# unfair rci vacations



## sevilla (Sep 17, 2008)

I am a rci member and recently i have been trying to exchage for a vacation in april.none to be had,but when i go to instant vacation that i have to pay for there are many listed for that week.what gives????


----------



## lprstn (Sep 17, 2008)

Welcome to the club... we all have made that complaint.  RCI claims that those weeks are not traded weeks   yeah right.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 17, 2008)

*Like-For-Like Trade Policy Limits Availability Of Good Timeshare Exchanges.*




sevilla said:


> I am a rci member and recently i have been trying to exchage for a vacation in april.none to be had,but when i go to instant vacation that i have to pay for there are many listed for that week.what gives?


You have tapped into people's No. 1 source of dissatisfaction with RCI. 

I'm no expert, but I take it that in the old days RCI would let people get exchange reservations into top timeshares using so-so timeshares as trade bait. 

Then in more recent years, RCI started getting hard core about its _Like For Like_ timeshare exchange policy -- i.e., I deposit a so-so timeshare, & all I can get in exchange is somebody else's so-so timeshare. 

Where the outrage comes in is over what RCI does with its stock of banked timeshare weeks that are better quality than anything they'll let me have for my so-so timeshare.  That is, they'll rent those out for cash at the same time they tell me they don't have anything available for me to get using my so-so timeshare as trade bait. 

Some people are so grumped off by this state of affairs that they've joined in an expensive Class Action Lawsuit designed to force RCI to go back to the way the plaintiffs say it used to be & that it ought to be once again now & forever. 

Others shrug & try to learn how to go with the flow according to today's RCI policies.  

One way of going with the flow is switching to points-based timeshare exchanges instead of conventional week-for-week timeshare trades.  Points requirements -- what you get for your timeshare, what it takes to reserve somebody else's -- are out there in the open for everybody to see ahead of time. 

Straight-weeks trades, by contrast, always depend on hidden "trade power" valuations that are concealed from all us timeshare owners & known only to the _Gnomes Of RCI_ toiling away in the murky back rooms of RCI Command Central's underground bunkers. 

The way "trade power" works is that any timeshare week I deposit is never quite good enough to get me an exchange into somebody else's timeshare that I'd actually like to go to.  Rather than just letting those weeks which are "too good" for exchange go to waste, RCI rents'm out for big bux. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## Laurie (Sep 17, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> You have tapped into people's No. 1 source of dissatisfaction with RCI.



Alan, I think you're speaking to the inability of folks to "trade up". Actually, the #1 source of dissatisfaction for many - including myself - is that as the OP wrote, there are many weeks deposited by members as spacebanks that are completely not available as exchange weeks for anyone - no matter whether your trade power is a 1 or a 10 or somewhere inbetween. Instead these spacebank deposits are siphoned off as "extra vacations", and sold for cash. 

There's plenty of evidence that these come from members' spacebanks. These "extra vacations" seem to represent the whole trade power range from 1 to 10, as well.

I'm a weeks member with some great traders, and the extra vacations I see are often not available to me as exchanges. Are you saying you can get them with points?


----------



## e.bram (Sep 17, 2008)

AwayWeGo:
Points don't help. Remember the required points for a week span over a group of weeks, some pink, some bright red. The developer aka points exchange system controls the computer keyboard and availabilty charts. Since the developer aka points exchanger owns points(unsold and repoed),what to stop them from allocating the prime redweeks to themselves to rent and making the pink weeks(which have the same point cost sa the prime reds)available to the points owners(suckers). Best to have choice week in a choice unit which can be rented(if not used) and funds used to rerent a prime TS at a prime time.


----------



## krmlaw (Sep 18, 2008)

We have to have been pretty lucky so far then. We have one good timeshare, a good week, good resort, gold crown. And we have one not so good time share, a floating "bad" week, at a so-so resort, silver crown. 

We have been able to trade both of them for really good units. I always try to see whats available on each. I even recently used by silver crown so-so unit to trade into an amazing gold crown top of the line unit. Maybe we trade them off season? Not sure. 

But so far Ive been pretty happy with RCI. 

We have an interval account as well, and what I dont like is that once you begin a search, you cant cancel it yourself. Just add or remove places to search. 

But I wonder about this class action suit? 

And I too have seen all those extra weeks available, some at really nice resorts that dont show up when I try to trade, even with the good week.


----------



## theo (Sep 18, 2008)

*Settlement MAY be faintly visible on the horizon...*



krmlaw said:


> But I wonder about this class action suit?



Settlement discussions in _Murillo vs. RCI _have reportedly been taking place in (and out of) Federal Court in Newark, NJ on and off since mid-July, 2008. 
I have no idea of the outcome-to-be, but the matter would seem to be closer to its end than to its beginning (which was in April, 2006).


----------



## krmlaw (Sep 18, 2008)

Thanks, Ill have to watch this one.


