# SVN Contact regarding problems depositing with II



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2009)

*(This info. is no longer current, because of the changes that II and Starwood made in August regarding deposits - currently only owners of fixed weeks are allowed to deposit the week of their choice.  I'm going to leave the info. posted, for reference purposes.) *

There seems to be an ongoing problem in which voluntary resale owners are being denied the right to select and deposit the week of their choice in II.  Tuggers have reported that they received assistance from the following SVN employees:

SVN General Counsel - *Susan Werth*

susan.werth@starwoodvo.com​
When you email her, generally one of her staff members responds:  *Carla Smith*

carla.smith@starwoodvo.com​


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2009)

Follow up questions - I've received a few emails about this info.  Some folks think posting this contact info. will put pressure on Starwood to do the right thing, others are concerned that sharing this info. on the internet might dilute its value to Tuggers, and that it should only be shared privately.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Any thoughts on this?



Concerns like this made me prompt some time ago to establish a private forum for registered members only to discuss such topics. While that won't stop SVN from reading it (all they have to do is become a member), you (ie. Denise & Team) will know who read the posts if there suddenly is a change in policy. And though that won't necessarily make things any better, it may slow down or prevent exposure of a new way of purchasing, etc from being widely spread within SVN. 

I've never understood why the sightings/distressed units forum is  only available to members yet tricks on how to purchase to your best advantage are not ~ after all, which are really more important to the buyer? General advice on purchasing should be publicly available, in my opinion, but the intricacies of a detailed and complex purchase should not. Kath's 5* report, for instance, should never have been made available to non-members (again, just my opinion). 

Basically, any info that requires someone to write you for it to be disclosed, or which you might think should be under some type of protection, would be appropriate for a members-only SVN forum.

Hope this helps.


----------



## tlpnet (Jul 25, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Follow up questions - I've received a few emails about this info. Some folks think posting this contact info. will put pressure on Starwood to do the right thing, others are concerned that sharing this info. on the internet might dilute its value to Tuggers, and that it should only be shared privately.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


 
EXACTLY what Ken said!!

-tim


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2009)

We aren't going to get a private SVN forum, so how about under the current circumstances?


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> We aren't going to get a private SVN forum, so how about under the current circumstances?



Why not? And if not a private SVN forum, how about a generic private forum for all brands (not just SVN)?


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2009)

A generic private forum really wouldn't work very well, and if Starwood gets a private forum that sets a precedence for all the forums to get one, and I just know that's not the way our Admin wants to go.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2009)

It may be possible to have a sub-forum that's locked only to members, accessible only once you are in this one. I don't know this software so I can't comment on that ~ but it's certainly technically possible.

Frankly, I think a members-only forum is the way to go, and if that means a similar result for others then that may be best for all, not just those of us that tend to frequent the SVN section.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2009)

Ken - it's possible, but it's not going to happen, so I'm asking about working with what we have now. - Thanks!


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2009)

I added a poll to this thread - it's anonymous - your ID won't be displayed when you vote.

Just to clarify my statement above.  I do not have the authority to approve or deny any changes in TUG.  I was just stating _my opinion_ that I don't think adding a 2nd private Starwood forum would be approved.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Jul 26, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I added a poll to this thread - it's anonymous - your ID won't be displayed when you vote.
> 
> Just to clarify my statement above.  I do not have the authority to approve or deny any changes in TUG.  I was just stating _my opinion_ that I don't think adding a 2nd private Starwood forum would be approved.




I know the DVC guides read the DIS boards, mine has figured out my board name. So it wouldn't surprise me if Starwood/Marriott or any other of the big names have people who look at TUG.

Perhaps we could put have a private board for all the big brand names on how to "work their systems" to our advantage?


----------



## Transit (Jul 26, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Follow up questions - I've received a few emails about this info.  Some folks think posting this contact info. will put pressure on Starwood to do the right thing, others are concerned that sharing this info. on the internet might dilute its value to Tuggers, and that it should only be shared privately.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?



JMO, but I think it should be open and hopefully the the employees that are making decision to allow owners who are not in SVN to deposit as they wish will share that with other employees .The more Starwood employees that know about it the better.Yes ,it could backfire and the opposite policy that we want could happen.Either way I'd like to know for sure what's going on instead of sneaking under the fence and following brown,green and purple brick roads.


----------



## alwysonvac (Jul 26, 2009)

*JMHO*

I'm not a Starwood owner but I voted YES.  

Denise, I think you did the right thing by posting the contact information. It wasn't posted on a normal thread but under the Starwood Owner Resources. A TUG member has to go looking for it to find it. 

In fact, when I first discovered the update in the Starwood Owners Resources after the latest SDO deposit problem thread, I though to myself way to go Denise !!  Sorry that others feel differently but if it wasn't for the public information shared in TUG most of us won't have the wonderful vacations we have today. I'm thankful for everything that is shared freely on TUG. 

As a fellow Tugger said in a different thread "The whole point for us it to give out information to those who are starved of it.... Obviously, the more people who figure this out, the more it diminishes our knowledge advantage, but hey, that's how we roll here."


----------



## gmarine (Jul 26, 2009)

This issue about depositing weeks with II isnt about working the system. This is about getting what we are entitled to. As a non-SVN member I am entitled to deposit any week I reserve. Starwood has no right to tell me that they can choose the week. 
Starwood wants to choose the week I can deposit? OK, fine, then I would like to convert my unit to Staroptions. Starwood tells me I cant do that because I'm not an SVN member. Exactly. Either I get treated as an SVN member or I dont. Not just when it works for Starwood. I didnt accept that and never will. 

I explained this in my letter to the Starwood CEO and the rep who contacted me agreed 100% that this should not be an issue. She explained that reps should know the difference and if I have a problem to please let her know.

 So one of two things are happening. Either Starwood management agrees with trying to control the depsosits of non-SVN members or Starwood vacation reps are poorly trained in the policies regarding non-SVN members. Either way having Starwood management read about unhappy owners is a good thing. A private forum isnt necessary and the more email complaints that Starwood management gets the better it is for owners.


----------



## Pit (Jul 26, 2009)

gmarine said:


> This issue about depositing weeks with II isnt about working the system. This is about getting what we are entitled to. As a non-SVN member I am entitled to deposit any week I reserve. Starwood has no right to tell me that they can choose the week.



What he said. This is about starwood walking all over owner's deeded property rights.

If starwood won't educate their staff, perhaps they'll learn what they need to know here.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Jul 26, 2009)

gmarine said:


> This issue about depositing weeks with II isnt about working the system. This is about getting what we are entitled to. As a non-SVN member I am entitled to deposit any week I reserve. Starwood has no right to tell me that they can choose the week.
> Starwood wants to choose the week I can deposit? OK, fine, then I would like to convert my unit to Staroptions. Starwood tells me I cant do that because I'm not an SVN member. Exactly. Either I get treated as an SVN member or I dont. Not just when it works for Starwood. I didnt accept that and never will.
> 
> I explained this in my letter to the Starwood CEO and the rep who contacted me agreed 100% that this should not be an issue. She explained that reps should know the difference and if I have a problem to please let her know.
> ...




