# My mistake, Starwood's Convenient Bureaucracy



## caryatid62 (Jan 9, 2010)

So I exchanged into II this past July and made a begnner's mistake: I reserved a week at my home resort for Dec. 25th, then mistakenly thought I had put that week into II, who gave me a week in Mexico.  Apparently, this wasn't the case.

II requested a 2009 week, starwood's told them that because I had a week booked I didn't have anything, and they took my 2010 week.

I never received Anything from Starwood telling me they were gonna take a 2010 week, nor did I receive anything from my home resort the week before I was scheduled to stay there (the "would you like us to stock your fridge" email), so I didn't find out my 2010 week was gone until I tried to book for this year.

So now I'm screwed for 2010 and lost a year of use.  I fully admit my mistake in not fully understanding the policies beforehand, but I wish Starwood would be a little better about communicating clearly with their owners.

/rant


----------



## l2trade (Jan 9, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> So I exchanged into II this past July and made a begnner's mistake: I reserved a week at my home resort for Dec. 25th, then mistakenly thought I had put that week into II, who gave me a week in Mexico.  Apparently, this wasn't the case.
> 
> II requested a 2009 week, starwood's told them that because I had a week booked I didn't have anything, and they took my 2010 week.
> 
> ...



I assume your 2009 week reservation went unused because of Starwood's deception in changing the rules.  No, this is not your mistake.  Starwood changed the rules without communicating the change.  Starwood still has not provided written details about how the new system works despite many requests, written and verbal to do so.  If I were you, I would fight Starwood back for restoration of my 2010 week.  Take them to small claims court if you must.


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 10, 2010)

l2trade said:


> I assume your 2009 week reservation went unused because of Starwood's deception in changing the rules.  No, this is not your mistake.  Starwood changed the rules without communicating the change.  Starwood still has not provided written details about how the new system works despite many requests, written and verbal to do so.  If I were you, I would fight Starwood back for restoration of my 2010 week.  Take them to small claims court if you must.




This actually makes sense.  If, according to their rules, there was no week for me to deposit via Starwood (because I had an existing reservation), what then gives them the right to take a week that I own in a subsequent year and give it away without at least informing me of this?  Should not the rule be-if we're being consistent-that if I attempt an exchange and do not have a week available, they simply say "no?"  Does it make legal sense that they then have the right to give away something I own without my permission?


----------



## Cathyb (Jan 10, 2010)

*Starwood*



caryatid62 said:


> This actually makes sense.  If, according to their rules, there was no week for me to deposit via Starwood (because I had an existing reservation), what then gives them the right to take a week that I own in a subsequent year and give it away without at least informing me of this?  Should not the rule be-if we're being consistent-that if I attempt an exchange and do not have a week available, they simply say "no?"  Does it make legal sense that they then have the right to give away something I own without my permission?



You are going to learn that Starwood does alot of things that do not make sense to owners.  They have no empathy to owners only their bottom line.


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 10, 2010)

I spoke with my second resolution specialist this morning (Tim).  I told him that I spoke with my attorney yesterday and that, due to the fact that Starwood gave away my deeded property without my permission, that I have a claim against them for my week.   I asked for my week to officially be returned to me and, if not, I will have to file a claim in small claims court for the value of the week.  He explained that there was "nothing he could do" and that by requesting a week online with II, I inherently gave permission for them to take whatever week was available.  

I have now requested to speak with his direct supervisor (Barbara L.) and she will be calling me back tomorrow.  


Does anyone know, if I had to go through with this, where I might need to file?  Owner services appears to be in Florida, my unit is in Arizona, and I believe corporate headquarters is in New Jersey.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 10, 2010)

Starwood and II both operate out of Florida.  I would use this Florida form:

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/DBPR/lsc/documents/complaint_english.pdf

Be sure to emphasize the lack of communication about the changes, since that is really what caused the mixup.  Did you keep the various II emails?  They should show what you selected for deposit.  Here's language from the most recent one I could find:

_Payment Details:
Exchange Fee:        139.00 (US)
Total:            139.00 (US)


This confirmation has been made in exchange for:
Home Resort:    Cancellation Replacement
*From:    Friday, August 21, 2009
To:        Friday, August 28, 2009*
Unit Number:    2BED
Unit Size:    2 bedrooms


Pending verification, your reservation has been requested for:
Blah blah blah_

If you have an email showing a 2009 week, be sure to attach this to your complaint.  Also, document all conversations showing you attempted to resolve the situation through II and Starwood.  And, don't let II off the hook -- they're as much to blame as Starwood if you selected a 2009 week for exchange and then they accepted a 2010 week from Starwood.  Your complaint should, in my opinion, be directed at BOTH companies.

And ... if you happen to a own a non-network week (e.g., resale at a voluntary resort), be sure to question the legality of Starwood taking control of the deposit process, since you never signed anything allowing them to do so.

Good luck!


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 10, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Starwood and II both operate out of Florida.  I would use this Florida form:
> 
> http://www.myfloridalicense.com/DBPR/lsc/documents/complaint_english.pdf
> 
> ...



Thanks.  Unfortunately, I have only found my confirmation certificate from II, which doesn't list the week I gave up.  I have, though, been documenting each call I make to Starwood over the last two days and the names of people with whom I have been speaking.  

Thanks for the help!


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 10, 2010)

Try emailing Barbara.Overton@starwoodvo.com who is a senior member of SVO's legal team.


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 10, 2010)

j4sharks said:


> Try emailing Barbara.Overton@starwoodvo.com who is a senior member of SVO's legal team.




What would I tell her?


----------



## short (Jan 10, 2010)

*2009 week gone from II*

Because of this thread I went to my account and noted that my 2009 generic week at VCC for 2009 is gone.  Only a my 2008 week and a undeposited 2010 week is listed.

Is this a II glitch or part of the new improved starwood system.  Was I suppose to do something after they deposited the 2009 week to my account?

Short


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 10, 2010)

I would tell her your story (in brief and without too much drama), point out the lack of notice by Starwood of its changed II policies, and convey your very reasonable point about them dipping into your 2010 rights without your consent or even knowledge.  Then I would tell her that you are being advised by counsel that you should bring a small claims case for the value of the 2010 week, but that you are hoping that can be avoided by SVO restoring your 2010 week rights.  See what happens.