----------



## geekette (Sep 18, 2008)

sevilla said:


> I am a rci member and recently i have been trying to exchage for a vacation in april.none to be had,but when i go to instant vacation that i have to pay for there are many listed for that week.what gives????



OP, where are you looking for April, and are you confined to one week or any in April?  Could be you're seeking a very popular spring destination and all the goodies are gone.  Oh, I mean, the "deposited weeks for exchange", not the "surplus rental inventory."  :annoyed: 

Generally, tho, you're too late - once you've passed the one year mark, pickins get slim.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 18, 2008)

*I Am A Savvy Timeshare Exchanger.  ( -- Notttt ! ! -- )*




geekette said:


> Generally, tho, you're too late - once you've passed the one year mark, pickins get slim.


After spending way too much time mouse-clicking around on TUG-BBS, I have pretty much concluded that the savvy timeshare crowd snags the top exchange reservations as far ahead as possible -- 2+ years off optimally, because only 1 year into the future is too late.  

With the top timeshare exchanges available already snagged by the savvy types, mainly just the dogs & cats are left for the choosing for us savvy-challenged timeshare doofuses. 

The saving grace, if there is 1, is in waiting _so_ late to reserve a timeshare on exchange that RCI is virtually begging people to take'm & practically giving'm away via _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_. 

See, the thing is that some of the leftover dogs & cats actually turn out to be pretty nice timeshares in vacation spots where we like to go.  Off-season seems to be the key. 

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


----------



## Kozman (Sep 22, 2008)

geekette said:


> OP, where are you looking for April, and are you confined to one week or any in April?  Could be you're seeking a very popular spring destination and all the goodies are gone.  Oh, I mean, the "deposited weeks for exchange", not the "surplus rental inventory."  :annoyed:
> 
> Generally, tho, you're too late - once you've passed the one year mark, pickins get slim.



That may be so, but why are they then showing up in Extra Vacations but not available for trade?


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 23, 2008)

As has been well documented, many of these rental weeks are from sold out resorts, so they are NOT developer inventory.  They are exchange deposits.

Some years ago, we had an RCI employee who posted here regularly, Bootleg, and he was able to trace some of the prime inventory showing up in RCI rentals through his RCI computer and found that the weeks were indeed exchange deposits unrelated to cruises, points for deposits, points partners or anything else.  There have also been some posts from RCI employees over at www.timesharetalk.co.uk to the same effect.  The RCI employees say that RCI has a rental pool and these exchange deposits are immediately placed in it as soon as they are depositied.  The thread is at www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7761  The RCI employee uses the handle ''anon''  When he first started posting as an RCI employee, the site owner checked his bona fides by asking some specific questions from his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI computers could answer and anon came back with all of the correct answers.


----------



## geekette (Sep 23, 2008)

Kozman said:


> That may be so, but why are they then showing up in Extra Vacations but not available for trade?



Because no one else will pay EV prices either, but would have grabbed them up for an exchange fee.  Then we wouldn't see those weeks anywhere.


----------



## dukebigtom (Sep 23, 2008)

How do we get involved in this class actions lawsuit?

BigTom


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 23, 2008)

*Fading fast from all I can find out (very little)*



dukebigtom said:


> How do we get involved in this class actions lawsuit?
> 
> BigTom



From everything that can be found out - which is not much - the thing is dead and all that is going to happen is some pay outs to a bunch of lawyers. It has no future and isn't going to change a thing (as was widely predicted way back in 2006 when it was filed).  Most of it was gutted and whats left is virtually moot in any case. Nothing to "join".


----------



## famy27 (Sep 23, 2008)

dukebigtom said:


> How do we get involved in this class actions lawsuit?
> 
> BigTom



From a review of the docket sheet, it appears that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and notice to class members.  In general, if you are part of a class as defined (which I didn't see on the docket), you don't need to do anything to be added to a case.  You are added automatically.  You normally would have the chance to opt out of the settlement and pursue your own case or to file objections to the settlement agreement.  

There is another hearing set for October 1st, so we may know more at that time.

As usual, the individual members of the class probably won't get much.  

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice (just my two cents!)


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 24, 2008)

That has been your wishfull thinking from the very beginning, and while some issues that were in one of the two suits are no longer in the merged suit, the most critical issue still is.  Your predictions in 2006 I don't necessarily consider ''wide''.

In any class action suit there is a danger of the plantiff's attorneys and defendant doing what is in their interest while putting a bandaid on a cancer for the plaintiff class.  Plaintiffs counsel walks away with a big fee while they agree on minor cosmetic changes in defendant's operation that don't come close to curing the real problem.  The main things that would work against such an insider deal are 1) plaintiff's attorneys really bent on genuine reform, and 2) a lead plaintiff who will speak up to his attorneys and if necessary the court against such a backroom deal.  From what I have learned from a Tugger personally close to some of those involved, at least one of the principle attorneys is a timesharer himself with a genuine concern about these issues, which gives hope that the plaintiff class will not be sold down the river.  Also, I am personally aware that one of the two lead plaintiffs is an extremely strong advocate of reform of these horrid RCI practices, and I would have a hard time believing that he/she would sit still for the class to be sold out.