I would say most non-tug non-svn owners have no clue that they can deposit the week they want. Starwood would probably prefer to keep owners in the dark. I  think they call *wood have a week deposited and then call the *wood desk at II to handle the exchange.

I ran into a Marriott owner who had no clue II was online and she could search herself.

I think Tuggers probably know more about how their TS systems work than the customer service people of said systems.

I think we do need to contact the appropriate people, but there is certain info that gets posted(Kath's stuff for prime example, that I do think needs to be only for members who have paid for TUG).


----------



## jw0 (Jul 27, 2009)

*do non-SVN owners even have II accounts?*

Hi, I had a question.

I've been following this thread with some interest, as a new resale SBP owner, who would like to maintain the right to deposit the week I reserve into II.

As an owner also at HRA, I know that paying SVN dues ($99/yr?) also gives me access to use a "corporate" II account.

What about my dues at SBP?  Am I paying for an II account with my SBP dues?  

If so, then perhaps Starwood is right to "reserve the right" to restrict the week deposited into II.  After all, they're paying for the II account.

But if NOT (i.e. by excluding me from SVN, they also don't give me II) then how can their policy of "depositing the week they want" be justified?  If I am paying for II separately, shouldn't I be given the rights that all other II members have (i.e. depositing the week I reserve)?

-John.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Jul 27, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> Hi, I had a question.
> 
> I've been following this thread with some interest, as a new resale SBP owner, who would like to maintain the right to deposit the week I reserve into II.
> 
> ...



John, I own at Lakeside Terrace(Avon,CO) which is a non-SVN resort if bought resale like SBP. No my mf's don't include an II account, I pay for that myself.

Last 2 yrs, I have had no problem with booking my week and depositing(done in March, as I own a ski season).


----------



## LisaRex (Jul 27, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> As an owner also at HRA, I know that paying SVN dues ($99/yr?) also gives me access to use a "corporate" II account.
> 
> What about my dues at SBP?  Am I paying for an II account with my SBP dues?
> 
> If so, then perhaps Starwood is right to "reserve the right" to restrict the week deposited into II.  After all, they're paying for the II account.



If you own a resale voluntary week, you'll have to open up an II account on your own and pay the fees yourself.  SVN doesn't pay it.  

Your SBP "dues" aka MFs are to maintain the property.  SVN "dues" are to join an exchange network.  The latter are billed with the MFs for all mandatory and developer voluntary owners, but they have nothing to do with one another.


----------



## Maui_ed (Jul 27, 2009)

Transit said:


> JMO, but I think it should be open and hopefully the the employees that are making decision to allow owners who are not in SVN to deposit as they wish will share that with other employees .The more Starwood employees that know about it the better.Yes ,it could backfire and the opposite policy that we want could happen.Either way I'd like to know for sure what's going on instead of sneaking under the fence and following brown,green and purple brick roads.


There are several well thought out and well stated opinions in this thread.  I think Transit's point about knowing for sure what is going on is the most to the point.  A private forum and e-mails going back and forth would all be irrelevant if Starwood and all of its employees were up to speed on the rules.  I know Starwood is a large organization, but it doesn't seem like too much to ask to have rules on II posted in such a way that all can easily understand.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm not sure why the names aren't posted?  Is it a tug policy?  

Anyways... I don't own a non-SVN property but if I did they'd be hearing a lot from me if I couldn't deposit the week I reserved.  Sound frustrating for those owners and hopefully, *wood will figure it out.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jul 27, 2009)

names - yes
private forum - no (don't need another place to search and it would dilute this forum - sorry - IMO)

I bought with the intention of never using II, but SVO/SVN/II needs to work this out - and pressure from emails from Owners is important - and getting to correct people w/o wasting time.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 27, 2009)

ciscogizmo1 said:


> I'm not sure why the names aren't posted?  Is it a tug policy?



See post #2.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 27, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> What about my dues at SBP?  Am I paying for an II account with my SBP dues?



With your developer week, you should be paying 2 fees:
1)  Maintenance fee - to maintain the property
2)  SVN fee - to pay for your SVN and II membership

With you SBP week, you should only be paying 1 fee:  Maintenance fee

So with SBP you aren't in the SVN, and you don't have a Starwood II Acct.  

Starwood has already acknowledged that they don't have the legal right to control the deposits of non-SVN members, but they try to do it, on a regular basis.  That's what we are discussing here.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 27, 2009)

Unfortunately, this is just one example of where II/SVN drop the ball. I agree with everyone that it's just outright silly for us not to expect them to know their own rules. My earlier point about a restricted forum was to prevent the change of those rules to our disadvantage. 

People on this forum seem to get annoyed when SVN learns of the latest trick and complain about it... yet are also against keeping similar info private in future. I don't understand this point of view. You've already been burned by SVN and their changing policies, so I don't see why we should help them identify where their next change should be. 

In my opinion, we either need a private forum or have this type of info available via request to those whom we *know* are not part of the SVN machine.


----------



## LisaRex (Jul 27, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> Unfortunately, this is just one example of where II/SVN drop the ball. I agree with everyone that it's just outright silly for us not to expect them to know their own rules. My earlier point about a restricted forum was to prevent the change of those rules to our disadvantage.
> 
> People on this forum seem to get annoyed when SVN learns of the latest trick and complain about it... yet are also against keeping similar info private in future. I don't understand this point of view. You've already been burned by SVN and their changing policies, so I don't see why we should help them identify where their next change should be.



This makes sense if you're talking about things like Kath's Guide to Requalifying, which gives a tutorial for getting to 5 Star by paying minimal dollars.  in this case, it was kind of silly to publish it because the end result was an increase in $$ required, not to mention it ended up burning the author!

But this is different.  SVN simply cannot legally enforce rules upon people whom they have no contract with.  My daughter attends a private school.  After getting flak from homeowners, her school has a rule in place that prohibits students from parking in the subdivision next to the school.   It is legal and enforceable for them to impose such rules.  On the other hand, the school cannot tell non-students that they can't park on a public street.  There is no contractual relationship between non-students and the school, and legally they have no standing to impose rules against them.  End of discussion.

Starwood knows this, yet continues to try and enforce SVN rules upon non-
SVN owners.


----------



## nodge (Jul 27, 2009)

I’m all about the marketplace of ideas generated by the free sharing and flow of information.  