----------



## l2trade (Jan 10, 2010)

If you called Starwood during 2009 and asked them to 'assign' your 2009 week, then you should still have it (as an assignment credit).  If you just saw the 2009 placeholders under II and never told Starwood to assign the week, you may have lost it.  Either way, II will only show the current year, 2010, place holders.  Starwood maintains this list of what you've assigned.  II uses this placeholder of 2010 when seeking confirmation from Starwood.  In return, II may get a 2009, 2010 or 2011 credit.  II cannot see the year until after the fact.

If you lost your 2009 week, I recommend fighting Starwood for getting your 2009 week returned because of the same reasons I stated in an earlier post above.


----------



## LisaH (Jan 10, 2010)

I would not be surprised th see more people run into the problem similar to yours due to Starwood's new depositing policy.


----------



## l2trade (Jan 10, 2010)

Yes, many folks who aren't regular tuggers may just now be discovering what has changed in the New Year.  Please, if you haven't done so already, join us in our complaints against Starwood:

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106202


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 10, 2010)

So I have emailed Ms. Overton.  I kept it straightforward and to the point.   We'll see where it goes.


----------



## Stefa (Jan 10, 2010)

LisaH said:


> I would not be surprised th see more people run into the problem similar to yours due to Starwood's new depositing policy.



And I thought the OLD system was confusing.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 11, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> So I exchanged into II this past July and made a begnner's mistake: I reserved a week at my home resort for Dec. 25th, then mistakenly thought I had put that week into II, who gave me a week in Mexico.  Apparently, this wasn't the case.
> 
> II requested a 2009 week, starwood's told them that because I had a week booked I didn't have anything, and they took my 2010 week.
> 
> ...



Just so I understand clearly....

1.) You had a reservation made to Lagunamar for 12/25 '09.
2.) Prior to the 12/25 reservation, you had executed a vacation exchange with II for another resort.

Did you contact II directly for the exchange or did you contact Starwood?


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 11, 2010)

*To help with your cause.....*



caryatid62 said:


> So I exchanged into II this past July and made a begnner's mistake: I reserved a week at my home resort for Dec. 25th, then mistakenly thought I had put that week into II, who gave me a week in Mexico.  Apparently, this wasn't the case.



What indicators gave you the impression that you had deposited your 2009 week with II? 

How far apart were these transactions made? When did you book Christmas '09 and how long after did you exchange?



caryatid62 said:


> I never received Anything from Starwood telling me they were gonna take a 2010 week, nor did I receive anything from my home resort the week before I was scheduled to stay there (the "would you like us to stock your fridge" email), so I didn't find out my 2010 week was gone until I tried to book for this year.



You contacted II directly do exchange for July correct? Would you expect Starwood to assume that you want to cancel your the Christmas vacation in December to exchange in July? Where did you go in July?



caryatid62 said:


> So now I'm screwed for 2010 and lost a year of use.  I fully admit my mistake in not fully understanding the policies beforehand, but I wish Starwood would be a little better about communicating clearly with their owners.
> 
> /rant



What are your travel plans for 2010? Have you thought about any alternatives?


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Jan 11, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> So I have emailed Ms. Overton.  I kept it straightforward and to the point.   We'll see where it goes.



You will get your wishes. My experience is that SVN resolves problems in the favor of the owner in cases like this.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 11, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> What would I tell her?



It is not necessary to get a member of the legal team involved. All that will happen is that your concern will either be directed to consumer affairs or owner services (or both).


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 11, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> Just so I understand clearly....
> 
> 1.) You had a reservation made to Lagunamar for 12/25 '09.
> 2.) Prior to the 12/25 reservation, you had executed a vacation exchange with II for another resort.
> ...



I contacted II to make the exchange.  In April, I reserved my home resort for the week of 12/25, then on the II web site in July I deposited that week in order to get a week somewhere in Mexico.  When filling out the form on II, I wrote in the dates of my 12/25 vacation to exchange.  




James1975NY said:


> You contacted II directly do exchange for July correct? Would you expect Starwood to assume that you want to cancel your the Christmas vacation in December to exchange in July? Where did you go in July?



I didn't go anywhere in July.  My exchange was accepted by II in July.  My Mexico vacation was from 12/25-1/1 and I assumed I had exchanged my week at my home resort (which I had scheduled previously for 12/25).


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 11, 2010)

short said:


> Because of this thread I went to my account and noted that my 2009 generic week at VCC for 2009 is gone.  Only a my 2008 week and a undeposited 2010 week is listed.
> 
> Is this a II glitch or part of the new improved starwood system.  Was I suppose to do something after they deposited the 2009 week to my account?
> 
> Short



It is an error - There are a lot of weeks missing that didn't make it through the new rules "roll-over."


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 12, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> I contacted II to make the exchange.  In April, I reserved my home resort for the week of 12/25, then on the II web site in July I deposited that week in order to get a week somewhere in Mexico.  When filling out the form on II, I wrote in the dates of my 12/25 vacation to exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gotcha! So basically, you went to another resort in Mexico for the same dates, hence the mix-up. 

Here is what needs to be considered. First, what was communicated to Starwood as far as what was being used for the exchange? Personally, I think that II did not adequately communicate the exchange details to ensure proper transacting.

Either way, I think any reasonable person can see that you have been a victim of circumstance and they should be able the necessary adjustments to your account.

The new exchange rules would have actually prevented this from happening. It is the old rules that I believe you transacted under which ultimately led to the problem. In the future, Starwood should always be your first stop. Any transactions that have been made and are still open with SVO will trump all others. SVO will not assume to cancel any of your reservations when you conduct a vacation exchange.


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 18, 2010)

*Update*

As suggested by j4sharks, I emailed Barbara Overton last Monday, who referred me to Carla Smith, Director of Consumer Affairs. I received a response today, which stated: 

" we were successful in reversing the use of your 2010 week for your recent Interval International exchange reservation (utilizing your 2009 week) and in restoring use of your 2010 vacation ownership interest."

