing docs can we find the language that supports MVW's handling of these events?
> 
> You're correct in one way - the hard truth is what it is.  And if we ever get it officially from MVW, we'll be sure to educate you on it.


I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on.  Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!

It's very obvious that you are all confused.

_*windje2000 - QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II*. _
This is an incorrect statement. If you are enrolled into the Destinations Program you are a member of II. Why are you under the impression that you are no longer a member of II if you don't elect points? Your II account isn't through the Destinations Program it's still through II. Even if you never decide to use II, you still have an active paid account with Interval, that you could use if you wanted. There is no such thing as the....*DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory. This doesn't exist.* When owners 'Elect' their weeks for DP that is what frees up inventory for DP. 

_*There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.[/QUOTE*]_
The only reason you get a new II account called a 'corporate account' is so you aren't charged the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. If you use your II account and you have deposits in your II account that are pre-destinations then those deposits are still charged the $139 exchange fee. Once those deposits are used, then your old II account is canceled and not active any more. That is the only reason for issuing a new II #. 

The yearly club dues that you pay each year covers your Interval account. It is still an Interval account and it is no different than your Interval account that you had pre-destinations, you just get a new II number, and now you don't pay the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. You have access to exactly the same inventory that any other Owner has who uses II as their exchange company, regardless if it is a pre-destinations, or you pay for your own II account, or you aren't in the DP program...it's all the same Interval account.

Most likely... the reason in the slow process with II deposits is due to the date you are choosing to deposit with II. How many of you know how to look at the TDI on the resort you own on Intervalworld.com? Do you know how to decide what date to pick? Do you even know how to use II? Had an owner 2 days ago who has a Platinum GV and wants to go to Cypress Dec 8, 2017. I get a hold of II lock off his GV ask if he can get a 2BR at CY with his 1 BR... yes it is available and because it was within 59 days there was no upgrade fee. This owner got a 2 BR at Cypress Harbour with his 1 BR at GV. 

You all want something official from MVW so call up and get it. Ask questions, but don't be angry with me because you don't like my responses. You can either take the information I am giving and put it to use, or go about your day and ignore it.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 18, 2017)

urfriend

“I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me.”

“You obviously know everything and don't need my help.”

“It's very obvious that you are all confused.”

.....

You seem to have a very unique approach to offering “help” to many highly experienced owners, who also know and have regular dealings with both Owner Services and Customer Advocacy.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 18, 2017)

Many of us have contacted MVC owner services regarding these issues and have received absolutely no explanation of their policies regarding how they are handling the inventory. None of my specific questions were answered. The only response we have seen is that II exchanges are all being cancelled because MVC doesn't control the inventory, and the communication is often at the last minute. While owners services are saying that 'owners come first', they are not cancelling Encore stays that have no ownership involvement, while all II exchanges required an owner deposit of a paid for week. Additionally, many people who purchased the Travelex insurance that MVC promoted are learning that their cancellations aren't covered if there stay is more than 30 days after the storm due to 'fine print' in the policy. 

In contrast to MVC, II has been very helpful and will work with you regarding your best option given the circumstances.


----------



## Dean (Oct 18, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on.  Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!
> 
> It's very obvious that you are all confused.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with much of what you've posted in terms of the steps from an II standpoint and owners choosing to use II.  Like any major company, they (like Marriott) have slated things in their favor and if we chose to play in their sandbox, we assume more risks than they do on a given transaction.  I believe that what you've posted is technically correct in terms of the exchange steps and risks and it's obviously been an unfortunate situation for all.  However, I believe there are some inaccuracies in your post.  One is that the II exchanges were not simply canceled because the resorts were closed.  Many of the resorts were open and MVC decided to cancel all II exchanges and accommodate weeks owners, Trust/DC reservations and encore packages from other resorts.  By all accounts MVC cancelled the exchanges even when the resorts were open in order to accommodate those listed from other resorts.  While I'm in the minority here, I tend to feel that was a reasonable choice for Marriott though my first preference would have been to work resort by resort.  The concern for those that are opposed to how Marriott did this is that some feel Marriott didn't have the right to do so contractually and that by the global process, they created a precedent that could further negatively affect owners in the future.  I tend to disagree with both of those assertions but I understand the concerns.  Many also feel that the fact that many of these were Marriott owners using Marriott deposits and that should have made a difference, I also don't completely agree with that assertion. 

