# More and more outraged at treatment of exchangers



## csxjohn

I just thought of this again this morning when I was reading the Marriott forum about parking fees but this isn't just about those fees.

How do resorts get away with charging exchangers for things they don't charge owners?

I first ran into this at one of my resorts when I read that anyone renting or exchanging has to pay for Internet access.

I pay my MFs which cover the access and if I give, trade, or rent my week to someone else they should have the same benefits that I do.

Now I'm reading about Marriott charging for parking in some of their resorts but waiving the fee for any Marriott owners.

This doesn't seem right to me in either case and I'm sure there are others out there.

Is this in the  by laws or somewhere else or just something the resorts came up with to gouge the exchangers? Is there any recourse by exchangers for this practice?

I also wonder if anyone else sees this as wrong?

Even though my resort says they charge for internet access, the passwords for each unit are in the notebook with all the resort info so I never brought this up to the HOA or manager.


----------



## hcarman

In my humble opinion, I actually don't see this as a big problem because I guess I would expect that owner's at a particular resort might have benefits over those trading in.  For example, when we go to our home resort, we get a 10% discount on the restaurants and services.  Sometimes we get gifts.  Owners generally get the best room assignments.  I don't know which of the Marriots are charging for parking - but likely somewhere in their maintenance fee they are paying for it - and likely their maintenance fees are higher than a lot of other properties.

If expensive time share properties (cost and maintenance fees) don't give their owners some benefits, I wonder how many folks wouldn't opt to buy elsewhere and trade in.  Maintenance fees at many Marriott properties are well over 1000 per year - 1400 at one of my properties.

To me it is just being loyal and showing appreciation to those that bought at the resort and pay their maintenance fees to the resort.  I have always felt it is fair to have more benefits at our home resort than when we trade.  Why I have tried to buy resorts that we like to go to a lot..............


----------



## csxjohn

hcarman said:


> In my humble opinion, I actually don't see this as a big problem because I guess I would expect that owner's at a particular resort might have benefits over those trading in.  For example, when we go to our home resort, we get a 10% discount on the restaurants and services.  Sometimes we get gifts.  Owners generally get the best room assignments.  I don't know which of the Marriots are charging for parking - but likely somewhere in their maintenance fee they are paying for it - and likely their maintenance fees are higher than a lot of other properties.
> 
> If expensive time share properties (cost and maintenance fees) don't give their owners some benefits, I wonder how many folks wouldn't opt to buy elsewhere and trade in.  Maintenance fees at many Marriott properties are well over 1000 per year - 1400 at one of my properties.
> 
> To me it is just being loyal and showing appreciation to those that bought at the resort and pay their maintenance fees to the resort.  I have always felt it is fair to have more benefits at our home resort than when we trade.  Why I have tried to buy resorts that we like to go to a lot..............



I do understand what you're saying and I used outraged when it's more like I'm perplexed.  I'm looking at it from the angle that I paid for amenities and those should be passed on to anyone I choose to let use my unit.

Thanks for your thought on the subject.


----------



## aandmrun

*I agree with Hcarman*

Being a Marriott Resort Owner, I agree that owners should have extra perks while staying at our resorts because we do pay high maintenance fees.  We bought where we like to go and usually trade within the Marriott resorts.  There are a lot of owners from other resorts that trade into Marriotts because of the Marriott high standards.  If it means that some exchangers will have to pay a few fees to help maintain the resort, I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## tschwa2

I don't like it either but as long as the resorts make these extra fees known to potential exchangers so that they can decide if it is worth it to exchange in before they arrive I am ok with it.  I will comment on it when taking surveys.


----------



## TSPam

I also wonder why benefits to owners don't transfer. I agree that my fees pay for the perk and that it should be passed on. I do see the rational of buy "here" or you don't get the perks but that is on the sales side not the HOA side.


----------



## DaveNV

It's not much different from when owner's are given "better" unit assignments over exchangers.  Being an owner has its perks, but only when staying at their home resort.  Fair?  Probably not.  Changeable?  Not likely.   

Dave


----------



## slum808

I think it depends on who's keeping the money collected. If extra fee's are being imposed on exchangers to offset owner mf then I guess I'm okay with that. But if those fee's are going directly to the developer/manager and not lowering the mf of the owners, then I'm totally against it.


----------



## geekette

I don't have a problem with it.  Certainly not outraged.  

If I was allowed to convey my benefits to anyone using my reservation, it ceases to be a perk.  

I disagree with parking fees except some circumstances (city w/ scarce parking, valet parking or parking garage).  I could see charging for second and thereafter cars per unit, but make it by the reservation, not the day.