If not for TUG, I would have simply been a pissed off owner unable to get anything done on my own behalf.  Because of this site, I was able to have a voice with Starwood.  I have been singing the praises of this message board since joining, and this whole experience has just reinforced my beliefs.  This place is just a tremendous asset for owners.  

Thanks so much.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 18, 2010)

That's great news -- very happy to hear it !


----------



## SDKath (Jan 18, 2010)

I love Carla Smith!  I hope she gets paid well for the mess she has to clean up on a daily basis...  She and Jesus in documents are the 2 best Starwood people.  I feel like they literally hold the timeshare division up on their shoulders...

Katherine


----------



## Bill4728 (Jan 19, 2010)

caryatid62 said:


> So I exchanged into II this past July and made a begnner's mistake: I reserved a week at my home resort for Dec. 25th, then mistakenly thought I had put that week into II, who gave me a week in Mexico.  Apparently, this wasn't the case.
> 
> II requested a 2009 week, starwood's told them that because I had a week booked I didn't have anything, and they took my 2010 week.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to make sure that you now understand that what happened to you was very likely Starwood's fault not yours. 

About the time you made your trade, starwood completely changed the way owners at any starwood resort have to do their trading with II without any kind of announcement to their owners.  So because  Starwood changed the rules, you almost lost out on a week of TS. 

I'm thrilled to see that Starwood fixed this for you, but there is only a 10% chance this was your fault and not starwood's. Also, how could you possibly understand the new starwood policies since they hadn't been told to you yet?


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 19, 2010)

Bill4728 said:


> Just wanted to make sure that you now understand that what happened to you was very likely Starwood's fault not yours.
> 
> About the time you made your trade, starwood completely changed the way owners at any starwood resort have to do their trading with II without any kind of announcement to their owners.  So because  Starwood changed the rules, you almost lost out on a week of TS.
> 
> I'm thrilled to see that Starwood fixed this for you, but there is only a 10% chance this was your fault and not starwood's. Also, how could you possibly understand the new starwood policies since they hadn't been told to you yet?



I strongly/respectfully disagree. How does the changes in the trading process play a role in this situation?

 - _Was_ this under the new rules?
 - Would this have been impossible under the previous rules?

II should have suggested the OP contact SVO to handle their deposit and the OP would have been able to speak to someone that had access to both accounts (II and SVO account).


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 19, 2010)

James -- many of us deposited weeks for years and years without contacting Starwood.  I agree this was not the OP's fault.  She made a reservation for her home resort, then changed her mind and deposited the *2009* week to II.  When II contacted Starwood to confirm the deposit, they should have either rejected it or contacted her for clarification.  In no way should they have just assumed she meant to click on the 2010 week.  

The complete lack of communication about the new process certainly didn't help matters.  Thankfully, they did the right thing and gave the 2010 week back to her since their actions were completely out-of-line.

As a "too many weeks" owner who pays thousands (and thousands) in annual maintenance fees, I'm not too happy about having to pay salaries for people to perform functions that I should be able to do, quickly and seemlessly, online.   Nor was I too happy to find no starter package of coffee, shampoo, or laundry detergent when I spent a week at SVR recently ... or by the fact that our bed wasn't made, let alone refreshed, on the midweek tidy (but I did have trash can liners  ).  Starwood's spending priorities are totally screwed up ... and creating a convoluted trading system that requires multiple human interventions is just another ridiculous example of this.  Making the owners fund it is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 19, 2010)

Before the rules changed (in August we thought) it was standard procedure to reserve a week at one's home resort and then deposit it - in order to have a strong trader.  Who knows if the OP's problem occurred under the new rules or the old rules?  Owners certainly weren't notified when they were implemented!  So maybe the OP was caught in the unannounced roll-over or maybe someone just screwed up.  

Either way, it makes no sense at all to have the on-line capability to make deposits and exchanges and then require exchangers to call Starwood, as well.  What's the point of having the online function if we have to call every time, too?  How can it be the exchanger's fault if they trust that the online system set up by Starwood and II works, they use it, and then it doesn't work?

Adding the extra step of requiring exchangers to call Starwood can only mean one thing - the new system isn't dependable... and that certainly is not the OP's fault!


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Before the rules changed (in August we thought) it was standard procedure to reserve a week at one's home resort and then deposit it - in order to have a strong trader.  Who knows if the OP's problem occurred under the new rules or the old rules?  Owners certainly weren't notified when they were implemented!  So maybe the OP was caught in the unannounced roll-over or maybe someone just screwed up.
> 
> Either way, it makes no sense at all to have the on-line capability to make deposits and exchanges and then require exchangers to call Starwood, as well.  What's the point of having the online function if we have to call every time, too?  How can it be the exchanger's fault if they trust that the online system set up by Starwood and II works, they use it, and then it doesn't work?
> 
> Adding the extra step of requiring exchangers to call Starwood can only mean one thing - the new system isn't dependable... and that certainly is not the OP's fault!



I understand all of this. My point was that this could have happened under the old rules as well......and it did (fact). In every case that I am aware of, we were dealing with a very new owner and it was typically their first time depositing their week for exchange.

With my experience, I would be willing to bet that when the OP spoke II about the exchange, there was no discussion at all about whether or not they had an open reservation for their current use year's time at their home resort. If there was, this would have been avoided. So because II was more concerned with transacting and getting the exchange fee, everything else was out the window and left up to Starwood to eat a christmas week at Laguna Mar and give this owner another week to use in 2010.

There a one of two ways to avoid this....

1.) Have II and Starwood bridge their systems so they "speak" to each other. (We all know this is not going to happen - nor should it)

2.) Understand that II has NO clue what you have done with your weeks regardless of what they may tell you (via internet or phone) and know that the next available use year will be consumed for exchange. I would imagine this was explained when dealing with SVO for the correction of the usage.

There is more information that I would need to know from the OP to help illustrate and understand what had really transpired and how this could have been prevented.