That said, we are talking about posting the names and contact information for people who may not want their information made public, or worse yet, will be punished by their employer once they are identified as being “owner friendly.”  If the SVO culture is to screw us owners, by identifying “owner friendlies” here on TUG, won’t we essentially be punishing those few SVO employees that are brave enough to fight, or at least work around, the system enough to actually help us?  

I think we should post their contact info, but only if we first get their approval to post it.

Otherwise, those of us in the know should share that contact info sparingly in response to those posting a specific need for help – like what happened here (see thread numbers 36 to 48).

-nodge


----------



## James1975NY (Jul 28, 2009)

Akthought I understand the thought process, I do not believe that a private forum will be beneficial in the long run and I am not a proponent of posting manager's contact information publicly.

Why not funnel all concerns through MyStarCentral. Submitting concerns in writing is always the best IMO. If they are not responded to adequately, then forward to Susan Werth's team or Carla Smith.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 28, 2009)

I appreciate all the thoughtful debate.  

Let me stir the pot a little more!  

To those who think we should only share contact info. privately:  

Isn't that what we've been doing for the last 2 years?  

Has it improved the situation with depositing resale/voluntary weeks?  

I don't think so!  

Don't we have to do something different, if we want a different outcome?​
I completely agree that this _could_ backfire on us, but what we are doing right now isn't working either:  Starwood still continues to deny non-SVN owners their right to deposit the week of their choice.  

Don't you think that if they really cared about this, Starwood could have done some re-training a long time ago?  Obviously, they _prefer_ to have control over all deposits, so it's more convenient for them to let this slip through the cracks.  I think it will continue to happen until enough owners put pressure on them to follow their own rules.

YMMV


----------



## Politico (Jul 28, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I appreciate all the thoughtful debate.
> 
> Let me stir the pot a little more!
> 
> ...




These are all good points, and I tend to agree with you on this one.    However, there is some information that will immediately cause Starwood to revise its rules, once they know Tuggers are exploiting them (see e.g., SDKath's 5* star guide).  But, on this issue, Starwood CANNOT rewrite the rules, so it is in our interest to get them to recognize how we should be treated.


----------



## Pit (Jul 28, 2009)

I don't see a downside to this. Speaking only to this issue, we're not talking about Starwood following Starwood rules. This is about Starwood following state laws governing property rights. Those rights are conferred in the CCR declarations, filed and approved by their respective state agencies. They are not free to take away the use rights of property owners.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 28, 2009)

Politico said:


> These are all good points, and I tend to agree with you on this one.    However, there is some information that will immediately cause Starwood to revise its rules, once they know Tuggers are exploiting them (see e.g., SDKath's 5* star guide).  But, on this issue, Starwood CANNOT rewrite the rules, so it is in our interest to get them to recognize how we should be treated.



In this poll we are voting on posting the contact info. for SVN Mgrs. for people who are being denied their rights to deposit their non-SVN week.

Just so you know - Kath wrote that article for the purpose of posting it on TUG.  It's not something that was done accidentally, or without her permission.  Yeah, it backfired, but that's a bit of a different situation.


----------



## SDKath (Jul 28, 2009)

This is going to backfire too, I am afraid.  These nice and helpful Starwood people will be innundated with emails.  They will change their emails to "filter out" the crud so they can keep corporate communication open.  The above email box is going to be read by some "secretary" or other powerless person who will either not respond at all or just push the paper on to another department.  Trust me on this.    

Our contact for these rare but helpful folks will be lost completely because of the access we give to anyone who googles TUG and sees their info right there...

I would take it down before it's too late.

Katherine


----------



## gmarine (Jul 28, 2009)

Remember the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Well when enough wheels squeak, you get lots of grease. The more emails from unhappy Starwood owners, the better. Starwood management needs to get inundated with complaints for anything to change. 

And for more of an effect, take the time and send a letter by regular mail to the CEO of Starwood, Sergio Rivera. You will probably get a call from Carla Smith who is very helpfull.

Not complaining or being afraid too many people will complain doesnt make sense. Sit back and let Starwood take advantage of owners? Not me, and I dont just want Starwood to let me deposit any week I want, which they do, I want that for every non-SVN member. It is their right and Starwood doesnt get to change that.


----------



## jarta (Jul 28, 2009)

I voted "No" early in the poll and was content to watch - only - until now.

I think the discussion has taken a decidedly ugly and mean tone.

The problem is not just Starwood.  In fact, it may not be Starwood at all.  The Starwood people who are being targeted for harassment are the problem-solvers, not the problem creators.  The problem may be incompetence at II - complicated by non-SVN newbies not knowing how to deposit a week they have already reserved in II.

If you are not an SVN member, just make the reservation and call II *directly*.  Do not call Starwood.  Calling Starwood is for SVN members.  They will assume you are an SVN owner if you call there.  More confusion will be the result of the call.

If II says you can't deposit the week or has mis-tagged or mis-programmed your II account, II doesn't know its own arrangements for depositing.  Starwood doesn't run II; II runs II.  Ask to speak to an II supervisor and explain to him/her and, if necessary, go up the II line.

I have been watching this II circus for months.  From the ultimate result (success in depositing the reserved non-SVN week) that has been obtained for everyone who has posted here I just don't see how Starwood is the creator of the problems.  

My two cents.  Back to lurking.      ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 28, 2009)

Jarta - You apparently have not followed this as closely as you think, because what you are suggesting to solve this problem has already been tried a  multitude of times and does not work.  

When you talk to II about it, they tell you outright - call Starwood, it's their rule, not ours.  No one at II will touch this because they say it's a Starwood rule!

If what you are suggesting worked, we would not be having this conversation!

It's not just owners who don't know the ropes, either. - People who do everything "right" still are unable to deposit their non-SVN week themselves.  In fact your suggestion of "calling II directly," is a good way to have your deposit blocked.  That's not best practice at all - best practice is depositing it online!

No one wants to harrass Starwood and that hasn't been even hinted at.  All we want is for people to have access to help, so that they can deposit their week.

And no, not all owners have gotten their depositing problems solved.  Many end up stuck with the off-season deposit that Starwood insists on giving them. - And why should this be a battle?  Why hasn't Starwood resolved this by now, it's not like they don't know about the problem!

Do you have any experience with depositing a non-SVN week with II?


----------



## gmarine (Jul 28, 2009)

jarta said:


> I voted "No" early in the poll and was content to watch - only - until now.
> 
> I think the discussion has taken a decidedly ugly and mean tone.
> 
> ...



You definitely havent been following this discussion.


----------



## Fcast (Jul 28, 2009)

Is this a new problem?  I was successful in making a direct deposit for my Christmas week at SDO into II.  I later booked a week at Lagunamar.  It all went smoothly.


----------



## alwysonvac (Jul 28, 2009)

Fcast said:


> Is this a new problem?