I guess I don't see why a renter/exchanger shouldn't be charged for things I've had to pay for?  they receive the benefit of the amenity/service/whatever otherwise without paying for it.  Can't say as that's fair to owners.


----------



## timeos2

It is completely wrong - when you trade you give up your ownership rights for someone else. You want them to make you pay - again - when you go to their resort because you aen't an owner and even though you already paid for it in your annual fees? 

Back in the "good ole" days before II & Disney corrupted things it was specifically prohibited by the resort agreements with II/RCI. What you didn't charge an owner for you didn't charge an exchange guest (just your owner with another name) for.  Then Disney ruined it by getting the II OK to impose an unfair & unwarranted fee - RCI wouldn't allow it then - and they temporarily got the DVC account for their giving in.  Eventually RCI joined in (first I knew of was the Manhattan Club) and others have tried to impose it since. 

When you see it automatically rate the resort a "1" or lowest on at least one or more categories. Maybe all. Tell them why in the comments.  Since neither RCI or II will remove ratings cards - even if they are clearly wrong - the scores WILL hurt the resorts rankings and maybe that will wake them up. Or just rent or avoid those resorts - it all works. 

It is a corruption of the way trades are supposed to work and yet another reason why timeshares in general tend to be viewed in a very negative way.  Seems they often deserve it.


----------



## geekette

I hear what you are saying, John, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  the trend exists, it's not going away.  

Yours for Mine may have been how it used to be but that is long gone as the field is more crowded and there is now a precedent.

eta - it is not a given that "I paid for it" in MY annual fees as maybe MY resort doesn't have free wifi, onsite restaurant, garage, water slide, etc., but yours does.  Are you saying that you are ok with my paying only RCI (or whatever exchange co) to use your resort amenities that YOU paid for?

No matter how hard I try, I cannot make the field level because resorts are not equal in too many ways...


----------



## theo

*My thoughts...*

I don't "exchange", so I have no dog in this fight and honestly can't muster up much (...if any) "outrage". The question that comes to *my* mind, however, seems not to have yet been raised, which is "where do these extra collected fees go, exactly"?   

If the collected "extra fees" money goes into the same resort coffers where the owner maintenance fees reside, it would seem to me to be of (albeit admittedly not huge) potential benefit to owners in computation of annual maintenance fees. If that's the case, I get *no* heartburn if the practice is applied at the resorts where I own weeks. "Exchangers" who don't take the same interest and /or care of the facility amenities, furniture, etc. as actual owners do might very well be creating "more accelerated wear and tear" on the facility anyhow. Again, exchangers paying some minor fees which are not imposed on actual owners gives *me* no heartburn whatsoever. Just my personal opinion. YMMV.  

Then again, the practice of additional fees imposed *only* upon exchangers is certainly still better than the Celebrity / Legacy approach --- "Screw *everyone* with our picayune additional nickel and dime charges, whether owner or exchanger --- we don't discriminate."


----------



## timeos2

geekette said:


> I hear what you are saying, John, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  the trend exists, it's not going away.
> 
> Yours for Mine may have been how it used to be but that is long gone as the field is more crowded and there is now a precedent.
> 
> eta - it is not a given that "I paid for it" in MY annual fees as maybe MY resort doesn't have free wifi, onsite restaurant, garage, water slide, etc., but yours does.  Are you saying that you are ok with my paying only RCI (or whatever exchange co) to use your resort amenities that YOU paid for?
> 
> No matter how hard I try, I cannot make the field level because resorts are not equal in too many ways...



I understand what you're saying and it makes a degree of sense but it has always been - and always will be - the case that no two resorts are exactly equal in every way.  So you take what you own OR you exchange - and take a chance - with what someone else owns. Resorts do not discriminate when they tack on these fees so even if you paid for Wifi, parking, a restaurant, etc they may still charge you AGAIN when you trade in! That's as bad as not having the features ir worse. You are paying twice. TPUS/ prade values are imposed to correct for those differences not cash from the exchange guest. 

RCI/II had it right & then gave it away for $$ (as usual). Now those still silly enough to trade are paying and thus should downgrade those resorts that pull this.  Most still don't (thankfully) so those that do would properly suffer from lowered scores. They deserve it. 

By the way I have ZERO problem with things that don't cost money if the standard operation supports it. I E if it is a float resort for owners then I would expect that owners get the best units - why not, they pay. It costs the guest nothing either way. But if you own a fixed week - maybe the best in the resort - then the exchange guest should also get that as they are truly the owners "guest". They are never rightfully treated as somehow less important IMHO.