II is a separate company from Marriott.  Obviously the actual contract between Marriott and II would have a core bearing on the process in question.  I assume those contract are standard but wonder if they are resort by resort rather than II to Marriott with the resorts simply being listed.  It seems the general consensus here is that Marriott said "jump" and II said "how high" irregardless of the contract, to me that doesn't matter who ultimately pushed the decision as long as it was within the contract parameters.

Some here, especially the OP, have contacted Marriott much higher than owner services and have not gotten an answer they consider reasonable.  Personally I see the answer as very simple from Marriott's and II's standpoint both and know it won't make a lot of people here satisfied but if they'd just have said it and acted humble in the process, I think it'd have helped.  To me the simple answer is that they had a tough situation, had to make tough choices and they felt the choices made were both the best ones overall and were within their obligations and rights considering the owners, exchangers and II itself.  I think if they'd have just reached out to members and said that proactively and sympathetically, many would at least have felt Marriott was doing the best they could even if they disagreed with the final decision.  They should study Equifax's handling of the recent breach for ways to smooth over a poor situation.  Hopefully a more formal and punished process will come out of this so at least we all know more where we stand and what risks we are and are not taking.

Members still pay for the new II account and the "free" exchanges, it's just rolled in a different way and paid for more with smoke and mirrors.  And many of us still pay for the old II account as well since we can't add non Marriott weeks to the corporate account.  As for navigating the II system and determining the best deposits and ways to deposit & exchange; I'd venture that every poster on this thread is more knowledgeable than any Marriott salesperson on this subject who's not also a participant here on TUG.  For example, why would you you not use the studio instead of the 1BR for the exchange to CH or better yet, they likely had an accommodation certificate in their account, why not use that and save their deposit completely.

Now if you can just tell me how I can get my 5 post 2010 resale purchases rolled into my DC points without buying a large retail trust package, I'd certainly be happier.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 18, 2017)

Dean said:


> I tend to agree with much of what you've posted in terms of the steps from an II standpoint and owners choosing to use II.  Like any major company, they (like Marriott) have slated things in their favor and if we chose to play in their sandbox, we assume more risks than they do on a given transaction.  I believe that what you've posted is technically correct in terms of the exchange steps and risks and it's obviously been an unfortunate situation for all.  However, I believe there are some inaccuracies in your post.  One is that the II exchanges were not simply canceled because the resorts were closed.  Many of the resorts were open and MVC decided to cancel all II exchanges and accommodate weeks owners, Trust/DC reservations and encore packages from other resorts.  By all accounts MVC cancelled the exchanges even when the resorts were open in order to accommodate those listed from other resorts.  While I'm in the minority here, I tend to feel that was a reasonable choice for Marriott though my first preference would have been to work resort by resort.  The concern for those that are opposed to how Marriott did this is that some feel Marriott didn't have the right to do so contractually and that by the global process, they created a precedent that could further negatively affect owners in the future.  I tend to disagree with both of those assertions but I understand the concerns.  Many also feel that the fact that many of these were Marriott owners using Marriott deposits and that should have made a difference, I also don't completely agree with that assertion.
> 
> II is a separate company from Marriott.  Obviously the actual contract between Marriott and II would have a core bearing on the process in question.  I assume those contract are standard but wonder if they are resort by resort rather than II to Marriott with the resorts simply being listed.  It seems the general consensus here is that Marriott said "jump" and II said "how high" irregardless of the contract, to me that doesn't matter who ultimately pushed the decision as long as it was within the contract parameters.
> 
> ...


Dean....I don't always agree with your stances....but this was excellently written!!!


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 18, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on.  Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!
> 
> It's very obvious that you are all confused.
> 
> ...



I have no direct contractual relationship with II.  Contracts require something called consideration, something which I have not paid to or otherwise provided II.  My contract is with DClub.  You seem to suggest that MVC is II's agent in offering these memberships, which would indeed provide the contractual nexus you allude to.