That said, I have always preferred that these issues be raised by a state AG in a consumer protections suit, which as a public official would not have the temptation of selling out his clients for a big payout to himself.  Many state consumer protection laws also give state AG's powerful pre-litigation tools that could likely have made RCI cry uncle without an actual lawsuit having to be filed.




timeos2 said:


> From everything that can be found out - which is not much - the thing is dead and all that is going to happen is some pay outs to a bunch of lawyers. It has no future and isn't going to change a thing (as was widely predicted way back in 2006 when it was filed).  Most of it was gutted and whats left is virtually moot in any case. Nothing to "join".


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 24, 2008)

The important thing in any class action lawsuit is not monetary compensation, but injunctive relief; what acts the defendant is prohibited from doing in the future.  Weak injuctive relief is where the plaintiff class can get sold down the river by unscrupulous attorneys.

I personally, it doesn't matter to me if I don't get a cent in monetary relief as long as RCI is stopped dead in its tracks from renting out exchange deposits to the general public.  How some timesharers think that fraudulent practice is okay is beyond me.




famy27 said:


> From a review of the docket sheet, it appears that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and notice to class members.  In general, if you are part of a class as defined (which I didn't see on the docket), you don't need to do anything to be added to a case.  You are added automatically.  You normally would have the chance to opt out of the settlement and pursue your own case or to file objections to the settlement agreement.
> 
> There is another hearing set for October 1st, so we may know more at that time.
> 
> ...


----------



## crazyhorse (Sep 24, 2008)

I hope that if the class action court suspects that fraud _has_ occurred, that the details are referred to the appropriate authority.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 24, 2008)

RCI tells you, right up front in the disclosure documents, that they can do anything they want with your deposit.  Paragraph 5e of the Weeks agreement states:



> A Member relinquishes all rights to the use
> of Vacation Time to the benefit of RCI when it is
> Deposited.



It ain't fraud if they don't promise anything.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 24, 2008)

Not true. If you read the agreement in its entirety (its available from the link at the bottom of RCI's homepage), it states that the weeks deposited become vacation time from which participants can request in exchange for their deposit. There are other provisions that also state that the vacation time deposited goes in the pool of weeks to be exchanged.  

Reading the document as a whole, the system is as everyone thinks it is: weeks deposited are (should be) the weeks available for exchange based upon the relative strength of those weeks (which is a whole different issue).

When you deposit your week you certainly relinquish your right to the time. But no one can (reasonably) argue that under the Agreement , this that RCi can take in all exchange weeks, rent them out for cash in their pocket, then tell people from whom they took a fee and their weeks that there are simply no weeks to exchange into because we can "do what ever we want" with the deposited weeks.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 24, 2008)

*Nope. Won't fly*



davidvel said:


> Not true. If you read the agreement in its entirety (its available from the link at the bottom of RCI's homepage), it states that the weeks deposited become vacation time from which participants can request in exchange for their deposit. There are other provisions that also state that the vacation time deposited goes in the pool of weeks to be exchanged.
> 
> Reading the document as a whole, the system is as everyone thinks it is: weeks deposited are (should be) the weeks available for exchange based upon the relative strength of those weeks (which is a whole different issue).
> 
> When you deposit your week you certainly relinquish your right to the time. But no one can (reasonably) argue that under the Agreement , this that RCi can take in all exchange weeks, rent them out for cash in their pocket, then tell people from whom they took a fee and their weeks that there are simply no weeks to exchange into because we can "do what ever we want" with the deposited weeks.



There is NEVER a time where you can 't get a week for your week - the problem is many don't think its an EQUAL (or better) week which is what they want. The court isn't about to decide if a January beach week is or isn't equal to a week in Bermuda. If RCI shows a week in PA or VA in exchange the requirement is met.  No fraud or mis-appropriation. There are NO guarantees of value anywhere in that document.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 25, 2008)

*Settlement Terms Demand New Name For R. C. I.*




timeos2 said:


> There is NEVER a time where you can 't get a week for your week - the problem is many don't think its an EQUAL (or better) week which is what they want. The court isn't about to decide if a January beach week is or isn't equal to a week in Bermuda. If RCI shows a week in PA or VA in exchange the requirement is met.  No fraud or mis-appropriation. There are NO guarantees of value anywhere in that document.


_The Forrest Gump Timeshare Exchange Company_.  

Slogan = _You Never Know What Timeshare Exchange You're Gonna Get_. 