----------



## pacodemountainside

So, where does this stop? Is this the answer to no more MF increases we just stick it to exchangers to balance our resort  budget.

I have encountered the following:  $95 facility fee at Disney, Internet fee,  activites fee, parking fee, house keeping fee, owners only  welcome party,  etc.  and of course  exchangers get crappy units. I  certainly believe owners should get preference in room assignment but when complex is  not full then like  kind switches should be allowed.

Then then is  the 1/4 rule. I would think RCI hates as they only make money when exchanges take place!


There is another thread here where  unit supplies vary considerably!


----------



## Carolinian

There is another interesting variant, the fees that are charged to exchangers through certain exchange companies but not others.  The obnoxious ''hospitality fee'' at Manhattan Club, for example, is charged to RCI exchangers, but not to owners OR to SFX exchangers.  Similarly when I was checking in to a resort on the French Riviera, the RCI exchangers ahead of me were loaded down with ~$100 worth of fees in addition to the utility charges that would be calculated later, but as a DAE exchanger, I was only popped for the utility fee, which turned out to be nominal.  An Austrian resort I have traded into a couple of times charges a flat utility fee, which is pretty steep, to RCI exchangers, but not to owners or to DAE exchangers.

Then there is the approach of Anfi resorts in the Canaries, which charges a hefty fee to any member who either rents out his week or puts it up for exchange.

When I was trading with RCI and encountered a fee I thought was inappropriate, I responded by grading the resort down on my review card I sent back to RCI.  I gave them a ''1'' in the ''hospitality'' and ''check-in / out'' categories as these count toward award status and can do them some damage, so it ought to get their attention.  Unfortunately, DAE does not have award status so there is no good way to push back through them, but then again the inappropriate fees are less common with DAE exchanges.


----------



## e.bram

Could not be done in New Jersey.


----------



## bshmerlie

These fees by various resorts is just another way to make money. If we accept any fees for stupid things such as the ones described then it is only a matter of time before they look at ways to make more money off of the owners. If we are aware of our own resorts charges misc fees to exchangers just to gouge them then we should say something.  Any resort that is gouging people just because they can should be informed that we do not tolerate these kind of practices. Please... fight for the other guy because some day it may be you. We do not want this spreading to all the other resorts accross the board.  Once they've all done that then they will start looking for other ways to make money and next time it may impact you.


----------



## Quadmaniac

Of the three Marriott exchanges I have done in the last 7 months I have not had to pay for parking any of the trips. It says it in the exchange but it has been free every time so far.


----------



## rrlongwell

Carolinian said:


> There is another interesting variant, the fees that are charged to exchangers through certain exchange companies but not others ...



I used RCI for one of the Atlantic City resorts and got hit with a hefty fee for using RCI even though I owned at their sister resort (Flagship).  This resort is in New Jersey, I did complain about it to the office that has juridication over both resorts, but being an owner at one does not forgive their surchange for using RCI for a stay their.

Just called the Resort who transfered me to their customer relations department to see if the fee is still charged.  They indicated the fee the resort charges upon check in using RCI is controlled by RCI and they would not disclose what it currently is.  If memory serves, it was around $50 dollars awhile ago.  That fee is over and above the fees that were pre-paid to RCI.


----------



## geekette

rrlongwell said:


> I used RCI for one of the Atlantic City resorts and got hit with a hefty fee for using RCI even though I owned at their sister resort (Flagship).  This resort is in New Jersey, I did complain about it to the office that has juridication over both resorts, but being an owner at one does not forgive their surchange for using RCI for a stay their.
> 
> Just called the Resort who transfered me to their customer relations department to see if the fee is still charged.  They indicated the fee the resort charges upon check in using RCI is controlled by RCI and they would not disclose what it currently is.  If memory serves, it was around $50 dollars awhile ago.  That fee is over and above the fees that were pre-paid to RCI.



Then the resort should be paying it, not you.  

Your next step is to call RCI.  Tell them to check their records for that trip you made and ask how much the fee that they collected was and what it was for, and what the going rate is now.

So far you have not disclosed the resort.  If neither the resort nor RCI will say what the fee is for nor the amount, I will then ask you to please tell me what resort it is in order that I can avoid it.

If it's an activity fee that is disclosed on the written confirmation from RCI (and at time of booking), fine, I get it (Smuggs had something like that??), I know about it, I can make my choice - ditto utility fees, parking, safes, whatever.  Surprise fees in large amounts are not welcome by anyone but the resort choosing to not disclose it is rather excessively abusive to a potential exchanger and already an owner gouge.  