_"So I've followed all the step-by-step instructions in setting up my II account and making reservations with SVO for prime weeks. I noticed that my II account only reflected a two-bed unit without lock-off capability so I called up II and they corrected this. However, the agent I talked to insisted that to deposit my weeks, I had to call Sheraton to do this. I ignored his advice and went online with II to deposit and, sure enough, it rejects my requests to deposit my weeks.* I get to the point where I enter the reservation dates, but I get an error message saying "Invalid Check-in Date". Throughout the process there is a message to contact the resort to deposit my week*."_

See this recent thread for the rest of the discussion - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102810


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 28, 2009)

Fcast said:


> Is this a new problem?  I was successful in making a direct deposit for my Christmas week at SDO into II.  I later booked a week at Lagunamar.  It all went smoothly.



It's not new - the problem is that some owners can deposit their non-SVN week with no problem, and others get  blocked by Starwood.  Then they have to go through a huge, tiresome hassle.


----------



## SDKath (Jul 28, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Remember the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Well when enough wheels squeak, you get lots of grease. The more emails from unhappy Starwood owners, the better. Starwood management needs to get inundated with complaints for anything to change.
> 
> And for more of an effect, take the time and send a letter by regular mail to the CEO of Starwood, Sergio Rivera. You will probably get a call from Carla Smith who is very helpfull.
> 
> Not complaining or being afraid too many people will complain doesnt make sense. Sit back and let Starwood take advantage of owners? Not me, and I dont just want Starwood to let me deposit any week I want, which they do, I want that for every non-SVN member. It is their right and Starwood doesnt get to change that.



Gmarine, I think it makes sense if you realize that when too many people complain, they stop listening.  That's what happens most of the time when people are innundated with emails from unhappy customers.  I agree with you that they should hear what we are saying (and this age old problem should have been solved already) but posting people's business emails on a public board for all to see (and use and abuse) is not the solution, IMHO.

These nice folks were our "last resort" when nothing else helped and we needed someone to correct a serious problem at Starwood.  I only called them twice for 2 significant purchase issues and the problems were handled very quickly and in a very friendly way.  I contacted them AFTER I tried calling sales people, their supervisors, SVN, etc.  Literallly they were the last resort...  Now they are going to be first on everyone's list.  They are not going to be there to help us when they have an 100 fold increase in their email volume...  K


----------



## gmarine (Jul 28, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Gmarine, I think it makes sense if you realize that when too many people complain, they stop listening.  That's what happens most of the time when people are innundated with emails from unhappy customers.  I agree with you that they should hear what we are saying (and this age old problem should have been solved already) but posting people's business emails on a public board for all to see (and use and abuse) is not the solution, IMHO.
> 
> These nice folks were our "last resort" when nothing else helped and we needed someone to correct a serious problem at Starwood.  I only called them twice for 2 significant purchase issues and the problems were handled very quickly and in a very friendly way.  I contacted them AFTER I tried calling sales people, their supervisors, SVN, etc.  Literallly they were the last resort...  Now they are going to be first on everyone's list.  They are not going to be there to help us when they have an 100 fold increase in their email volume...  K



I think our difference in opionion is this, and dont take it the wrong way. You seem worried about losing your personal avenue for resolving Starwood issues. I already have that avenue but I am interested in getting the same treatment for every non-SVN owner. No Starwood owner should have to jump through hoops to get what they are entitled to. 

If managment gets too many complaint then they tend to do something about the issue that is causing the complaints. This is standard operating procedure for most, if not all, corporations. Your suggesting that the more complaints a company gets the less they do about it. That isnt the norm.   Right now its obvious Starwood isnt getting enough complaints which is probably why this issue keeps coming up. 

As CEO, if Mr Rivera was constantly advised of complaints by Starwood owners regarding their ownership rights in which the owners are completely in the right, I guarrantee you this issue would be fixed within days. 

On another note, get a couple hundred owners together to sign a letter to him and I would venture to guess that this issue would again be put to bed.


----------



## tlpnet (Jul 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> If managment gets too many complaint then they tend to do something about the issue that is causing the complaints. This is standard operating procedure for most, if not all, corporations. Your suggesting that the more complaints a company gets the less they do about it. That isnt the norm. Right now its obvious Starwood isnt getting enough complaints which is probably why this issue keeps coming up.
> 
> As CEO, if Mr Rivera was constantly advised of complaints by Starwood owners regarding their ownership rights in which the owners are completely in the right, I guarrantee you this issue would be fixed within days.
> 
> On another note, get a couple hundred owners together to sign a letter to him and I would venture to guess that this issue would again be put to bed.


 
Gmarine,

I am a big fan of Starwood timeshares and don't let the negatives get in the way of me enjoying my many weeks with them. There are wonderful people that I have gotten to know there who have helped me along the way and whom I can call if I have problems/needs associated with my ownership.

I completely agree with your viewpoint that the "norm" when a company's management gets many complaints is that they do something about it. Our opinions differ when you say that it's obvious that if SW got more complaints or if we banded together and notified Sergio Rivera that it would make a difference. MANY people here have made MANY complaints to SW including emails and letters to Mr. Rivera. Experience dictates that the more complaints SW gets, the deeper they bury their heads in the sand. Unfortunately, none of the major issues have been fixed as you guarantee they would be.

Frankly Starwood hasn't even made minimal efforts to let the owners know that they care and are trying to be more "owner friendly". One of the simplest things they could do (with minimal cost) is to have someone monitor AND POST to TUG like Starwood Lurkers over at Flyertalk. They could also educate the owner services reps to let them know that non-SVN owners can deposit any week that they reserve. Admittedly, sometimes I'm naive and optomistic, but I don't believe for one second that Starwood is intentionally NOT educating these reps to know this. 95% of people that are told they can't do something will not question it. This works to SW's advantage, and this is exactly what I believe is happening.

It's hard to say, but Katherine may be right. If we complain too much to these people whose information is posted on the board, these people may be targeted from within or moved to other positions within the company that have no contact with owners. Unless someone personally gives me permission to post their name to a public forum, I won't do it, but that's just my personal policy.

I don't have the answers, but I do want to make sure that you do realize what other people have gone through to enjoy their ownership, and that they are speaking from their own experiences.

-tim


----------



## LisaRex (Jul 29, 2009)

Writing letters to Starwood management about this problem is akin to writing a note to an ebay seller whose ad proclaims that his WMH property comes with 81k StarOptions.  The first time you notify him of his error, you give him the benefit of the doubt that he just didn't know the facts.  The second time you wonder if he's incompetent. The third time you realize he's being deliberately misleading because he alone stands to benefit from it. 