To reiderate, this is something that had happened before the changes in the deposit process. It happens from time to time but very infrequently.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jan 20, 2010)

James, 

I posted this because the OP was clearly not aware that there was a very good chance that this wasn't his fault.  He should have been able to reserve the week he wanted and then deposit that week. That what non SVN owners had done for years.



> II requested the 2009 week, starwood's told them that because I had a week booked I didn't have anything, and they took my 2010 week.


And this statement is totally not true,  the only week that was able to be deposited should have been a week that they had reserved.  That is the way it worked.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> I understand all of this. My point was that this could have happened under the old rules as well......and it did (fact). In every case that I am aware of, we were dealing with a very new owner and it was typically their first time depositing their week for exchange.
> 
> With my experience, I would be willing to bet that when the OP spoke II about the exchange, there was no discussion at all about whether or not they had an open reservation for their current use year's time at their home resort. If there was, this would have been avoided. So because II was more concerned with transacting and getting the exchange fee, everything else was out the window and left up to Starwood to eat a christmas week at Laguna Mar and give this owner another week to use in 2010.
> 
> ...



For the record, I am not blaming anyone. But I do favor II's lack of questioning as the culprit. 

*II* - "I see your 2009 is showing available for exchange. Is this the week that you would like to use for this trade?"

*OP* - "Yes, I am using my 2009 week for this exchange"

*II* - "Very good. Just to confirm....you do not have any reservations at a Starwood property using the 2009 week?"

 - It really is that easy. Customer service is knowing what the right questions are to ask. When you are working with a customer that clearly has VERY LITTLE usage history, you need to be more thorough and ask some questions that may seem obligatory. Had that one extra question been asked, the whole situation is avoided and Lagunamar did not eat an empty villa for Christmas week.

Starwood understands this and they had made the adjustments accordingly.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> For the record, I am not blaming anyone. But I do favor II's lack of questioning as the culprit.
> 
> *II* - "I see your 2009 is showing available for exchange. Is this the week that you would like to use for this trade?"
> 
> ...


James,

The whole problem is that starwood thinks that the answer should be "NO I haven't reserved my week" when the answer should be "YES I'm giving the 2009 week I've reserved to II."  That is why Starwood didn't confirm the deposit like they should have.

The way it works on ALL II DEPOSITS (except Worldmark & now Starwood), is you reserve a week at your home resort then give that week to II. II then confirms with your resort, that you have that week reserved and then the reservation is change from being assigned to you to being assigned /deposited into II.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

.... not to mention that they apparently don't care about things like lost Christmas weeks as they allow people to cancel and deposit 24 hours in advance .... another brilliant Starwood move that will result in lots of "lost weeks" as there is no incentive to call and cancel on a timely basis if your alternative is to deposit with II (as it would be for a Christmas cancellation)....

I hope I'm wrong about the 24-hour cancellation policy -- I think I've only read it here on TUG.  Did anyone actually cancel an end-of-year reservation within the 60-day mark and make an Interval deposit?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

jerseygirl - you are correct.  The new rules state that you can deposit 24 hours before check-in or 24 hours before the end of the year.  But I don't know if anyone has actually done it.....


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

Bill4728 said:


> And this statement is totally not true,  the only week that was able to be deposited should have been a week that they had reserved.  That is the way it worked.



No Bill, a reservation was never *required* for deposit. You also have to think about the logistics of the reservation that the OP had. There are PLENTY of situations where owners will book a current years week for a certain week and then book another week for the same dates simply to have more accomodations for the same week if they are bringing a large group. 

The only blame I see that could be put on Starwood is if they did in fact cancel the Christmas week reservation at Lagunamar and the OP actually needed it. Guess what. That problem may not have been that easy to fix on day one of check-in.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

What were they thinking???????????   This could be one of their dumbest moves yet ... in a long line of really dumb moves.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> .... not to mention that they apparently don't care about things like lost Christmas weeks as they allow people to cancel and deposit 24 hours in advance .... another brilliant Starwood move that will result in lots of "lost weeks" as there is no incentive to call and cancel on a timely basis if your alternative is to deposit with II (as it would be for a Christmas cancellation)....
> 
> I hope I'm wrong about the 24-hour cancellation policy -- I think I've only read it here on TUG.  Did anyone actually cancel an end-of-year reservation within the 60-day mark and make an Interval deposit?



You are correct. The owner would then receive a late deposit. Thanks to the fact that Starwood uses a bulk-deposit method this can still be done. Otherwise, II will not accept deposits less than 10 or 14 days prior to the check-in.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> No Bill, a reservation was never *required* for deposit. You also have to think about the logistics of the reservation that the OP had. There are PLENTY of situations where owners will book a current years week for a certain week and then book another week for the same dates simply to have more accomodations for the same week if they are bringing a large group.



James -- that implies the person is a multi-week owner or split a lockoff.  The way the original OP described the situation, there was only one week ... so your explanation doesn't hold up.  

Did you ever process a deposit as an Interval member under the "old rules" (not as a Starwood employee -- have you ever used the system the way we do)?  You had to enter dates .... so, it was common sense to make a reservation and then deposit it.  In fact, Starwood's own "how to make an external exchange" screens on mystarcentral used to direct people to make a reservation first (since that's the way the "float system" has always worked EVERYWHERE, not just Starwood).  You seem to think that everyone knows how Starwood preferred to make deposits .... when in fact many people own more than just Starwood timeshares and are used to doing everything online, following Interval's directions, etc.  Many people do not enjoy calling a call center, repeating their name, address, telephone number and email address for the 4986th time!  

Starwood really did screw up here .... and, thankfully, they made it right (which I don't believe for one minute they would have done if they didn't know they screwed up).  It's NEVER okay, new rules/old rules, for Starwood to assume that a member wants to do something different than what they indicated.  That's what phones are for --- pick up the phone and contact your client/owner.  Just arbitrarily deciding to deposit the next year's usage was WRONG under all circumstances.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> You are correct. The owner would then receive a late deposit. Thanks to the fact that Starwood uses a bulk-deposit method this can still be done. Otherwise, II will not accept deposits less than 10 or 14 days prior to the check-in.