That does outrage me.


----------



## rrlongwell

geekette said:


> Then the resort should be paying it, not you.
> 
> Your next step is to call RCI.  Tell them to check their records for that trip you made and ask how much the fee that they collected was and what it was for, and what the going rate is now.
> 
> So far you have not disclosed the resort.  If neither the resort nor RCI will say what the fee is for nor the amount, I will then ask you to please tell me what resort it is in order that I can avoid it.
> 
> If it's an activity fee that is disclosed on the written confirmation from RCI (and at time of booking), fine, I get it (Smuggs had something like that??), I know about it, I can make my choice - ditto utility fees, parking, safes, whatever.  Surprise fees in large amounts are not welcome by anyone but the resort choosing to not disclose it is rather excessively abusive to a potential exchanger and already an owner gouge.
> 
> That does outrage me.



This was awhile ago.  I did complain to RCI and their final position is that the Resort is free to add on whatever fees they wish for people going through RCI.  The additional fees to RCI et. al. are the primary reason I do not like RCI and avoid them when I can.

FantaSea Resorts - LA Sammanta on Brigantine Island.  The fees you identified were not involved with this.


----------



## hcarman

Does anyone know how the Caribbean resorts work?  I have noticed at least 50%, if not more, of the properties in the Bahamas and the Caribbean have hefty housekeeping charges, utility surcharges, taxes, etc.  The Dominican Republic is full of All Inclusive - they tack on an extra $1000 per person for the week.  

Are these charges only for exchangers, or do the owners also pay these when they check in?

Just curious.  We did one timeshare presentation at Wyndham in Freeport - I don't remember what they said about all inclusive - I think it was optional to owners and guests.


----------



## ampaholic

timeos2 said:


> It is completely wrong - when you trade you give up your ownership rights for someone else. You want them to make you pay - again - when you go to their resort because you aen't an owner and even though you already paid for it in your annual fees?
> 
> Back in the "good ole" days before II & Disney corrupted things it was specifically prohibited by the resort agreements with II/RCI. What you didn't charge an owner for you didn't charge an exchange guest (just your owner with another name) for.  Then Disney ruined it by getting the II OK to impose an unfair & unwarranted fee - RCI wouldn't allow it then - and they temporarily got the DVC account for their giving in.  Eventually RCI joined in (first I knew of was the Manhattan Club) and others have tried to impose it since.
> 
> When you see it automatically rate the resort a "1" or lowest on at least one or more categories. Maybe all. Tell them why in the comments.  Since neither RCI or II will remove ratings cards - even if they are clearly wrong - the scores WILL hurt the resorts rankings and maybe that will wake them up. Or just rent or avoid those resorts - it all works.
> 
> It is a corruption of the way trades are supposed to work and yet another reason why timeshares in general tend to be viewed in a very negative way.  Seems they often deserve it.



+1  The "exchange" wouldn't even exist if some owner didn't deposit it and presumably get a value for it. 

By charging exchangers extra fees the resort is degrading their own owners deposit values - very short sighted.

I don't want my resorts to do that to exchangers or guests - simply because when I deposit I don't want potential exchangers looking down their noses saying "eewwee - *that* resort charges a Fee fee, a Fi fee, a Foe fee *and* a Fum fee.


----------



## gnorth16

I am an avid exchanger and it does not bother me.  Because of what I own and how I trade, I pay far less than owners do when exchanging into a resort.  If I get some fees, so be it.  My only issue is when they are unexpected. RCI and II need to be very clear what fees are involved right on the resort description page.  If I know ahead, I can budget for $210 for parking at Ko Olina !!!


----------



## Icc5

*100% Agree*



bshmerlie said:


> These fees by various resorts is just another way to make money. If we accept any fees for stupid things such as the ones described then it is only a matter of time before they look at ways to make more money off of the owners. If we are aware of our own resorts charges misc fees to exchangers just to gouge them then we should say something.  Any resort that is gouging people just because they can should be informed that we do not tolerate these kind of practices. Please... fight for the other guy because some day it may be you. We do not want this spreading to all the other resorts accross the board.  Once they've all done that then they will start looking for other ways to make money and next time it may impact you.



I agree 100%.  This is just taking advantage of us.  What about when I trade down because some place is the only one in a location I want to go?  A trade should be a trade, period.
Bart


----------



## Margariet

The extra fee's and surcharges are mostly asked for in the USA. Fees for amenities we never get charged for in some European or Asian resorts. I always think it is done to keep the MF's low.