I may well be an indirect member of II through access via the 'corporate account' (MVC terminology, not mine) and, as you allege, may be subject to the same II rules and regulations as any direct member of II, but that ignores the fact that I am also

1. subject to the rules of DClub, and

2. subject to the contract or relationship between MVC and II regarding the 'corporate account.'

You allege that the only reason for the separate corporate account is to facilitate that payment of fees to the exchange company.  Coding a field with some 'if this then that' ("ITTT") logic would be a much much simpler way of accomplishing exactly the same objective. 

There is clearly another reason for partitioning the DClub II members from the remainder of II.  What might that be? 

The creation of a partitioned DClub II member and inventory pool facilitates management of the pool of Marriott occupancy deposited by DClub members. 

You allege that indirect members of II have access to the same inventory as direct members.  That may be true, but the question is whether or not both direct and indirect members of II are seeing only Marriott inventory that remains after DClub takes what it believes it is due from the occupancy deposited in the corporate account, or otherwise manages that pool for its own benefit. 

What your post fails to address is the proposition that MVC considered its broad powers to engage in what I concluded my post with:

*I am starting to wonder if the observation I made in that old post is exactly how MVC is justifying its behavior.

In other words,

1. DClub members are not members of II but rather members of DClub.

2. MVC has broad powers to manage DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory.

3. These broad powers provide MVC with the ability to consider the HHI resorts as a portfolio.

4. These broad powers allow MVC to manage DClub exchange reservations (including II reservations) between and among the various HHI resorts virtually any way they want to.
*
The only change I would make to these would be to use the term indirect or derivative in describing the II membership in item 1.   

Finally, let me make this so clear that even you can understand it.  Your remarks generally and regarding SueDonJ in particular are offensive, shed no light on the answers and simply serve to obfuscate the truth with bombastic argle bargle.


----------



## GregT (Oct 18, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> Finally, let me make this so clear that even you can understand it.  Your remarks generally and regarding SueDonJ in particular are offensive, shed no light on the answers and simply serve to obfuscate the truth with bombastic argle bargle.



I agree with Windje here - the comments on Sue are very odd (nicest word I can think of). 

She is as fair and impartial as they come and not sure why she was attacked. She rocks and an invaluable member of our community. Let's all stay on point here. 

Best,

Greg


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2017)

GregT's experience that is discussed in this linked thread (https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...-due-to-hurricane-damage.263771/#post-2062622) seems to show Marriott taking a rather non-accommodative position toward even a DP owner reservation, which seems to be a very different approach than the one we have discussed at length that they used last month in Hilton Head where - based on anecdotal evidence - they bent the rules to accommodate other HHI/DP owners over exchangers. But as I was thinking about that, something dawned on me:

While we have multiple statements made by resort staff at Grande Ocean that said guests from other resorts were accommodated last month at Grande Ocean, I don't recall that we have heard of a single specific situation where an *owner using their ownership* has been relocated from a damaged resort to a room at an open resort. (Is this correct or did I miss a specific example?) We *do* have multiple examples of Encore package guests being accommodated in partially open resorts in Hilton Head and Palm Beach. We even have one example from my original Grande Ocean thread where windje2000 was expressly told that his mid-September Monarch reservation *would not* be relocated to Grande Ocean. Marriott Customer Advocacy also consistently denied that owners were relocated in HHI.

So _what if, _in reality, no *owners using their ownership at other HHI resorts* were accommodated at Grande Ocean last month? What if what Customer Advocacy said was factually accurate? What if the only reservations relocated from other HHI resorts were cash stays, Encore stays (also cash), and maybe Rewards Points? Then, what the GO front desk staff said would be true (guests _were_ relocated to GO from other HHI resorts), as would be the statements made by Customer Advocacy (none of them were using _ownership_ at other HHI resorts). What if MVW made the decision to maximize revenue by not cancelling their cash reservations and instead cancelled the II exchanges at the relatively less damaged resorts (Grande Ocean, Surf Watch, etc.) so they would have the space to accommodate all of the cash/Encore reservations from Barony, Monarch, Harbor Point, Harbour Club, Heritage Club, etc.? In this scenario, all of the comments about setting up an informal exchange system would be moot, and the question/narrative would shift to their rights to cancel bonafide II exchanges to accommodate cash guests.