And let a prime Christmas week sit empty because they allowed an owner to cancel at 24 hours?  I just don't get it.  They may have thought they were doing something nice by allowing people to cancel at 24 hours, but is that really fair to the owners overall ... to set-up/perpetuate a system that rewards people for not cancelling until it's too late for someone else to use it?   I realize there could come a day when I need to cancel something at the last minute, and I'll be grateful that the system is set-up the way it is.  But, the other 99 years, I would prefer that the Christmas week open up for last minute reservations.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> No Bill, a reservation was never *required* for deposit.


This is not true.  Prior to the change in the starwood/II relationship, all owners of resorts managed by starwood but not in SVN, were required to reserve their week at their home resort and deposit that reserved week in II.  (I believe the OP owns at SDO and was not a member of SVN)




> The only blame I see that could be put on Starwood is if they did in fact cancel the Christmas week reservation at Lagunamar and the OP actually needed it. Guess what. That problem may not have been that easy to fix on day one of check-in.


There was never a problem with the OP not getting the week they wanted thru II in Mexico. The problem was the 2009 week that he told II to use for the exchange was not confirmed by Starwood, and instead starwood used his 2010 week. Starwood never told him that they choose to use the 2010 week instead of the 2009 week which he told II to use. 

The more I think of this, this was not a simple misunderstanding between the OP & starwood & II but a deliberate attempt by starwood to hide the fact that they made a mistake. Their only job as managers of starwood resorts for owners of non SVN weeks is to confirm with II that the week that the OP want to deposit is reserved and they did not do that.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> And let a prime Christmas week sit empty because they allowed an owner to cancel at 24 hours?  I just don't get it.  They may have thought they were doing something nice by allowing people to cancel at 24 hours, but is that really fair to the owners overall ... to set-up/perpetuate a system that rewards people for not cancelling until it's too late for someone else to use it?   I realize there could come a day when I need to cancel something at the last minute, and I'll be grateful that the system is set-up the way it is.  But, the other 99 years, I would prefer that the Christmas week open up for last minute reservations.



I don't see how Starwood is rewarding owners for cancelling short notice. I see this is as an opportunity to ensure that an owner has the ability to actually use their timeshare.

Would you prefer a system that penalizes "owners" last minute cancellations by telling an owner that they have lost their week? That does not sound like "ownership" to me. That sounds like "membership".


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 20, 2010)

Bill4728 said:


> This is not true.  Prior to the change in the starwood/II relationship, all owners of resorts managed by starwood but not in SVN, were required to reserve their week at their home resort and deposit that reserved week in II.  (I believe the OP owns at SDO and was not a member of SVN)



Incorrect statement. 



Bill4728 said:


> There was never a problem with the OP not getting the week they wanted thru II in Mexico. The problem was the 2009 week that he told II to use for the exchange was not confirmed by Starwood, and instead starwood used his 2010 week. Starwood never told him that they choose to use the 2010 week instead of the 2009 week which he told II to use.



I understand this. 



Bill4728 said:


> The more I think of this, this was not a simple misunderstanding between the OP & starwood & II but a deliberate attempt by starwood to hide the fact that they made a mistake. Their only job as managers of starwood resorts for owners of non SVN weeks is to confirm with II that the week that the OP want to deposit is reserved and they did not do that.



"A deliberate attempt by Starwood to hide the *fact* that they made a mistake"?

Bill, I know EXACTLY how II communicates to Starwood which is why I am sharing my feedback on this situation. 

I have said it before and I will say it again. The OP is NOT to blame nor should they have been. It was an error that could have been avoided by a slightly more thorough examination/conversation by the rep at II.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> I don't see how Starwood is rewarding owners for cancelling short notice. I see this is as an opportunity to ensure that an owner has the ability to actually use their timeshare.
> 
> Would you prefer a system that penalizes "owners" last minute cancellations by telling an owner that they have lost their week? That does not sound like "ownership" to me. That sounds like "membership".



Yes, I would prefer a system that penalizes the people who have to cancel vs.  the people who would have used the reservations had they become available two weeks in advance when reasonable airfare might still be possible.  I realize things happen (and buy insurance to cover true emergencies when using expensive flights/weeks).  I don't believe it's a good thing for owners (or members for that matter) at large to have a system that rewards people who cancel at the last minute by giving them an II week, thereby removing the incentive to cancel on a timely basis.  

I also understand that's it's all made possible by the wonders of bulk banking.  But, I also think bulk banking is set up primarily to benefit Starwood ... not the owners at large.  If you surveyed Marriott and Starwood owners, I'm pretty sure you'd find more owner satisfaction with Marriott's process.

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that Starwood goes to so much trouble to control a process (external trading) that, by their own numbers, only 4% of owners use?  Wouldn't the money be better spent allowing owners to control it themselves like Marriott does?  I'm reminded of the jokes about lightbulbs ... just how many Starwood and Interval employees does it take to process an II deposit?


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 20, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Does anyone besides me find it ironic that Starwood goes to so much trouble to control a process (external trading) that, by their own numbers, only 4% of owners use?



Do you believe it's only 4%? I know we're a minority on TUG that use SVN and II, but everyone (everyone!) I personally know (not via TUG) who owns a SVN timeshare has used it both in SVN and with II over the years.


----------



## caryatid62 (Jan 20, 2010)

As the person who had to deal with this, I can see both sides of "blame" issue.

1.  II needed to do a better job identifying the fact that I told them that I was exchanging the 2009 week.

2.  Starwood needed to do a better job communicating with their owner that a 2009 week had been requested.  A simple confirmation call or email would have sufficed.  I would have made the necessary changes and this would have never occurred.  

The other issue I had with Starwood is similar to that of Denise-if owners are given the capability of booking online, the whole process should be able to completed without a phone call.  If they want owners to call them, make the entire process phone-based.  The fact that you have to do both, as I mentioned to them originally, seems to be a bureaucracy designed to confuse, frustrate, and ultimately hurt the owners.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> Do you believe it's only 4%? I know we're a minority on TUG that use SVN and II, but everyone (everyone!) I personally know (not via TUG) who owns a SVN timeshare has used it both in SVN and with II over the years.