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


----------



## davidvel (Sep 25, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> The court isn't about to decide if a January beach week is or isn't equal to a week in Bermuda. If RCI shows a week in PA or VA in exchange the requirement is met.  No fraud or mis-appropriation. There are NO guarantees of value anywhere in that document.


Couldn't agree with you more. So long as all the deposited weeks are in the pool, the weighting is so subjective that it would be next to impossible for a court/jury to decide... 

BUT (yes there is always a BUT in the law), if those weeks all go unused because the "weighting" system says people don't have a good enough week to get it (even after all the good weeks have exchanged), and RCI decides it will then rent them out before allowing those poor weeks to get them, "Houston there is a problem." 

In other words, so long as all weeks stay in the pool and can be utilized by even poor traders after all others pass, and not for RCI's independent gain, then let the weighting arguments begin.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 25, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> There is NEVER a time where you can 't get a week for your week - the problem is many don't think its an EQUAL (or better) week which is what they want. The court isn't about to decide if a January beach week is or isn't equal to a week in Bermuda. If RCI shows a week in PA or VA in exchange the requirement is met.  No fraud or mis-appropriation. There are NO guarantees of value anywhere in that document.



Wrong - RCI itself establishes that weeks have different values by the very fact of setting up the color coded seasons, as well as all of their statements about trading power.  Your argument would be a loser in court.

Also, would you mind explaining why you always seem to be supportive of RCI, no matter what they do to their members?  Some of RCI's own employees, at least, like Bootleg and Anon, are supportive of fair treatment of members.  The Anon posts in the TimeshareTalk link above are very revealing.


----------



## crazyhorse (Sep 25, 2008)

If RCI has been increasing the proportion of weeks deposited it dumps into the Extra Rental system, wouldn`t it be clear on the statistics? i.e. the ratio of number of Weeks deposited to the number of weeks available for exchange?
a 5% deficit in Exchange to Deposits could be explained away, but has it now increased to a nonsensible deficit?
p.s. I see that the exchange weeks offered in some European countries is being boosted by the inclusion of Landal properties (which RCI explains are not true timeshares!). 
They are, however, part of the Wyndham Group.

In Europe there is the Timeshare Consumer`s Association, which is an independent body set up to protect consumer`s rights in Timeshare. It is interesting to look at http://www.timeshare.org.uk/exchange.html 
to see what the Association believes to be RCI`s methods in exchanging weeks.
viz."The two large companies are able to offer a wide range of choices-on a like for like basis". This is the TCA`s opinion,and that`s the way I thought RCI was supposed to operate! I have sent them an email regarding the alleged dumping of weeks to rental. They may well be aware anyway.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 25, 2008)

RCI has a lot of rental channels, which go to the general public, not just to timeshare owners.  There have been many posts on TUG on that subject since the scheme started.

I wish I still had the editorial in the issue of the newsletter of the Seasons timeshare chain in Europe when they fired a devasting broadside at RCI over both the massive rentals to the general public by RCI and its screwing Weeks in favor of Points, and announcing they were jumping ship to II for these reasons.  It really hit the nail on the head.  It was posted a number of times on the old TUG board.  It used to be possible to link to it, but that issue of the newsletter has rotated off of Seasons site now.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 25, 2008)

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




Carolinian said:


> Also, would you mind explaining why you always seem to be supportive of RCI, no matter what they do to their members?


I read it as pointing out weaknesses in the court case against RCI rather than as cheering _Yay RCI !_ 

I'm not exactly sure how _*timeos2*_ views things, but as I see it the case against RCI boils down not liking how RCI works now as contrasted with how it worked in the _Golden Age Of Timeshare Exchange_. 

That is, without sticking up 1 bit for RCI -- _Boooooo RCI !_ -- it's only bowing to reality to acknowledge that timeshare times have changed. 

Putting it another way, when the horse is dead it is advisable to dismount. 

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


----------



## crazyhorse (Sep 25, 2008)

*horses for courses*

Away we go: 
I agree with what you say about the old days.
Our horse however is not quite dead-perhaps it need retraining or a new owner?

As to the email I sent to the Timeshare Consumers Association, they replied immediately, and the jist of it is:

"Yes we are well aware of this practice by RCI and a court case has started in the US  claiming compensation for US based victims –  we are in discussion with lawyers to see if a similar case can be launced in the UK"

TCA say that they are not, however in a position at present to proceed, but  will make an announcement, as widely as possible, at the appropriate time.

THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP!


----------



## x3 skier (Sep 25, 2008)

These arguments remind me of something I learned a long time ago.

In contract law, lawyers will spend all of the money you give them to prove whatever you want them to prove while other lawyers on the other side are spending all the money somebody else is providing to prove the exact opposite. Predicting the outcome of a civil suit is a fruitless exercise.  

BTW, even if there is no settlement and one or both sides turns off the money, the courts and the lawyers seem to always find a way to make sure the lawyers get paid. 