----------



## Ridewithme38

The question is, can they even do that according to the Convents and regulations..


----------



## Mel

geekette said:


> I don't have a problem with it.  Certainly not outraged.
> 
> If I was allowed to convey my benefits to anyone using my reservation, it ceases to be a perk.
> 
> I disagree with parking fees except some circumstances (city w/ scarce parking, valet parking or parking garage).  I could see charging for second and thereafter cars per unit, but make it by the reservation, not the day.
> 
> I guess I don't see why a renter/exchanger shouldn't be charged for things I've had to pay for?  they receive the benefit of the amenity/service/whatever otherwise without paying for it.  Can't say as that's fair to owners.


But they are not getting the benefit without it being paid for - it was paid for by the person who deposited it to the exchange company!  The resort or HOA is double dipping by charging these fees.  The OP posted this from the perspective of an owner - do you realize your resort is charging you for something YOU are not using, when they are also charging the person staying in your unit?

There are two classes of fees charged to exchangers - those that are also charged to owners when they use their unit (passing maintenance costs on to whoever uses the unit) and those that are included in the maintenance fee (by virtue of no extra fee to owners), and then charged again to exchangers or renters.

I don't know if these resorts are also charging people who use direct exchanges (or rent from the owners), and thus are guests of the owners, or not.  But consider what happens if they charge as a separate fee for those who use their rental pool.  Assume the resort keeps 40% commission, you get 60% of the rental, but NOT your share of the fee, which you have already paid as part of your maintenance fee!



geekette said:


> I hear what you are saying, John, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  the trend exists, it's not going away.
> 
> Yours for Mine may have been how it used to be but that is long gone as the field is more crowded and there is now a precedent.
> 
> eta - it is not a given that "I paid for it" in MY annual fees as maybe MY resort doesn't have free wifi, onsite restaurant, garage, water slide, etc., but yours does.  Are you saying that you are ok with my paying only RCI (or whatever exchange co) to use your resort amenities that YOU paid for?
> 
> No matter how hard I try, I cannot make the field level because resorts are not equal in too many ways...


They are not level, but that's wherre the idea of trade power came into play, and why different resorts are allocated different point values.  Yes, that Marriott resort charges higher maintenance fees, but their units may well be worth more points, or be valued higher is some way.


ampaholic said:


> +1  The "exchange" wouldn't even exist if some owner didn't deposit it and presumably get a value for it.
> 
> By charging exchangers extra fees the resort is degrading their own owners deposit values - very short sighted.
> 
> I don't want my resorts to do that to exchangers or guests - simply because when I deposit I don't want potential exchangers looking down their noses saying "eewwee - *that* resort charges a Fee fee, a Fi fee, a Foe fee *and* a Fum fee.


Exactly - this is along the same lines as resorts that restrict the choice of weeks that are deposited to the exchange companies, in the name of protecting the rights of those owners staying at the resort.  They create two classes of ownership.  

Rather than looking at this from the perspective of people exchanging in getting cheated, look at it from the perspective of owners exchanging out.  We all know the A/I resorts in Mexico are wonderful properties, but their trade power suffers because of the fees charged to exchangers - given that those fees approximate the cost to simply rent, what is the resort doing with the maintenance fee money?

If we continue down this slippery slope, we will get to a point where the resort charges rent for the beds in your room, and the linens to put on them.   Maybe they can also pass along the cost of the cleaning crew to prepare the room before you arrive.  Those changes would reduce those maintenance fees considerably, but would it be appropriate? 

We'll start by charging those fees to anyone that uses the unit.  But wait, that just means the owner using the resort are still paying, and the fees didn't really go down.  So now why don't we waive the fee for them, and just let the exchangers pay for everything?

On the one hand, you would think something like that would drive the trade power/points values of those resorts down, but the reality is that those resorts have enough prestige that it won't happen.  There's always a waiting list of people wanting to stay at those resorts, and someone willing to pay that high price for the exchange.

Then end result of this trend is owners who only pay property tax, and pass the entire cost of maintenance off to whoever uses the unit.

If my resort charges a fee for my exchanger to park his car, but waives the fee for owners, can I show up for day use, and get free parking?  After all, I already paid for it too.