That didn't sound right to me either but I think someone quoted that figure from a Starwood newsletter here on TUG (I don't usually read the propaganda that Starwood sends so I'm only going from memory from what I read here on TUG).  Of course, I don't think they used a very reliable survey methodology either ... so who knows.


----------



## Stefa (Jan 20, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> That didn't sound right to me either but I think someone quoted that figure from a Starwood newsletter here on TUG (I don't usually read the propaganda that Starwood sends so I'm only going from memory from what I read here on TUG).  Of course, I don't think they used a very reliable survey methodology either ... so who knows.



I think it was a survey of what owners said they planned to do in the upcoming year as opposed to what actually happened.   It is also possible that owners who are more likely to trade via II are less likely to read and respond to the surveys.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

Stefa said:


> I think it was a survey of what owners said they planned to do in the upcoming year as opposed to what actually happened.   It is also possible that owners who are more likely to trade via II are less likely to read and respond to the surveys.



Ah ... yes, survey bias at its finest!  

Seriously though -- Starwood reported it at 4%, yet they're spending tons of our money to ensure they control every last aspect of it.  What a waste -- I'd rather see the money diverted to an online reservation system ...


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> Do you believe it's only 4%? I know we're a minority on TUG that use SVN and II, but everyone (everyone!) I personally know (not via TUG) who owns a SVN timeshare has used it both in SVN and with II over the years.



Here is that info. from the original post.


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Here is that info. from the original post.



Thanks. And do you trust these numbers?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

Well OF COURSE, KEN!  They came from STARWOOD!!!!
:rofl: :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## DanCali (Jan 20, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> Thanks. And do you trust these numbers?



I actually do think that the way the survey is phrased (How do you plan to use your VOI in 2010...) makes the numbers reliable. I really don't think that the "average" owner plans to deposit in II in advance. Even at the resorts where it's popular for tuggers to do this (SDO and SBP) let's remember that most owners are still developer buyers and I imagine most of them would rather exchange internally or even consider Starpoints before II. Why consider II when you can get Hawaii, a ski week at a nice Westin resort, or Harborside?

If the survey included only resale buyers at voluntary resorts, it may look much different but this subset of owners is not representative of most owners.



			
				Ken555 said:
			
		

> Do you believe it's only 4%? I know we're a minority on TUG that use SVN and II, but everyone (everyone!) I personally know (not via TUG) who owns a SVN timeshare has used it both in SVN and with II over the years.



Ken, when you say everyone you know used II over the years - how many of the people you know bought from the developer? Starwood really doesn't promote II use much in sales presentations so I really think most developer buyers (who are most owners) are not inclined to use II unless they have no other choice.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

Hmmm ... so if all 4% of Broadway Plantation's "external exchange" owners booked summer weeks to deposit, that would be 2 full weeks booked by this evil group, leaving only 11 full weeks of "prime season" (per II's demand index) to be shared by the good owners and SO exchangers who are so much more deserving of prime week reservations.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 20, 2010)

Dancali -- I don't think it really matters if the survey is correct or not, whether people plan to exchange or only do so if something comes up.  It's just another example of Starwood talking out of both sides of their mouth, having their cake and eating it too, etc.  If such a small number of people exchange, then why the crazy new II procedures?  The "reservation services" lines are not an insignificant number in the annual budgets -- yet they've created a system that requires not just human intervention, but EXCESS human intervention -- all at owners' expense.


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 20, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Ken, when you say everyone you know used II over the years - how many of the people you know bought from the developer? Starwood really doesn't promote II use much in sales presentations so I really think most developer buyers (who are most owners) are not inclined to use II unless they have no other choice.



I don't know enough to sway any survey, but from my personal knowledge (of people who aren't on TUG and have never bothered to visit this site) they bought with the intention of using the week as intended, and then life got in the way. For instance, I know a family that owns WMH 2-bed summer annual - they bought either pre-construction or right after it opened. Now they have three children and traveling is difficult at anytime other than school holidays. For the last few years, they've traded (down) via II. Of course, this is the typical "I can't plan in advance" family that shouldn't even own a timeshare! 

As for promoting in presentations, I'm not so sure about that. The presentations I sat through all hyped the internal network and the resort they're selling, but did flip through the big II book each time... until I started the presentation by saying I bought resale and traded <here> via II, etc. The two Marriott presentations I saw really pushed II, but that might be partly because you have to use II to trade within Marriott, as well. 

I just have a hard time with the 4% number. And, I'm also curious what the 14% "other" category is for (as I posted on the thread Denise linked) - could that be for owners who don't use their week? But, perhaps it really is just 4%. I know I shouldn't suggest this, but... might that help explain why those of us on TUG have done really well with our trades?


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Well OF COURSE, KEN!  They came from STARWOOD!!!!
> :rofl: :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:



Exactly. Thanks, Denise. 

I just sorta knew you'd believe everything you read.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 21, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> Yes, I would prefer a system that penalizes the people who have to cancel vs.  the people who would have used the reservations had they become available two weeks in advance when reasonable airfare might still be possible.  I realize things happen (and buy insurance to cover true emergencies when using expensive flights/weeks).  I don't believe it's a good thing for owners (or members for that matter) at large to have a system that rewards people who cancel at the last minute by giving them an II week, thereby removing the incentive to cancel on a timely basis.
> 
> I also understand that's it's all made possible by the wonders of bulk banking.  But, I also think bulk banking is set up primarily to benefit Starwood ... not the owners at large.  If you surveyed Marriott and Starwood owners, I'm pretty sure you'd find more owner satisfaction with Marriott's process.
> 
> Does anyone besides me find it ironic that Starwood goes to so much trouble to control a process (external trading) that, by their own numbers, only 4% of owners use?  Wouldn't the money be better spent allowing owners to control it themselves like Marriott does?  I'm reminded of the jokes about lightbulbs ... just how many Starwood and Interval employees does it take to process an II deposit?



Its too bad facts are deemed irrelevent when they do not follow suit.


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 21, 2010)

I must just be dense because I have no idea what you're talking about (not for the first time!).