Cheers


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 25, 2008)

x3 skier said:


> These arguments remind me of something I learned a long time ago.
> 
> In contract law, lawyers will spend all of the money you give them to prove whatever you want them to prove while other lawyers on the other side are spending all the money somebody else is providing to prove the exact opposite. Predicting the outcome of a civil suit is a fruitless exercise.
> 
> ...



That is one of the reasons that I have always suggested that a state AG's consumer protection lawsuit is the best bet.  That get state salaries, so they can't be bought off.  Also, the powerful pre-litigation tools they have are not availible in a civilian class action case.  They could inundate RCI with subpoenas before they ever filed the case, and get to the bottom of the facts early.  A state AG could also bring it in their own courts and not be forced to trial on RCI's home turf in New Jersey.  A North Carolina court, for instance, is probably going to have more sympathy for North Carolina victims of a big out of state company than a court in that company's home state.  They are probably also going to be more attentive to the position of their own AG.

Also, this is a consumer protection case under New Jersey's consumer protection statute, not strictly a contract case.  Even if a contract were technically valid, the defendants could be found liable if it were ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'', which are extremely broad terms.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 25, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> I read it as pointing out weaknesses in the court case against RCI rather than as cheering _Yay RCI !_
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how _*timeos2*_ views things, but as I see it the case against RCI boils down not liking how RCI works now as contrasted with how it worked in the _Golden Age Of Timeshare Exchange_.
> 
> ...



It's not that times have changed on their own.  The problem is that a quasi-monopoly has arbitrarily changed the game for its own self interest, and screwed its members in the process.  By not widely advertsing that spacebank deposits may be rented out at RCI's whim to the general public for RCI's profit, it is deceiving its depositors.  And no, fine print buried in pages and pages of T&C just doesn't count.  That comes under the heading of ''deceptive'' in those consumer protection laws.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm afraid I disagree with that.  The buyer is obligated to understand the terms to which they are agreeing.  If you don't read them, or can't understand them, you have no business doing business with the other party.


----------



## x3 skier (Sep 25, 2008)

Carolinian said:


> That is one of the reasons that I have always suggested that a state AG's consumer protection lawsuit is the best bet.  That get state salaries, so they can't be bought off.



Of course, a State AG would NEVER bring a case just to get elected to a higher office, cf. Elliot Spitzer. And certainly, they would NEVER take political contributions from anyone who might have a potential interest in any future litigation, cf. any AG who is elected anywhere.

I am afraid I have a much more jaundiced view of Class Action suits by anyone than some others.

BTW, when my RCI membership runs out, it will not be renewed for a number of reasons.  

Cheers


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 25, 2008)

*More Quasi Than Monopoly, No ?*




Carolinian said:


> The problem is that a quasi-monopoly has arbitrarily changed the game for its own self interest, and screwed its members in the process.


For sure RCI is the big dog in the timeshare trade biz -- but it shares the biz with pups like SFX, DAE, I-I, etc., not to mention the proprietary timeshare mini-systems whose internal trade schemes allow for the inclusion of some non-system timeshare weeks (e.g. Wyndham's PIC program).  (I.e., RCI is not exactly a monopoly.) 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  Only timeshare trade company we have membership with is RCI -- Weeks (starting 2003) & Points (2005).  I'm pretty sure the _Golden Age_ was already over before we joined up.  So it goes. 

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


----------



## e.bram (Sep 25, 2008)

The problem is NOT with RCI, but with the developers who sell weeks and points and lead their customers(suckers) on with the notion that they can use the units or points to trade anywhere at any time. RCI does exactly what it says. It takes your unit and exchanges it for another renting out the excess ubits since some people don't take advantage of exchanging.  It's their choice which of the units is excess. Unless they get some competition  people keep using them . They make money doing what they do, why should they change. Developers do the same thing with points and floating units. They assign the best weeks to their owned points and weeks. rent them and give the owners the pink weeks.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 25, 2008)

*My Points Timeshare Unit Is Deeded For Specific Unit & Week.*




e.bram said:


> Developers do the same thing with points and floating units. They assign the best weeks to their owned points and weeks. rent them and give the owners the pink weeks.


My dinky points timeshare week is deeded for a specific unit & particular week. 

If I drop out of points, I can still show up for my week & check into my unit -- provided I keep on paying those annual fees to the timeshare resort. 

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


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 26, 2008)

e.bram said:


> The problem is NOT with RCI, but with the developers who sell weeks and points and lead their customers(suckers) on with the notion that they can use the units or points to trade anywhere at any time. RCI does exactly what it says. It takes your unit and exchanges it for another renting out the excess ubits since some people don't take advantage of exchanging.  It's their choice which of the units is excess. Unless they get some competition  people keep using them . They make money doing what they do, why should they change. Developers do the same thing with points and floating units. They assign the best weeks to their owned points and weeks. rent them and give the owners the pink weeks.