I realize this is just more speculation - but given the lack of transparency at MVC - speculation is all we have.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 18, 2017)

urfriend said:


> I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on.  Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!
> 
> It's very obvious that you are all confused.
> 
> ...



All due respect, since you showed up here two weeks ago you haven't taught any of us anything that we haven't already learned through years of experience as owners and shared as members of TUG.  Rather than berating us sarcastically by saying things like, "you obviously know everything and don't need my help," maybe you could spend a few hours reading through the forum posts for the last month or so to give you an idea of how knowledgeable we actually are.  Honestly, I'm not saying that to antagonize you or to falsely inflate our self-importance, but because it's true.  I am routinely surprised by the level of thought and expertise that many people share here, and incidentally so are the MVW reps at the exec level with whom I've discussed over the years items that have come up that are relevant to all owners.

At this point the TUG members who have been directly impacted by MVW's inventory management following the hurricanes are and have been in contact with MVW reps who, I'm guessing, are a pay grade or five above you.  The rest of us aren't calling and demanding explanations for a few reasons, first is obviously that we're not personally affected and are well aware that MVW will not discuss this with us for that reason.  Next is probably that we know the TUGgers who are involved will be happy to share with us, teach us, whatever share-able information they get from MVW.  But beyond that and relative to this particular issue, we know that MVW has a history of not explaining inventory management as technically as we would like (which in all cases is understandable from their legal position but still maddening and frustrating from ours.)  The people directly affected by this unprecedented inventory management issue aren't getting satisfaction; the rest of us know it would be an exercise in futility for us to try!

Personally, I'm not angry with you.  I'm frustrated, sure, but not angry.  It doesn't appear that you are actually reading the posts to which you're responding, actually trying to understand the issue and its complications.  If you were, then you wouldn't be asking us if we, "even know how to use II" or trying to teach us about TDI.  It's downright ridiculous that you have come away from this thread with the idea that what's in question are the basics of II membership/usage.

Finally, the fact that you're an MVW rep is not going to help you on TUG.  You are more than welcome to stay, go, lurk, whatever ... but just like with every other person who participates on TUG, the useful information that you share will be appreciated and the questionable will be challenged.  And, you will be expected to follow the TUG Posting Rules.  That's how it works here, and it works very well.


----------



## urfriend (Oct 18, 2017)

bazzap said:


> urfriend
> 
> “I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me.”
> 
> ...


But... very obvious that although they may be experienced...they have no clue what they are ranting about regarding certain subjects.


----------



## bazzap (Oct 18, 2017)

urfriend said:


> But... very obvious that although they may be experienced...they have no clue what they are ranting about regarding certain subjects.


You are of course welcome to your opinion.
Personally, I find most TUG members comments demonstrate a very good understanding and in terms of ranting are far more balanced than some of your outbursts.
What has been asked quite a few times now, and I too would certainly welcome this, is a clear statement of and reference to the specific rules MVC have invoked in making recent decisions on cancellations and restricted replacement options.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 18, 2017)

To my fellow TUGgers.... In my opinion, urfriend is an internet troll.  

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response [2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement

....and as such I have made a personal decision to ignore all future posts from urfriend.  

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## klpca (Oct 18, 2017)

.


Fasttr said:


> To my fellow TUGgers.... In my opinion, urfriend is an internet troll.
> 
> In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response [2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement
> 
> ...


That thought had occurred to me as well. Methinks we may have been played.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 18, 2017)

I think s/he's exactly who s/he says s/he is, an MVW employee who thinks we're not giving him/her enough credit for the wealth of knowledge s/he's decided to bestow upon us.



As moderator I'm giving this poster a little bit of leeway and time to read through the TUG Rules link provided and start following the rules, or be moderated.  The reason being s/he had no clue how to find the sticky threads in the TUG Marriott forum, meaning s/he may not have found the TUG Rules sooner than this.


----------



## urfriend (Oct 19, 2017)

bazzap said:


> You are of course welcome to your opinion.
> Personally, I find most TUG members comments demonstrate a very good understanding and in terms of ranting are far more balanced than some of your outbursts.
> What has been asked quite a few times now, and I too would certainly welcome this, is a clear statement of and reference to the specific rules MVC have invoked in making recent decisions on cancellations and restricted replacement options.