The good thing about letters is that I know they are admissable in court.  So I would encourage any and all non-SVN owners who are given flak about depositing the week they own into II to write a letter detailing their complaint and demand corrective action.  I think they should address it to the President of Starwood (as the buck stops with him) via USPS with Delivery AND Signature confirmations. I think we should then start a thread here which documents the times and dates that these notifications were sent, so that we have clear proof that Starwood was notified of the issue multiple times.  Proving that Starwood is aware of the problem is one hurdle. Showing that they've taken no action to correct it is another.  _The goal here is to have legal proof that Starwood is deliberately, systematically denying voluntary resale owners their rights_.  

It's really disappointing that it has to come to this.


----------



## jw0 (Jul 29, 2009)

*going to wait on joining II for now.*

Thank you everyone for your patient explanations to my earlier questions.

As a recent resale owner of SBP, I've decided to wait on joining II until this issue gets resolved.  Why should I join II to trade SBP if Starwood is just going to deposit lesser weeks on my behalf?  It's unfortunate to lose the trading option, but I'll wait before spending $80/year on a feature that may be worth so much less than I thought it would be.

Hope this issue gets resolved to the benefit of non-SVN owners everywhere.

-John.


----------



## K2Quick (Jul 29, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> Thank you everyone for your patient explanations to my earlier questions.
> 
> As a recent resale owner of SBP, I've decided to wait on joining II until this issue gets resolved.  Why should I join II to trade SBP if Starwood is just going to deposit lesser weeks on my behalf?  It's unfortunate to lose the trading option, but I'll wait before spending $80/year on a feature that may be worth so much less than I thought it would be.
> 
> ...



Just one thing to point out, if you use the code mentioned in this link, you get two years for $84:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=672349&postcount=2


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 29, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> It's unfortunate to lose the trading option, but I'll wait before spending $80/year on a feature that may be worth so much less than I thought it would be.



Will you trade with another exchange company instead? If not, what will you do with your week? 

I suspect the impact of your decision would be much more meaningful if you were to write a letter to Starwood and II detailing the reason for your decision. Similar to the rationale for writing letters with the experience of the actual deposit experience your decision directly impacts II's business model, and may in fact have more impact than a current member writing about their experience. I know other members would appreciate you doing this so that II understands that their revenue is being impacted by this situation and that it's to their own advantage to educate and solve the issue.

On the other hand, while the exact week makes a difference in trade value, it is still worthwhile to state that *any* Starwood week in II is very valuable. Even my summer WMH weeks trade extremely well. So while I sympathize and agree with everything said here about the rights of owners to demand that their reserved non-SVN week be deposited in II without any influence by SVN to change that week, you should understand that you will no doubt be able to still exchange it for a good week elsewhere. And FWIW, some of us who have SVN weeks actually benefit from their ability to deposit whichever week they want (the last time I deposited my summer WMH week I rec'd a March WMH week, which is a much better trader). Regardless, the fact that you've decided not to join II can only have an impact on II if they know of their failure, so I encourage you to write them and inform them.


----------



## James1975NY (Jul 29, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Remember the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Well when enough wheels squeak, you get lots of grease. The more emails from unhappy Starwood owners, the better. Starwood management needs to get inundated with complaints for anything to change.
> 
> And for more of an effect, take the time and send a letter by regular mail to the CEO of Starwood, Sergio Rivera. You will probably get a call from Carla Smith who is very helpfull.
> 
> Not complaining or being afraid too many people will complain doesnt make sense. Sit back and let Starwood take advantage of owners? Not me, and I dont just want Starwood to let me deposit any week I want, which they do, I want that for every non-SVN member. It is their right and Starwood doesnt get to change that.



Obviously there is a lot of energy here on this topic and strong feelings with how the owner base feels cheated out of the ability to deposit weeks that have been fairly reserved within their products capability.

With that, I can confidently say that the challenge Starwood has with depositing weeks that are reserved in peak seasons for deposit reduces the ability for the rest of the owner base to secure reservations for their personal use. Starwood wants to maximize the opportunity to fulfill reservations for those that want to use their home resort. With that said, I am not saying I agree with denying the "spacebank - RCI" or "direct deposit - II" methods as I have always felt it to be within the owner's right to use their ownership as they see fit. Of course, they have leverage with SVN members because of the verbiage in the SVN rules.

Why not draft a letter with signatures for Starwood to review and respond to.


----------



## LisaRex (Jul 29, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> With that, I can confidently say that the challenge Starwood has with depositing weeks that are reserved in peak seasons for deposit reduces the ability for the rest of the owner base to secure reservations for their personal use.



That's true, but it's no different than an owner booking high demand weeks in order to turn around and rent them out.  Sucks for those of us who actually want to use our villa, esp if the renter ends up with a better view, but there it is.  

I also question what Starwood does when, say, a platinum SVN owner calls and asks for his week to be deposited in II.  As we all know, SVN is free to deposit any week at any resort.  For the sake of argument let's say SVN deposits a fall week at SDO, which is not as good a week but is still a strong trader and makes the owner happy. 

The key question is "_What happens to that unused platinum week_?" I think we've all assumed that the unused week goes into a pool for other SVN owners to reserve once the 8 month window opens.  But that's a big assumption on our part.  Acc. to my Owner's Agreement, Starwood gets control of all unbooked inventory.  What if, instead of placing the unused platinum week into the SVN pool, they instead keep it themselves, declaring it an "unbooked" week, so that they can rent it out for top dollar? After all, they can get way more for a Spring week than a fall week.


----------



## LisaRex (Jul 29, 2009)

Another thing to bolster my theory: WSJ is nearly impossible to trade into, yet anyone who's gone there has observed many empty villas.  Could this be because if an Owner doesn't book his week by the deadline, it is classified as "unbooked" and thus never makes it into SVN, but is instead kept by Starwood in hopes of renting it out for top $$.


----------



## James1975NY (Jul 29, 2009)

LisaRex said:


> Another thing to bolster my theory: WSJ is nearly impossible to trade into, yet anyone who's gone there has observed many empty villas.  Could this be because if an Owner doesn't book his week by the deadline, it is classified as "unbooked" and thus never makes it into SVN, but is instead kept by Starwood in hopes of renting it out for top $$.



SVN does not have control over the inventory until 60-days prior to any given day. High demand weeks are not likely to fall in this category and if they do it is typically due to cancellations....if there are cancellations, they will supply to any waitlists that are outstanding. This is how it was managed when I was there.

Starwood and other developers are up against very stringent compliance guidelines and I feel comfortable saying that they (Starwood) stay within them. There was also an annual in place to show that if and when an owner was denied availability, there was in fact, no availability to support their request.


----------



## Politico (Jul 29, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Why not draft a letter with signatures for Starwood to review and respond to.