----------



## Cathyb

*Think about this....*



csxjohn said:


> I just thought of this again this morning when I was reading the Marriott forum about parking fees but this isn't just about those fees.
> 
> How do resorts get away with charging exchangers for things they don't charge owners?
> 
> I first ran into this at one of my resorts when I read that anyone renting or exchanging has to pay for Internet access.
> 
> I pay my MFs which cover the access and if I give, trade, or rent my week to someone else they should have the same benefits that I do.
> 
> Now I'm reading about Marriott charging for parking in some of their resorts but waiving the fee for any Marriott owners.
> 
> This doesn't seem right to me in either case and I'm sure there are others out there.
> 
> Is this in the  by laws or somewhere else or just something the resorts came up with to gouge the exchangers? Is there any recourse by exchangers for this practice?
> 
> I also wonder if anyone else sees this as wrong?
> 
> Even though my resort says they charge for internet access, the passwords for each unit are in the notebook with all the resort info so I never brought this up to the HOA or manager.



Some exchangers/renters do not take pride (care less :ignore: ) in taking care of things like: placing drink glasses on wood coffee tables, leaving rings; banging suitcase into beautiful wood furniture; overloading garbage disposals, etc.  In other words, the unit upkeep costs rise over time.

Now we have a choice as owners:  Further rising upkeep costs -- or -- passing some costs onto those exchangers/renters in different ways.


----------



## geekette

Cathyb said:


> Some exchangers/renters do not take pride (care less :ignore: ) in taking care of things like: placing drink glasses on wood coffee tables, leaving rings; banging suitcase into beautiful wood furniture; overloading garbage disposals, etc.  In other words, the unit upkeep costs rise over time.
> 
> Now we have a choice as owners:  Further rising upkeep costs -- or -- passing some costs onto those exchangers/renters in different ways.



Excellent point.  And in so many of those 'little incident' situations, there will not be a chargeback to the occupant.


----------



## e.bram

I have a condo(full year) in NJ which I have rented. The HOA decided to charge the tenants more for parking than owners. an owner took the HOA to court. The NJ supreme court ruled that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking.

ps. The Court also order all excess funds be rebated bt the HOA.

Here is the case cite:
THANASOULIS v. WINSTON TOWERS 200 ASS'N.
110 N.J. 650 (1988)
542 A.2d 900


----------



## Margariet

e.bram said:


> I have a condo(full year) in NJ which I have rented. The HOA decided to charge the tenants more for parking than owners. an owner took the HOA to court. The NJ supreme court ruled that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking.
> 
> ps. The Court also order all excess funds be rebated bt the HOA.



That sounds fair. I always consider it unfair that owners should get better units than exchangers.


----------



## timeos2

Margariet said:


> That sounds fair. I always consider it unfair that owners should get better units than exchangers.



This is one of the few areas where I fully support an owners preference IF its a non-fixed ownership resort. If it is fixed units/time then the exchange guest should receive the exact unit that the owner deposited.  If a fixed week is moved to an owner over an exchange then the resort is wrong & should suffer in ratings & complaints.


----------



## e.bram

rrlongwell:
Complain to RCI and let them use this case cite for a NJ litagation.

THANASOULIS v. WINSTON TOWERS 200 ASS'N.
110 N.J. 650 (1988)
542 A.2d 900


----------



## dougp26364

Margariet said:


> That sounds fair. I always consider it unfair that owners should get better units than exchangers.



When I purchased to use and pay the MF's to maintain the timeshare, as an owner I expect to be given preference to unit location over an exchanger. As John has mentioned, if it's a fixed week/fixed unit timeshare (I do own one of these), I expect to be given the exact unit and unit week I purchased.

When I exchange into a system I do not own with, I fully expect that I'll be low on the totem pole when it comes to unit location and view. Most of the time we're given a reasonable, although not prime, unit location. Most timeshare developer don't build timeshares with a lot of views of the trash dumpsters. 

I have had parking lot views more often than not but, I would expect the owners who are using the timeshare they purchased to get full enjoyment from that purchase. That includes getting the best views. Let's face it, if you paid $20,000 for a timeshare and found that others who don't own there were getting better views than you were, the average owner would be ticked off. I have two timeshares I've purchased strictly to use and, we have used both of these every year except for one year. I bought them to use and, with one I paid extra for the view. I fully expect to be given higher priority than someone else who exchanges in. Otherwise, why would I have paid to own these particular timeshares? I bought them to enjoy them, not to trade them.


----------



## bshmerlie

Yes, but their next move will be to charge the owners for parking or whatever else they can think up. Owners should get preference on view.


----------



## Carolinian

Margariet said:


> The extra fee's and surcharges are mostly asked for in the USA. Fees for amenities we never get charged for in some European or Asian resorts. I always think it is done to keep the MF's low.