Call owner services and request that information. 855-682-4847


----------



## urfriend (Oct 19, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I think s/he's exactly who s/he says s/he is, an MVW employee who thinks we're not giving him/her enough credit for the wealth of knowledge s/he's decided to bestow upon us.
> 
> 
> 
> As moderator I'm giving this poster a little bit of leeway and time to read through the TUG Rules link provided and start following the rules, or be moderated.  The reason being s/he had no clue how to find the sticky threads in the TUG Marriott forum, meaning s/he may not have found the TUG Rules sooner than this.


You're right I don't have no clue how to navigate here. I only joined 1 week ago


----------



## urfriend (Oct 19, 2017)

klpca said:


> .
> 
> That thought had occurred to me as well. Methinks we may have been played.


well you both are wrong no troll here. I will chose not to respond to any more of you on this thread. Good luck


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> GregT's experience that is discussed in this linked thread (https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...-due-to-hurricane-damage.263771/#post-2062622) seems to show Marriott taking a rather non-accommodative position toward even a DP owner reservation, which seems to be a very different approach than the one we have discussed at length that they used last month in Hilton Head where - based on anecdotal evidence - they bent the rules to accommodate other HHI/DP owners over exchangers. But as I was thinking about that, something dawned on me:
> 
> While we have multiple statements made by resort staff at Grande Ocean that said guests from other resorts were accommodated last month at Grande Ocean, I don't recall that we have heard of a single specific situation where an *owner using their ownership* has been relocated from a damaged resort to a room at an open resort. (Is this correct or did I miss a specific example?) We *do* have multiple examples of Encore package guests being accommodated in partially open resorts in Hilton Head and Palm Beach. We even have one example from my original Grande Ocean thread where windje2000 was expressly told that his mid-September Monarch reservation *would not* be relocated to Grande Ocean. Marriott Customer Advocacy also consistently denied that owners were relocated in HHI.
> 
> ...


Not sure that them potentially setting up an internal exchange program discussion would still be moot. For every week that is reserved, there is underlying ownership. Remembers, these are timeshare first and MVC only turns them in to quasi hotels because they do cash rentals.

In either case, it is quite possible that you are absolutely correct. Perhaps they only moved cash and Encore guests from other properties. As you say, we don't have any first hand or even second hand knowledge from an actual owner staying on an owner stay that had their weeks reservation moved to a different resort. If it is indeed true, I guess we do see where Marriott places its owners in the grand scheme of things. Are they meeting their fiduciary responsibility as the management company if they did indeed do as you say? Are our HOAs meeting theirs by allowing Marriott to do this?


----------



## Dean (Oct 19, 2017)

urfriend said:


> Call owner services and request that information. 855-682-4847


Do you really believe that owner services has this information.  At best their going to have the talking points given to them which are worthless at this point.  As I noted previously, there are those here that have gone FAR higher than that and gotten little more than boilerplate responses if even that.  While I personally think the choices of what MVC did were reasonable, they certainly have left a lot on the table as to communication, consistency and honesty.  And since you haven't posted a "formal" explanation, I'm assuming you don't have the info either and thus I suspect you're assuming that owner services actually has real information as well when it appears they do not.


----------



## heathpack (Oct 19, 2017)

Wow @urfriend... reflecting so well on MVC.  Total cringe.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 21, 2017)

I mentioned this in passing in a comment in another thread since it was relevant there, but since this is the continuation of the discussion I started about our HHI/Irma saga, I thought I would post this here too in order to give positive credit to the folks at II who helped make it happen - and to the TUGgers who helped in suggesting places we should look at for a late fall 2018 trip (really our only available window for next year).