----------



## RLG (Jan 21, 2010)

Bill4728 said:


> This is not true.  Prior to the change in the starwood/II relationship, all owners of resorts managed by starwood but not in SVN, were required to reserve their week at their home resort and deposit that reserved week in II.



This isn't correct.  This piece of misinformation has been repeated so often that it's becoming accepted as gospel truth.  

I made a double digit number of exchanges using my non-SVN weeks under the old rules and NEVER did it that way.  I always called and asked Starwood to deposit a generic week.  I got great trade power and could wait until the last minute to make my deposit.

Unfortunately, under the new rules a generic week has a lot less trade power than under the old rules.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 21, 2010)

RLG - In the scenario you described, I believe you were just allowing Starwood to choose the specific week that was deposited, rather than choosing it yourself.  Before the rules change in Aug., there were no "generic weeks."


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 21, 2010)

RLG said:


> This isn't correct.  This piece of misinformation has been repeated so often that it's becoming accepted as gospel truth.
> 
> I made a double digit number of exchanges using my non-SVN weeks under the old rules and NEVER did it that way.  I always called and asked Starwood to deposit a generic week.  I got great trade power and could wait until the last minute to make my deposit.
> 
> Unfortunately, under the new rules a generic week has a lot less trade power than under the old rules.



So I may actually know what I am talking about? I was beginning to think my time with Starwood was just a dream.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 21, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> RLG - In the scenario you described, I believe you were just allowing Starwood to choose the specific week that was deposited, rather than choosing it yourself.  Before the rules change in Aug., there were no "generic weeks."



I believe what she is referring to is the fact that she did not have to call SVO, make a reservation, have them assign a week and unit and then call RCI to give the deposit information. The entire process was done through one phone call by using the bulk method. There was an actual reservation to support it but that was already made in advance and in turn assigned to her account.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 21, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> I must just be dense because I have no idea what you're talking about (not for the first time!).



The fact that the OP's situation could of happened under both exchange rules. No matter how I can explain it, it is just too hard to believe that Starwood is not the bad guy in this situation. The bottom line is the process needs improvement to avoid this but it could have happened under either deposit scenario.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 21, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> I must just be dense because I have no idea what you're talking about (not for the first time!).



We all know you are not dense!


----------



## RLG (Jan 21, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> RLG - In the scenario you described, I believe you were just allowing Starwood to choose the specific week that was deposited, rather than choosing it yourself.  Before the rules change in Aug., there were no "generic weeks."



Yes, that's correct.  I told them to deposit "a week" and they assigned me one of their previously deposited bulk banked weeks.  In other words, it was NOT required that I make a reservation and then deposit that specific week.


----------



## RLG (Jan 21, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> I believe what *she* is referring to is the fact that she did not have to call SVO, make a reservation, have them assign a week and unit and then call RCI to give the deposit information.




BTW, I'm a "he".

Funny, I thought it was obvious from my posting style.  I guess I've done a better job than I thought adjusting to the "nice nice" environment at TUG compared to the finance and electronics forums I otherwise frequent


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 21, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> The fact that the OP's situation could of happened under both exchange rules. No matter how I can explain it, it is just too hard to believe that Starwood is not the bad guy in this situation. The bottom line is the process needs improvement to avoid this but it could have happened under either deposit scenario.



James -- I've never said it couldn't have happened under either deposit scenario (yes, I thought it happened under the new rules because they seem to be even more labor intensive than the old rules, but I agree with you that it's irrelevant).  My point has always been, and continues to be, that the OP indicated he/she wanted to deposit a 2009 week, but somewhere in the (unnecessary -- apparetly designed to foil the 4% of people who actually use an external exchange company) human-intervention procedures, someone made a decision to deposit something other than what the OP requested.  My analysis of the situation is quite simple -- and I've said it before -- it's NEVER okay for Starwood to assume an owner meant to do something other than originally indicated. 

I think my confusion lies in the fact that your latest response indicates that you're still arguing "new rules/old rules cause and effect," when I thought we had clearly moved on to a new argument -- whether or not allowing an owner to cancel at the 24 hour mark and giving them an II week in exchange is good for the owners at large.  (Wow, maybe I'm being given the last word on that one  !)

No matter ... I'm sure we'll move onto something new to argue about momentarily.


----------



## djyamyam (Jan 21, 2010)

James1975NY said:


> Here is what needs to be considered. First, what was communicated to Starwood as far as what was being used for the exchange? Personally, I think that II did not adequately communicate the exchange details to ensure proper transacting.
> 
> Either way, I think any reasonable person can see that you have been a victim of circumstance and they should be able the necessary adjustments to your account.
> 
> The new exchange rules would have actually prevented this from happening. It is the old rules that I believe you transacted under which ultimately led to the problem. In the future, Starwood should always be your first stop. Any transactions that have been made and are still open with SVO will trump all others. SVO will not assume to cancel any of your reservations when you conduct a vacation exchange.





James1975NY said:


> I understand all of this. My point was that this could have happened under the old rules as well......and it did (fact). In every case that I am aware of, we were dealing with a very new owner and it was typically their first time depositing their week for exchange.
> 
> With my experience, I would be willing to bet that when the OP spoke II about the exchange, there was no discussion at all about whether or not they had an open reservation for their current use year's time at their home resort. If there was, this would have been avoided. So because II was more concerned with transacting and getting the exchange fee, everything else was out the window and left up to Starwood to eat a christmas week at Laguna Mar and give this owner another week to use in 2010.
> 
> ...



As an experienced tugger, I can speak of two personal exchange experiences where both exchanges went ary and both are under the new rules system.

Like the OP, I had made reservations for two different SDO units with 2009 dates.  I was searching online, as I normally do, and saw a unit that I wanted.  I made the exchange online against the the SDO unit that had the reservation.  Since I do most of my exchanging when II is closed, I don't call (not that I normally do anyways).  Knowing that I have a reservation against that week that I have now exchanged, I call Starwood first thing in the morning to cancel the reservation on that same exchanged week.  Don't forget that II has a 24 hour penalty-free cancellation policy so they aren't actually doing anything to confirm the exchange.  When I talked with Starwood rep to cancel the reservation, I specifically, tell him/her that I just performed an exchange with II and that II will be contacting Starwood to confirm the usage is available and that is why I am cancelling the reservation.  "Yes sir, there won't be any problem".