Although I'm not signing up to draft it, I think this is a great idea. If someone would be willing to draft a well written complaint letter on behalf of TUG directed to the CEO and General Counsel of SVO/SVN, it would be interesting to read SVO's official response.  They know the rules. They know TUG. They basically would need to concede our point, at which point, we can post their response publicly here on TUG and send it to any Starwood employee who argues otherwise.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 29, 2009)

I have already written, as have others.  At least in my case, Starwood choose not to respond in writing.  I sent an email, but in response, I got a call at my home phone number when I was at work.  

I intentionally didn't include my home phone number in my email, because I was hoping for an written response - but they apparently got my number from my ownership info. and responded that way.  When I tried to call back, I was always rolled over to voice mail, so after a few tries, I gave up.

That leads me to assume that maybe they don't want to document their response in writing.


----------



## Politico (Jul 29, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I have already written, as have others.  At least in my case, Starwood choose not to respond in writing.  I sent an email, but in response, I got a call at my home phone number when I was at work.
> 
> I intentionally didn't include my home phone number in my email, because I was hoping for an written response - but they apparently got my number from my ownership info. and responded that way.  When I tried to call back, I was always rolled over to voice mail, so after a few tries, I gave up.
> 
> That leads me to assume that maybe they don't want to document their response in writing.



They can't really respond to to TUG via phone if we do not provide a response phone number. We could specifically request a response in writing.  It would be telling if they chose not to respond.   

My sense is that this discussion has revealed that simply posting the general counsel's contact information is not an optimal solution.  I think a letter from TUG could be.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 29, 2009)

Individual owners who have contacted the Starwood managers above, have gotten help with depositing their non-SVN weeks.  

My reason for posting the contact info. is to provide help to individuals who  have been denied the right to deposit the non-SVN week of their choice.  

I don't have any idea if they are the best contacts at Starwood as far as overall resolution of the problem, but that wasn't my purpose in posting the info.

If enough people refused to accept an inferior deposit from Starwood and contact these folks for help, it may bring enough attention to the problem to make a real change.  If not, at least it will help individual owners.


----------



## James1975NY (Jul 30, 2009)

Politico said:


> They can't really respond to to TUG via phone if we do not provide a response phone number. We could specifically request a response in writing.  It would be telling if they chose not to respond.
> 
> My sense is that this discussion has revealed that simply posting the general counsel's contact information is not an optimal solution.  I think a letter from TUG could be.



Not sure a letter from "TUG" would be effective....is "TUG" and owner? Why would they respond to "TUG"?


----------



## Nicole D. (Jul 30, 2009)

I probably am the last person to comment because I read the boards a few times a month, but this discussion caught my attention because I've tried to deposit a SBP week 52 into II. The Starwood rep informed me that week 52 is not a fixed week and that he could deposit any week in that season into II on my behalf. At the time, it didn't make sense, but I had no points to argue. 

However, I would think if it really is an issue of legality, you could send a letter to some regulatory agency that fights for the little guy. Whether that's the BBB or the State of Florida Department of Corporations or a State of Florida Department of Real Estate. It would definitely take some maneuvering of the system. 

But from Starwood's point-of-view, why wouldn't they want owners to be able to deposit their week? Is it because it weakens SVN? Is it a way to punish those who buy resale?


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 30, 2009)

Nicole D. said:


> But from Starwood's point-of-view, why wouldn't they want owners to be able to deposit their week? Is it because it weakens SVN? Is it a way to punish those who buy resale?



Because Starwood wants to keep control of the most in-demand weeks and not let them go to II.  Starwood only deposits excess off-season inventory in II.


----------



## jarta (Jul 30, 2009)

Denise,   ...   Perhaps people can be directed to this TUG Starwood sticky information in the Preface:

http://tug2.net/advice/starwoodexchangeprimer.htm

Or, if the information there is confusing because it talks about Starwood making the deposit for a non-SVN member rather than the non-SVN member making the deposit of a reserved week directly with II into their own independent (from Starwood) II account, let's get the information in the sticky updated.

The information is not new.  It was last updated in 2007.      ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 30, 2009)

jarta said:


> Denise,   ...   Perhaps people can be directed to this TUG Starwood sticky information in the Preface:
> 
> http://tug2.net/advice/starwoodexchangeprimer.htm
> 
> ...



That article is actually on the general TUG Advice board, and it's outside my jurisdiction.  Revising it would be up to the author and the manager of the Advice page.

I prefer to post things right here on our forum, and link them in Owner Resources at the top of the page, where we can keep it current.  We have the current info. here-

Interval International - How to open an Acct. and deposit your week.

However, it doesn't always work.  Some people still have a block on their Acct. that does not allow them to deposit their non-SVN week, themselves.


----------



## jarta (Jul 31, 2009)

DeniseM,   ...   "http://tug2.net/advice/starwoodexchangeprimer.htm

However, it doesn't always work. Some people still have a block on their Acct. that does not allow them to deposit their non-SVN week, themselves."

And whose fault is it when the block is not removed and II's system doesn't always work?  II or Starwood?  It's II's system.  But, everyone here lets II blame Starwood when it doesn't work.  If Starwood was at fault, it would *never* work.  IMO, the Starwood SVN people intervene to help non-SVN members get II to make its system work the way it should.  

But, no good deed goes unpunished (or uncriticized).

BTW, to me it is just part of "the deal" I bought into that in return for allowing SVN members to rather freely trade their week through the SVN staroptions reservation system for Starwood to ask for the right to deposit the week it chooses to II.  And, for me, it works well.  Back to lurking.     ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 31, 2009)

jarta said:


> BTW, to me it is just part of "the deal" I bought into *that in return for allowing SVN members to rather freely trade their week through the SVN staroptions reservation system for Starwood to ask for the right to deposit the week it chooses to II.*  And, for me, it works well.  Back to lurking.     ...   eom



What does that have to do with what we are talking about?  We aren't discussing depositing weeks that are in the SVN and have Staroptions.

We are talking about *non-SVN weeks with no Staroptions*, and no right to exchange with Starwood. - What is Starwood giving to non-SVN owners when they take away our right to deposit the week of our choice?

You can defend Starwood all you want, but the bottom line is that you have no experience with depositing a non-SVN week - so you've never had to deal with any of this...


----------



## Politico (Jul 31, 2009)

Posting the contact information is, at best, an interim solution (and I'm not complaining about that -- a big thank you to whoever got the information). But, I suspect we will be revisiting this issue sooner rather than later once the contact person is overwhelmed with our requests. 

If anyone is able to get a formal response from SVN in writing on this issue please post here....


----------



## pacman (Aug 2, 2009)

Being someone who is just considering buying into SDO, in order to trade through II, this whole issue is a HUGE concern for me - a deal breaker. I'm now going to have to wait to see how it all plays out before I purchase. This would also cause the resale value of any non-SVN resort to fall dramatically IMHO.

pacman


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 2, 2009)

The resale value of non-SVN Starwood resorts is already very low, and this isn't a new problem - it's always existed, so I don't expect it to have any effect on prices.  I think things will improve, but I wouldn't expect to see an announcement from Starwood or anything like that - that's not their MO.