From my experience, I get popped for utilities more in Europe and the Caribbean than in the mainland US.  That is an extra fee, since most US owners already paid for utilities in their m/f.  Also, I think overall, I have seen more extra fees in Europe than in the US.

When I was on my HOA board, we had one irate owner who was an exchanger who wanted out board to do something about being charged at resorts he exchanged into for things he paid our resort for in his m/f.  Our board sympathized, and we thought that exchange companies allowing such policies stunk, but we did not see anything we could do.  Our upset member then came up with a solution that would be appropriate if the data to implement was availible (which it did not seem to be).  What he suggested was simple reciprocity.  Our resort had no extra fees for exchangers, and his suggestion was that such policy continue for those who traded in from resorts with similar policies.  But if an inbound exchanger's home resort charged an extra fee for something, then he would be charged a similar fee by our resort. If an inbound exchangers home resort charged for utilities, we would charge him for utilities.  If they charged for parking, we would charge him for parking, and so on.  Our board liked it, and if the data to do it had existed, we would likely have gone for it.  There is an old saying that turn about is fair play.  I guess we could have burdened our manager to call all the home resorts listed on RCI or independent exchange company inbound reports and ask about fees, but that would have taken up more time than it was worth.


----------



## Carolinian

bshmerlie said:


> Yes, but their next move will be to charge the owners for parking or whatever else they can think up. Owners should get preference on view.



Only if it is a floating unit.  For fixed unit resorts, what is deposited should be what is received by the exchanger.


----------



## bshmerlie

Carolinian said:


> Only if it is a floating unit.  For fixed unit resorts, what is deposited should be what is received by the exchanger.



That is probably true if the resort is almost always booked. But for the average resort that is not booked it wouldn't hurt for them to give a better view to an owner if one were available.


----------



## dougp26364

Carolinian said:


> Only if it is a floating unit.  For fixed unit resorts, what is deposited should be what is received by the exchanger.



In a fixed week/fixed unit resort, would there be any other way? Owners staying on their time would have to be given their exact units. That would leave the units put up for exchange as the exact unit exchangers would be given.

It's been rare but occasionaly we have exchanged into a resort where the specific unit number was listed on the confirmation. When that's happened, that's the unit we've been placed in. There is fine print that states we might not be placed in that exact unit but that hasn't happened. Part of the I.I. guest review form askes if you received the unit listed on the confirmation. I suspect I.I. tracks which resorts with fixed week/fixed units are complying with giving the exchanger the unit given to Interval or if they're substituting a lessor unit or unit with a poorer view. I would suspect this could impact that resorts trading power with Interval or RCI at the very least or could be a breach of contract with the exchange company. 

For the most part we've always been given a generic unit code and placed in a run-of-the-house unit at the front desks discreation.


----------



## Dori

While I can understand owners being given better units than exchangers, I do have a major problem being nickeled and dimed with extra fees that owners are exempt from. For example, several years ago, we exchanged into Hiawatha Manor in Tennessee. there were 6 of us, 2 adults and 4 children. In order to use the pool, we were told we had to cough up over $100 for the 6 of us for the week. When I expressed outrage at this ridiculous charge, the resort manager said we could  swim in the lake for free. It seems the HOA of the community wanted to keep golf fees low for the residents, so they dreamed up this cash grab scheme!

If I know that a resort charges extra fees for things I consider to be usury on their part, I will chose another option. 

As an aside, I do realize that many other pay more in MF's for their resort. On the other hand, many of us have to combine weeks to trade in, so I do feel that it works out to be an even trade. 

I do not like to feel like a second class guest when I visit a resort., and if I do get that impression, you can be very sure that my feelings will be reflected in my comment ratings.

Dori


----------



## Tamaradarann

*Parking at Ko'Olina cost money*



gnorth16 said:


> I am an avid exchanger and it does not bother me.  Because of what I own and how I trade, I pay far less than owners do when exchanging into a resort.  If I get some fees, so be it.  My only issue is when they are unexpected. RCI and II need to be very clear what fees are involved right on the resort description page.  If I know ahead, I can budget for $210 for parking at Ko Olina !!!



You need a car at Ko'Olina to enjoy your vacation and they charge for parking.  Shame on them!  Do they charge for soap, toilet tissue, paper towels?  How about a key to the door!  The Hilton Hawaiian Village charges for parking also.  However we never pay it.  We don't need or get a car in Waikiki.  Since you don't need it it is not an essential part of the vacation. It is like renting a paddle wheeler or a surf board.   In Ko"Olina you need a car, so they shouldn't charge to park it.