So every few days, I keep checking the exchange online with II and it still shows pending.  Finally, two weeks later, I get a voicemail from an II rep to say that my exchange request is about to be voided because Starwood has declined the exchange request.  The II guide goes on to say I got a call because I have other banked weeks with II and why don't we use one of those other weeks to confirm the exchange so I don't lose it.  I call Starwood and say what the heck is going on.  I am told the reservation wasn't cancelled properly and that the exchange needs to be confirmed to code SI2 (the new Starwood code/format for any SDO weeks that are to be deposited with II).  I say that I told that to the guide when I cancelled but it obviously didn't happen.  I call the II guide back to say that it is all good but she said that Starwood declined it the first time.  She tries again and now the exchange happens.

Fast forward 2 months later, a few days before Christmas.  I have a reservation for New Year's week.  The Planet Hollywood bulk bank happens.  I see a 2BR for a week that I want and again confirm online (and get the confirmation email) right away.  I call Starwood as they open and go through the same thing again, adding that I ran into a problem last time and want to make sure that it doesn't happen again.  I keep checking online with II because it is going through the verification process.  On Dec 26, when my original check-in date for the reservation is, I call Starwood again, confirming that I do NOT have a reservation for that day and that the reservation I had was cancelled since I had exchanged it with II.  Starwood rep confirms that the reservation was cancelled the week before and that confirmation takes time and don't worry about your exchange.  Holidays keep me busy so I don't really have time to check my account regularly.  I had contacted II by phone in early Jan to deal with a different exchange and make a comment about waiting for my confirmation cert on the PH exchange.  I'm told it should come shortly.  Mid-Jan I'm online reviewing my II account and notice the entire PH exchange has disappeared.  I call II and said Starwood never confirmed the deposit so the PH week I booked was released and that it's no longer available.  I'm livid and am still dealing with Starwood and II on the fallout.  I won't get that exchange back.  I get the line from Starwood resolution services that "you have to tell II the code SI2 for your exchange for it to go through properly".  

Starwood doesn't get understand it.  The Starwood resolution services person I have been dealing with says, "you have to put in SI2".  If you look at II's online platform, there is no way to do this.  II and Starwood are not in sync on this.  Your comment to defend Starwood is laudable but they are doubly incompetent as II in this.  The OP's and my experiences are not unique and will only occur more often as time goes on.


----------



## djyamyam (Jan 21, 2010)

jerseygirl said:


> .... not to mention that they apparently don't care about things like lost Christmas weeks as they allow people to cancel and deposit 24 hours in advance .... another brilliant Starwood move that will result in lots of "lost weeks" as there is no incentive to call and cancel on a timely basis if your alternative is to deposit with II (as it would be for a Christmas cancellation)....
> 
> I hope I'm wrong about the 24-hour cancellation policy -- I think I've only read it here on TUG.  *Did anyone actually cancel an end-of-year reservation within the 60-day mark and make an Interval deposit?*



Yes and I was not subject to the flexchange restriction.  See my other post


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks Diyamaym.  I'm sorry about your PH week.  Hopefully they'll be able to get you a replacement week, although my experience with II isn't great on this front.  A couple of years ago, I had two one-BR rooms booked at Club La Pension in New Orleans -- Friday check-ins (October).  I called on Thursday to let the resort know that we wouldn't be arriving until Saturday and the resort told me they had been closed since Gustav came through in late August/early September.  (Note that Gustav did no other damage in the city ... and the timing coincided with Bluegreen's takeover of the resort, so I suspect the shut-down had more to do with Bluegreen than Gustav, but that's another story).  I called II -- they had no idea -- the check-in day was the next day!  I then called the Quarter House where we've stayed at least a dozen times, and they had a large two-BR available.  They held it for me and said they would expect a call from II.  But -- II "wasn't able to get it" (i.e., wasn't willing to pay cash for it) so I ended up having to pay out of my pocket.  II gave me my weeks back (as they should have), and an AC ... but to this day I think they should have just picked up the QH tab in exchange for one of the weeks.   It proved to me that II doesn't have the willingness or clout that RCI has in obtaining last minute reservations when things go awry.  But, I digress!

Please understand that I don't blame you one single bit for taking advantage of a loophole.  But, would you have cancelled that NY's week if you wouldn't have been able to get an II week in exchange?  I'm still not convinced that it's in everyone's (all owner's) best interests to replace last minute cancellations with II weeks.  Someone probably would have jumped on that NY's week (wasn't there a bowl game in Phoenix) if it had been available ahead of time.

Again -- I take full advantage of loopholes too while they're open.  I'm just curious about your take on the situation.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 22, 2010)

RLG said:


> BTW, I'm a "he".
> 
> Funny, I thought it was obvious from my posting style.  I guess I've done a better job than I thought adjusting to the "nice nice" environment at TUG compared to the finance and electronics forums I otherwise frequent



My apologies RLG! Not intended!!


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 22, 2010)

djyamyam said:


> As an experienced tugger, I can speak of two personal exchange experiences where both exchanges went ary and both are under the new rules system.
> 
> Like the OP, I had made reservations for two different SDO units with 2009 dates.  I was searching online, as I normally do, and saw a unit that I wanted.  I made the exchange online against the the SDO unit that had the reservation.  Since I do most of my exchanging when II is closed, I don't call (not that I normally do anyways).  Knowing that I have a reservation against that week that I have now exchanged, I call Starwood first thing in the morning to cancel the reservation on that same exchanged week.  Don't forget that II has a 24 hour penalty-free cancellation policy so they aren't actually doing anything to confirm the exchange.  When I talked with Starwood rep to cancel the reservation, I specifically, tell him/her that I just performed an exchange with II and that II will be contacting Starwood to confirm the usage is available and that is why I am cancelling the reservation.  "Yes sir, there won't be any problem".
> 
> ...



100% A Starwood issue here. I would be really surprised that they would'nt considering they are CLEARLY at fault here. I would really like to hear how they fix the problem


----------