Overnight last night, our replacement week that we got from II after the HHI Irma cancellation matched for a 2BR at Marriott's Desert Springs I in Palm Desert for mid-November 2018. While Palm Desert wasn't originally a priority for our travels next year, it's still somewhere we would like to try, and given our limited travel options for next year due to already planned trips, I consider it a win to get this with the replacement week. Thanks again to Mark DelCampo at II for helping to make the best of a bad situation - which is more than I can say for MVC, given the experiences Superchief, windje2000, and I had, and now GregT is experiencing. While I agree with some some of the comments that MVC may have had some constraints in their ability to provide acceptable restitution, I still think their lack of communication, lack of transparency, and overall lack of a customer-sensitive approach to their Irma response does not reflect well on the company. II, on the other hand, distinguished themselves in responding to a situation that was not of their own making.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 21, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I mentioned this in passing in a comment in another thread since it was relevant there, but since this is the continuation of the discussion I started about our HHI/Irma saga, I thought I would post this here too in order to give positive credit to the folks at II who helped make it happen - and to the TUGgers who helped in suggesting places we should look at for a late fall 2018 trip (really our only available window for next year).
> 
> Overnight last night, our replacement week that we got from II after the HHI Irma cancellation matched for a 2BR at Marriott's Desert Springs I in Palm Desert for mid-November 2018. While Palm Desert wasn't originally a priority for our travels next year, it's still somewhere we would like to try, and given our limited travel options for next year due to already planned trips, I consider it a win to get this with the replacement week. Thanks again to Mark DelCampo at II for helping to make the best of a bad situation - which is more than I can say for MVC, given the experiences Superchief, windje2000, and I had, and now GregT is experiencing. While I agree with some some of the comments that MVC may have had some constraints in their ability to provide acceptable restitution, I still think their lack of communication, lack of transparency, and overall lack of a customer-sensitive approach to their Irma response does not reflect well on the company. II, on the other hand, distinguished themselves in responding to a situation that was not of their own making.


Glad you managed to make lemonade out of lemons.  You will enjoy DSV I and it is not a lemon by any means.


----------



## taffy19 (Oct 22, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I mentioned this in passing in a comment in another thread since it was relevant there, but since this is the continuation of the discussion I started about our HHI/Irma saga, I thought I would post this here too in order to give positive credit to the folks at II who helped make it happen - and to the TUGgers who helped in suggesting places we should look at for a late fall 2018 trip (really our only available window for next year).
> 
> Overnight last night, our replacement week that we got from II after the HHI Irma cancellation matched for a 2BR at Marriott's Desert Springs I in Palm Desert for mid-November 2018. While Palm Desert wasn't originally a priority for our travels next year, it's still somewhere we would like to try, and given our limited travel options for next year due to already planned trips, I consider it a win to get this with the replacement week. Thanks again to Mark DelCampo at II for helping to make the best of a bad situation - which is more than I can say for MVC, given the experiences Superchief, windje2000, and I had, and now GregT is experiencing. While I agree with some some of the comments that MVC may have had some constraints in their ability to provide acceptable restitution, I still think their lack of communication, lack of transparency, and overall lack of a customer-sensitive approach to their Irma response does not reflect well on the company. II, on the other hand, distinguished themselves in responding to a situation that was not of their own making.


I am glad for you that Mark DelCampo at II found a solution for you.

Mid November is normally a nice time to be in the desert and the DSVI is a great resort next to the JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa.  Plenty of golf courses around and a good choice of restaurants too.  There is a lot to see plus there is the Palm Springs Air Museum that may interest you.  We used to own here but still go back because we like the desert and love to visit Joshua Tree National Park.  An amazing photography site and many activities too.  We took a basic course in rock climbing here with the Sierra Club. 

I still hope that GregT will also get something for his points.  The insurance isn't worth the paper it is written on because of that clause about the 30 day limit so now we know.

We booked an Encore package recently and I asked them if we could insure it but the lady at the desk didn't know so I signed up but told her that I would cancel it if I found out the next business day that it couldn't be insured because it was for March 2019.  It was way too early to book it yet but the Big Island was included.

I found out that Encore Packages cannot be insured either so I rescinded by FAX well within the rescission period and I asked them to confirm it by email or in the mail but I heard nothing.

I waited a long time on the phone and got transferred several times and then we got disconnected so had to call again.  They had received the FAX and they cannot confirm by email or in any other way that it is cancelled.  Our credit card was charged so had to call them again but they had received the FAX and reversed the charge immediately.  No problem with that.

Now you know that Encore Packages are not eligible to buy insurance for nor does our yearly insurance policy insure them either nor our timeshare stays but we knew that.  Our yearly policy does insure us for hurricanes but I haven't read the fine print so it may not be much better either.  By the time that you receive the policy, it may be too late to cancel.


----------