----------



## pacman (Aug 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> The resale value of non-SVN Starwood resorts is already very low, and this isn't a new problem - it's always existed, so I don't expect it to have any effect on prices.  I think things will improve, but I wouldn't expect to see an announcement from Starwood or anything like that - that's not their MO.




Sorry Denise, I'm a little confused. In other areas on this forum it states that as a non-SVN owner, you should book your week through Starwood, then go to II and deposit that week to start the trade process (not through *wood).  This thread started by saying that II was now not allowing this - telling the owner they had to request the deposit through *wood. I thought this was just a recent issue. Are you saying some owners can still deposit directly through II, and some can't? I don't get it.

pacman


----------



## SDKath (Aug 2, 2009)

pacman said:


> Being someone who is just considering buying into SDO, in order to trade through II, this whole issue is a HUGE concern for me - a deal breaker. I'm now going to have to wait to see how it all plays out before I purchase. This would also cause the resale value of any non-SVN resort to fall dramatically IMHO.
> 
> pacman



You'll be waiting a very long time.  This has been an off and on issue for years.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Resale prices are almost $0 now anyway (unfortunately) for most of these type of TSs so I doubt it could get lower.

That said, I have traded 4-5 weeks to WKORV 2br already with my el cheapo SDOs using II.  I would just go ahead and buy a cheap week and try it.  You have very little to lose and lots to gain.  Just make sure it's at least a 1BR and is deeded a "good week" ie Spring or week 51, 52.  Even the 1-52 float week you buy should be deeded to a good season so that if and when you need to fight with Starwood about depositing what you own, you can actually make a good case for depositing the very week you are deeded.

Katherine


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 2, 2009)

pacman said:


> Are you saying some owners can still deposit directly through II, and some can't? I don't get it.
> 
> pacman



Correct - the rule hasn't changed, but it's applied inconsistently.  This is not a new situation, but it's one that we'd like to eliminate.  

That is the whole point of this survey and thread:  some non-SVN owners are being denied the right to reserve and deposit the week of their choice, in II.


----------



## alwysonvac (Aug 2, 2009)

I think that some SDO owners bought directly from Starwood - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70006. If so, then how would II know which SDO owners have the right to deposit on their own (non-SVN week due to a Starwood resale from a voluntary resort) vs which SDO owners must have Starwood deposit for them (SVN week)? 

Could this be why the rule is being applied inconsistently with some folks being denied the right to deposit the week of their choice, in II?  

Once an SDO owner finds a Starwood rep that understands the rules for non-SVN weeks, can a SDO owners simply have their II account corrected to allow them to deposit online via a three way with Starwood & II similar to this other II account issue http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96298&highlight=broadway


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 2, 2009)

alwysonvac said:


> I think that some SDO owners bought directly from Starwood - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70006. If so, then how would II know which SDO owners have the right to deposit on their own (non-SVN week due to a Starwood resale from a voluntary resort) vs which SDO owners must have Starwood deposit for them (SVN week)?



*We aren't just talking about SDO* - this can and does happen to any non-SVN owner.  Starwood resorts that have been deposited with II are supposed to be coded as SVN or non-SVN, so this doesn't happen.  But, it gets messed up all the time and that's what we are discussing. 



> Once an SDO owner finds a Starwood rep that understands the rules for non-SVN weeks, can a SDO owners simply have their II account corrected to allow them to deposit online via a three way with Starwood & II similar to this other II account issue http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96298&highlight=broadway



No - Jarta asked the same question earlier in this thread.  If you pursue this up the line with II they emphatically state that it is *Starwood's rule, not II's,  and the only way to correct it is through Starwood. * 

That is why I posted the Starwood managers' contact info.  If a non-SVN owner has a problem it is *not possible* to correct it with II - you have to get someone higher up in the food chain at Starwood, to tell II to let you deposit your non-SVN week.  Even the Starwood Reps. at II, who should know the rules, will not touch this.


----------



## alwysonvac (Aug 2, 2009)

Sorry I used the wrong terminology. I shouldn't have said SDO and rep.

I understand that this issue impacts other non-SVN owners too (SDO, SBP, etc) and I also understand why you posted the manager (not rep) contact.

I guess what I was trying to say is when you get to the final contact (rep, manager or whoever) that can help resolve your deposit issue, won't it make sense to correct the II account since II has the ability to provide access for owners to deposit online instead of going through hoops every year.

Sorry for the confusion. Only trying to help


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 2, 2009)

alwysonvac said:


> I guess what I was trying to say is when you get to the final contact (rep, manager or whoever) that can help resolve your deposit issue, won't it make sense to correct the II account since II has the ability to provide access for owners to deposit online instead of going through hoops every year.



It makes perfect sense! - and that leads to the next question - Why hasn't this been taken care of by now?

Starwood knows there is a problem - so why haven't they taken care of it?

That's what is so frustrating about the whole situation!  Owners who have talked directly to these Starwood managers have told us that the Mgrs. acknowledge the problem, but are very vague about why it continues...



> Sorry for the confusion. Only trying to help



You are helping - thanks for asking a good question!  



> If so, then how would II know which SDO owners have the right to deposit on their own (non-SVN week due to a Starwood resale from a voluntary resort) vs which SDO owners must have Starwood deposit for them (SVN week)?



One more point about how II & Starwood can tell the difference between SVN weeks and non-SVN weeks:  

All SVN owners automatically receive a *Starwood II Acct.* and their SVN weeks are automatically registered with these Accts., because it is one of the benefits of SVN membership.  

The owners of non-SVN weeks have to open and pay for a *separate II Acct.* for their non-SVN weeks, and register their non-SVN week with II.

So it is very clear to everyone:  II, Starwood, and the owners, which weeks are SVN weeks, and which are not, because they are in completely different II Accts.


----------



## pacman (Aug 2, 2009)

SDKath said:


> I would just go ahead and buy a cheap week and try it.  You have very little to lose and lots to gain.  Just make sure it's at least a 1BR and is deeded a "good week" ie Spring or week 51, 52.  Even the 1-52 float week you buy should be deeded to a good season so that if and when you need to fight with Starwood about depositing what you own, you can actually make a good case for depositing the very week you are deeded.
> 
> Katherine



Katherine,

I think I'm going to take your advice. Like you say, these are very cheap right now, and the downside risk is small. I'm leaning towards a 2 bdrm l/o at SDO. I don't see anything available out there right now that is deed to a "good" week, so I will keep searching. If anyone comes across something, shoot me a pm.

pacman


----------



## Politico (Aug 2, 2009)

pacman said:


> Katherine,
> 
> I think I'm going to take your advice. Like you say, these are very cheap right now, and the downside risk is small. I'm leaning towards a 2 bdrm l/o at SDO. I don't see anything available out there right now that is deed to a "good" week, so I will keep searching. If anyone comes across something, shoot me a pm.
> 
> pacman



Almost every SDO week floats 1-52, meaning you can book any week of the year as long as you call and reserve a week in advance. So, you should be able to find a week immediately as long as it floats 1-52, which most do.  By a "good week", Kath means just reserving a high demand week as early as possible each year.