If you read RCI employee Anon's posts in the link above or remember Bootleg's relevations on TUG, it is NOT the ''excess'' that RCI is renting as much as it is the high demand weeks for which their is more demand from exchangers than there is supply.

As to the sales presentations of developers, RCI produces and provides developers with films and other materials that explain the exchange system, and do not see fit to disclose RCI's massive rental programs that seriously compromise the integirty of that system.  Yes, there are frequently salesmen who tell exaggerations, but RCI's only materials are a big part of the deception process in developer sales.

RCI's rental of high demand weeks out of the exchange pool to the general public came in with Points, and the two seem to be joined at the hip.  It appears that it is related to paying for those ''Points Partner'' items they offer.  Cutting off the head of the Points Partner turkey would be a big step to restoring integrity to the exchange system.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 26, 2008)

bnoble said:


> I'm afraid I disagree with that.  The buyer is obligated to understand the terms to which they are agreeing.  If you don't read them, or can't understand them, you have no business doing business with the other party.



Most buyers join RCI as part of a developer purchase, where they are shown an RCI film or other materials in which the RCI exchange system is painted in a way that does not mention this landmine lurking in the recesses of the fine print of their T&C.  They are usually not specifically shown the T&C, and if they are, they are not given time to read it in full.  This is deception with a capital ''D'' which RCI is part and parcel of.

One part of any settlement should be a requirement for RCI to put a disclaimer in large letters on all of its printed materials and to prominently mention in its promo films that it takes high demand weeks deposited for exchange and rents them to the general public.  Burying such a stab in the back in the fine print is nothing but an effort to defraud consumers.


----------



## crazyhorse (Sep 26, 2008)

*ongoing saga*

As a Europe based owner, I cannot say I know anything about the legal system in the USA. I would hope that in the end that "fair play" is the result.

I have pointed out earlier that *at least one* of the protection organisations in Europe is well aware of the situation and that they may make moves to uphold that protection for the many owners in the UK, and presumably try for compensation.

Since Anon first raised the matter back in 2004, many millions of dollars worth of deposited weeks may have "dissappeared".

If the law in the USA takes it through to a charge of fraud, and it was proven, I wouldn`t know what sort of fine they could make on the company.It would need to be a deterrant, and open the doors for compensation of individuals.

Whatever the outcome, the issue may well appear in the media again, and the general public will "laugh their socks off" again at how gullible we were!


----------



## ctyatty (Sep 26, 2008)

*state attorneys general should take over*

Proving fraud in a private lawsuit is very difficult, that is why consumer protection laws by states enforced by attorneys general are a preferred approach - no need to prove intent - just the result of consumers being screwed.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 26, 2008)

> They are usually not specifically shown the T&C, and if they are, they are not given time to read it in full. This is deception with a capital ''D'' which RCI is part and parcel of.


I am not aware of any developer that doesn't include the appropriate RCI Agreement (Weeks or Points) in the Big Pile Of Documents that you get when you sign on the dotted line.  The buyer often has the option of reading before signing.   The buyer always has the ability to rescind during the cooling off period, during which he or she can read those documents at their leisure.  If for some reason the appropriate RCI Agreement is not included in the Big Pile of Documents, both versions are readily available on the RCI web site.

To borrow a phrase from another TUGger (or perhaps someone OY): if someone going to be signing these documents, they need to put on the big boy pants and take responsibility.  If someone doesn't read them before the recission period ends, then RCI renting out weeks is perhaps the least of that person's problems.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 26, 2008)

*Partners, Shmartners.*




Carolinian said:


> Cutting off the head of the Points Partner turkey would be a big step to restoring integrity to the exchange system.


That's the turkey that gobbles up perfectly good timeshare points for non-timeshare items like airplane tickets & motel rooms & Disney tickets, etc., right ? 

By me, that program's only saving grace -- if there even is 1 at all -- is that it's a way of doing _something_ with overripe timeshare points that otherwise would simply expire.

One time we had to use a bunch of very stale timeshare points to get some dumb Disney tickets, or the points would have expired before we got _anything_ for'm.  Sheesh. 

Total timeshare points management may be just a bit above my pay grade, but I struggle along anyway.  So it goes. 

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


----------



## Mel (Sep 26, 2008)

bnoble said:


> To borrow a phrase from another TUGger (or perhaps someone OY): if someone going to be signing these documents, they need to put on the big boy pants and take responsibility.  If someone doesn't read them before the recission period ends, then RCI renting out weeks is perhaps the least of that person's problems.


I have to agree.  If you don't agree with RCI's term, don't join.  If you don't understand them, ask or agian don't join.

Not only do new buyers sign the TOS for RCI, but their puchase contract most likely has a statement that RCI or II membership is an extra benefit, and is that the purchase of a timeshare should not be predicated on the benifits of an exchange program.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?  If you sign a contract, it means you agree with the contract, unless you were forced to sign under duress.  If you sign a contract stating that you were given a copy of the TOS, and you were not, you have signed a false statement!

I had to demonstrate this very idea to my 10YO this morning.  She presented a paper for me to sign at 7:45, before leaving for school at 8am.  I was in the middle of braiding her younger sister's hair, and didn't have time to read the 2 attached pages about her current long-term project.  The first page instructed to student to review the project requirements with a parents, and to then have the parent sign below, with space available for comments or questions.  I was going to refuse to sing, because I didn't have time to review it.  Since it was due today, I did end up signing it, but included a statement to indicate that I had not in fact reviewed it, and would contact the teacher later if I have comments or questions.  She was not happy, but I won't sign something suggesting I have done something I have not in fact done.

Edited to add: in some states, you might be able to argue that the recision period doesn't in fact start until all document have been providedbut it would depend on the language of the contract.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Sep 26, 2008)

*I Always Refuse To Sing . . .*




Mel said:


> I was going to refuse to sing, because I didn't have time to review it.


. . . because I can't carry a tune in a dump truck, _mox nix_ whether I review the song ahead of time. 

So it goes. 

But on the real world side (i.e., apart from TUG-BBS kidding around), that was a good lesson to teach a 10-year-old. 

Parents help the kids & protect them -- but parents also teach them responsibility.  Parents pay what they owe, & they teach that to their kids.  Parents do what they obligate themselves to do, & they teach their kids to do likewise.  

Autographing that last-minute form with strings attached was a brilliant stroke.  Here's hoping your 10-year-old absorbs the lesson & follows through.  Learning to be responsible isn't always easy for a kid -- but if the lesson takes, it puts the kid miles ahead ever after. 

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


----------



## ctyatty (Sep 26, 2008)

*to rent that which should be traded*

To rent that which should otherwise be available for trade works a fraud on consumers, you bet - it has everything to do with personal responsibility, the responsiblity of corporate management to operate in good faith - a legal requirement of every contract.

Until there is a disclosure something like: "We reserve to rent out for the cash in our pockets the really good weeks that are deposited and you get to try to exchange for the leftovers" these sorts of business practices should be dealt with accordingly.


----------



## timeos2 (Sep 26, 2008)

*Its the lawyers and costs I dislike*



Carolinian said:


> Wrong - RCI itself establishes that weeks have different values by the very fact of setting up the color coded seasons, as well as all of their statements about trading power.  Your argument would be a loser in court.



Ok - so there are ALWAYS blue weeks available for blue weeks, red for red, white for white. It still boils down to the customer thinking they deserve a week a "X" resort but nothing available there but there are weeks at other resorts A, B, Y & Z. Again a court isn't going to decide a case on which resort they can get. 



Carolinian said:


> Also, would you mind explaining why you always seem to be supportive of RCI, no matter what they do to their members?  Some of RCI's own employees, at least, like Bootleg and Anon, are supportive of fair treatment of members.  The Anon posts in the TimeshareTalk link above are very revealing.



Hardly the case. I have railed against RCI renting weeks for years. But I don't think frivulous and unprovable lawsuits will accomplish anything but raise our costs and pay more shyster lawyers. Since membership and use of RCI - points or weeks- is totally voluntary it is very simple to "make RCI pay" if you feel they aren't doing right by you.  Don't deposit your time. Don't be a member. Don't use the services. Problem solved. No costly lawyers required. If they didn't get me what I requested I'd drop them tomorrow. I dropped II for that very reason - not a lawyer or lawsuit in sight!  I feel good. My II money is in my pocket and they can't try to force any more crap down my throat with "quality" exchanges that don't come close. 

RCI - weeks and Points - get the resorts, dates, units I want. Thats what matters to me. I have no reason to drop them or fight them, beyond stating that I don't feel they should be in the rental business with time they get for free.  The day that changes I'm an ex-RCI member. Again, no lawyer needed.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 27, 2008)

For all of the existing members, the word rental was quietly slipped into RCI's T&C with no fanfare at all.  Even if the many existing members had read the relevent version at the time they signed, it wasn't in there at that point.  Are you contending that RCI members need to read the fineprint RCI's volumunous T&C on a daily basis to make sure they haven't slipped us a mickey like they did that time?  The word ''rental'' was not in the T&C when I joined RCI for instance, and that is likely true for a very solid majority of their current members.

RCI had actually started its rentals to the general public program before making this change, apparently relying on a questionable interpretation of some vague existing language.  Of course courts generally construe any vague language against whoever drafted it, so it would appear RCI's lawyers did not want to have to rely on that so they secretly slipped in the change without telling anybody they were adding the word ''rental''.  As I recall a Tugger happened to find the change online after looking at the same section a week or so earlier when it wasn't there yet.   Sneaky tactics like this show the total lack of morals for a company.