----------



## Pit (Aug 2, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Just make sure it's at least a 1BR and is deeded a "good week" ie Spring or week 51, 52.  Even the 1-52 float week you buy should be deeded to a good season so that if and when you need to fight with Starwood about depositing what you own, you can actually make a good case for depositing the very week you are deeded.



I don't think she meant to just reserve a good week. She was pretty careful to specify that the week should be deeded to a "good week."


----------



## pacman (Aug 2, 2009)

Pit said:


> I don't think she meant to just reserve a good week. She was pretty careful to specify that the week should be deeded to a "good week."



Yes, this is what I understood her to mean also. I think this is just covering the bases, in case Starwood ever plays hardball, and says that non-SVN owners can only deposit and trade their "deeded" week.

pacman


----------



## SDKath (Aug 3, 2009)

Exactly!  Some people have argued successfully with Starwood that if they aren't willing to deposit your reserved week into II, you should have the right to deposit your exact deeded week.  So I always purchased the best deeded weeks I possibly could find -- just to cover my bases. 

I have an EOY 2br LO and an EY 2br LO!  Both options are great for trading!

Katherine


----------



## pacman (Aug 3, 2009)

Not to beat this issue to death, but in the end, does it really make that much of a difference whether *wood picks a "weak' week, or I reserve a "strong" week and deposit it with II? Is the trading power really that much different between these 2 weeks within the 3 day preference window? This is assuming I purchase at SDO. For instance are you saying that the strong week may pull a March WKORV, but the weak week wont??

pacman


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 3, 2009)

pacman said:


> Not to beat this issue to death, but in the end, does it really make that much of a difference whether *wood picks a "weak' week, or I reserve a "strong" week and deposit it with II? Is the trading power really that much different between these 2 weeks within the 3 day preference window? This is assuming I purchase at SDO. For instance are you saying that the strong week may pull a March WKORV, but the weak week wont??
> 
> pacman



I haven't had to deposit a weak week yet, but others who have, reported that there is a difference in the trading power for other Starwood resorts.

Also - not everyone just wants to exchange for Starwood - I see a lot of Marriott weeks with my TS, too.  The trading power of your deposit will really come into play in that situation.


----------



## SDKath (Aug 3, 2009)

pacman said:


> Not to beat this issue to death, but in the end, does it really make that much of a difference whether *wood picks a "weak' week, or I reserve a "strong" week and deposit it with II? Is the trading power really that much different between these 2 weeks within the 3 day preference window? This is assuming I purchase at SDO. For instance are you saying that the strong week may pull a March WKORV, but the weak week wont??
> 
> pacman



YES! Exactly....


----------



## pacman (Aug 3, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Also - not everyone just wants to exchange for Starwood - I see a lot of Marriott weeks with my TS, too.  The trading power of your deposit will really come into play in that situation.



Good point Denise.  I think I just might wait it out, and look for a good deed week at SDO. The prices are so low right now, hard to believe.

pacman


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 3, 2009)

SDKath said:


> YES! Exactly....



I've got a GREAT idea!   

Next year you can deposit an August SDO week, and then report back to us, OK?

Thanks for volunteering!


----------



## oneohana (Aug 3, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I've got a GREAT idea!
> 
> Next year you can deposit an August SDO week, and then report back to us, OK?
> 
> Thanks for volunteering!



Right after you tell us how your WKORV deposit did.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 3, 2009)

oneohana said:


> Right after you tell us how your WKORV deposit did.



I can guarantee it would do better than August in Scottsdale!  

But I would never deposit my Mercedes, when I have 2 Chevys that will get the job done!


----------



## Fredm (Aug 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> Denise,   ...   Perhaps people can be directed to this TUG Starwood sticky information in the Preface:
> 
> http://tug2.net/advice/starwoodexchangeprimer.htm
> 
> ...



As the author of the referenced article, I will be happy to update it to add deposit of a specific week directly by the owner.

The article reads as it does because it too should be a valid approach.
To deposit a specific week of the owners choosing, the owner must call Starwood to make a reservation. Once confirmed, they then call I.I. to deposit the reserved week. Two calls required.

An non SVN owner who knows they wish to deposit the current use-week can also call Starwood and advise them that they wish to deposit the use-week. As it is a floating season, Starwood must deposit a week at the home resort in the season owned. One call required.  The article mentions this approach.

Both should be treated as a routine deposit to I.I.
The deposit of a specific reserved week certainly has advantages for the owner who knows how to pick it. 

It is a good idea to include this option in the article. I will try to not make it more confusing to the reader.


----------



## SDKath (Aug 4, 2009)

Nice to see you back, Fredm!!!

Katherine


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 4, 2009)

Hi Fred - and thanks!

I'd like to suggest that in your revised article, you recommend the method of depositing your week yourself online - that method seems to have the fewest problems.

Walk through - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=672349&postcount=2


----------



## Fredm (Aug 4, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Hi Fred - and thanks!
> 
> I'd like to suggest that in your revised article, you recommend the method of depositing your week yourself online - that method seems to have the fewest problems.
> 
> Walk through - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=672349&postcount=2



Will do, Denise.  Fewest problems is always the preferred approach.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 4, 2009)

SDKath said:


> Nice to see you back, Fredm!!!
> 
> Katherine



Thank you, Katherine.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 4, 2009)

pacman said:


> Not to beat this issue to death, but in the end, does it really make that much of a difference whether *wood picks a "weak' week, or I reserve a "strong" week and deposit it with II? Is the trading power really that much different between these 2 weeks within the 3 day preference window? This is assuming I purchase at SDO. For instance are you saying that the strong week may pull a March WKORV, but the weak week wont??
> 
> pacman



There are other issues associated with a Starwood controlled deposit.

Not everyone who deposits has an exchange request. They are simply accruing the use for a future date.

An owner may travel up to 2 years beyond the reservation date deposited.

Starwood bulk deposits. The week they assign may be 8-12 months old. 
An owner reservation may be a year into the future.

At the extremes, the former may give the owner 12 months to complete travel.
The later can give the owner 36 months to complete the same exchange.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 16, 2009)

*Updated*



DeniseM said:


> Hi Fred - and thanks!
> 
> I'd like to suggest that in your revised article, you recommend the method of depositing your week yourself online - that method seems to have the fewest problems.
> 
> Walk through - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=672349&postcount=2



The article has been updated/revised.


----------