Mel said:


> I have to agree.  If you don't agree with RCI's term, don't join.  If you don't understand them, ask or agian don't join.
> 
> Not only do new buyers sign the TOS for RCI, but their puchase contract most likely has a statement that RCI or II membership is an extra benefit, and is that the purchase of a timeshare should not be predicated on the benifits of an exchange program.
> 
> ...


----------



## x3 skier (Sep 27, 2008)

Carolinian said:


> Sneaky tactics like this show the total lack of morals for a company.



I agree that would be underhanded, immoral, reprehensible, etc. etc. and shows a lack of proper customer consideration but that does not make it illegal. 

One is left with two choices, either continue to do business with RCI or don't. Actually, there is a third choice, one can spend endless sums on a law suit, one's own funds or taxpayers, in the vague hope of receiving a voucher of $5 or some equally trivial token while the law firms make a bundle.

I chose not to do further business with RCI and saved my money for something I enjoy better than enriching law firms or feeding some AG's ego. 

Cheers


----------



## ctyatty (Sep 27, 2008)

*you're basically right*

The civil legal remedies are weak against large corporations - we need a new wave of consumer protection criminal statutes, let's start seeing more CEO's do the perp walk into court and then to prison.  It seems that maybe having to pay back something less than what you owe isn't much a disincentive to today's lack of ethics in corporate America.

Start with these high flyers on Wall Street squandering capital for a short term bonus - lying should be a crime for these clowns.


----------



## Carolinian (Sep 27, 2008)

x3 skier said:


> I agree that would be underhanded, immoral, reprehensible, etc. etc. and shows a lack of proper customer consideration but that does not make it illegal.
> 
> One is left with two choices, either continue to do business with RCI or don't. Actually, there is a third choice, one can spend endless sums on a law suit, one's own funds or taxpayers, in the vague hope of receiving a voucher of $5 or some equally trivial token while the law firms make a bundle.
> 
> ...



The important thing in any class action lawsuit is *not* the monetary relief.  In most cases that is insignificant.  The key is the injunctive relief, the order in which the court requires that the defendant not do certain things any more.  In AG-prosecuted civil consumer protection cases, the injunctive relief is usually very real and cracks down on the wrongdoing hard.  The danger in civilian consumer protection lawsuits, like the current one, is that the defendant will almost certainly try to do a deal in the backroom to 1) pay plaintiffs attorney a wad of money to induce their operation, and 2) agree that the smallest thing that they can find that will not really stop their future wrongdoing was really the problem and craft injunctive relief to stop only that phantom problem, not the real problem, and 3) mimimize monetary relief and the PR hit.  #2 is their main objective.

You might want to read some state consumer protection laws on what is illegal.  While I do not have my NC statutes over here, I have quoted the NC Consumer Protection Statute so many times on t/s sites, the following is probably verbatim :

Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerece are unlawful

That's a pretty darn broad statute and it is typical of what most states have.  IMHO, there is a strong argument that the acts and practices here were both unfair and deceptive, although the statute only requires one of the two to make them unlawful, which means the same thing as illegal.


----------



## crazyhorse (Sep 28, 2008)

*Responsibility*



ctyatty said:


> To rent that which should otherwise be available for trade works a fraud on consumers, you bet - it has everything to do with personal responsibility, the responsiblity of corporate management to operate in good faith - a legal requirement of every contract.
> 
> Until there is a disclosure something like: "We reserve to rent out for the cash in our pockets the really good weeks that are deposited and you get to try to exchange for the leftovers" these sorts of business practices should be dealt with accordingly.



*I wholeheartedly agree with ctyatty.

The issue of responsibilty is currently a theme over here in British politics, individual, institutional and national.

There is a much more serious example in the current internaional financial crisis, which has some similar issues to the one in this forum.

Whose responsiblity is it for the current mess? 

Is it that of the many (and innocent) individuals who signed up for the sub-prime mortgages?

Is it that of the salesmen who sold the mortgages? 

Is it that of the individuals who thought up the financial packages that included these SPMs, and potrayed them as a no-loss situation for all those financial houses and banks who were suckered into them?

Is it the responsibility of those finance houses and banks, who on hindsight should have known better?

Is it the responsibilty of the overseers, the regulators?

Is it the responsibility of those governments who give those regulators their powers, and the same governments who are ultimately responsible for the own nation`s wellbeing.

I suppose there is a shared responsibility, but many other individuals would not have had any control over the situation, and have been exposed to it through no fault of their own.

What I am trying to say here is that yes, there is individual responsibility, but that does not exclude the much greater responsibility of those further up the ladder.

So, were there any criminal actions (that may have created or added to) this situation? Apparantly the FBI are investigating.


Only the courts will ultimately decide if crimes were committed.   *


----------