----------



## RachelR

If it is a fee for anything, parking, internet, 'resort fee', that varies between an owner and an exchanger, I want to know where the money goes.

I hardly think a parking fee of $10 a night, would go very far in restoring furniture or walls, that an exchanger may or may not deface.  So where does it go and what does it 'supplement'?  If it is a fee I have to pay to exchange, I want it clearly stated, prior to my exchange, so I can make an informed decision about that exchange.


----------



## Beefnot

I don't think exchangers should better units than owners, even at a fixed week resort. Owners should be able to get view upgrades at the expense of the exchanger, who should take whatever he is permitted to get.  

As for the nickle and diming of exchangers, I don't like it one bit, but if it balances the budget to the benefit of owners in otherwise slightly lower MFs, then I suppose I am ok with it. But it should be disclosed.


----------



## Mel

dougp26364 said:


> When I purchased to use and pay the MF's to maintain the timeshare, as an owner I expect to be given preference to unit location over an exchanger. As John has mentioned, if it's a fixed week/fixed unit timeshare (I do own one of these), I expect to be given the exact unit and unit week I purchased.
> 
> When I exchange into a system I do not own with, I fully expect that I'll be low on the totem pole when it comes to unit location and view. Most of the time we're given a reasonable, although not prime, unit location. Most timeshare developer don't build timeshares with a lot of views of the trash dumpsters.
> 
> I have had parking lot views more often than not but, I would expect the owners who are using the timeshare they purchased to get full enjoyment from that purchase. That includes getting the best views. Let's face it, if you paid $20,000 for a timeshare and found that others who don't own there were getting better views than you were, the average owner would be ticked off. I have two timeshares I've purchased strictly to use and, we have used both of these every year except for one year. I bought them to use and, with one I paid extra for the view. I fully expect to be given higher priority than someone else who exchanges in. Otherwise, why would I have paid to own these particular timeshares? I bought them to enjoy them, not to trade them.


You paid to own at these resorts, but so did the person who exchanged out.  The premise behind exchanging is that the person exchanging in gets whatever the person exchanging out is entitled to.  Why should you be entitled to more than the person who exchanged out from your resort?  Obviously with floating weeks and resort where units are not assigned, management can choose to place exchangers into whichever unit the wish, but if exchangers are always given the worst units, I would expect that to be reflected in the exchange power assigned to that resort - and that impacts the ability of the person exchanging out to enjoy the full value of his ownership.  This really isn't any different than bulk-banking resorts insisting that holiday weeks won't be deposited.



Beefnot said:


> I don't think exchangers should better units than owners, even at a fixed week resort. Owners should be able to get view upgrades at the expense of the exchanger, who should take whatever he is permitted to get.
> 
> As for the nickle and diming of exchangers, I don't like it one bit, but if it balances the budget to the benefit of owners in otherwise slightly lower MFs, then I suppose I am ok with it. But it should be disclosed.


Why should owners get anything at the expense of exchangers?  The premise behind exchanging is that the exchanger enjoys the benefit of the original owner.  Thus at a fixed unit resort, the exchanger stays in the owner's unit, if it is available.  If upgrades are available, then yes offer them first to the owners, but don't kick an exchanger out of the better unit because an owner wants to stay there.

If you charge the exchangers for items included in maintenance fees, that portion of the fees should be rebated for the owners who don't stay at the resort.  The owners have already paid for "free" wifi?  Then why can't the exchanger who is staying in my unit use my free wifi?


----------



## JeffW

e.bram said:


> I have a condo(full year) in NJ which I have rented. The HOA decided to charge the tenants more for parking than owners. an owner took the HOA to court. The NJ supreme court ruled that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking.
> ...



For reference, I read that warehouse clubs (BJ's / Sam's / Costco) can't offer discounted gas to their member are they do in other states, because like above, it would create two classes of customers (though, not sure how cash vs credit isn't similar).  Must be a Jersey thing...


----------



## JeffW

I think in an ideal environment, feedback would correct the problem:

- exchange trades into a resort
- resort charges for everything, gives nothing
- resort is dinged on satisfaction surveys
- demand for exchanges go down
- owner can no longer get good exchanges because their resort is not highly desired (easy now w/ RCI and varying TPU's)
- owner asks HOA why, and tells them to stop it
- future exchangers no longer pay

However where this breaks is #4, demand for exchanges goes down.  Disney is a perfect example .  I'm sure no one likes paying the $95 exchange fee surcharge.  But is anyone not going to return there because of it?  Unlikely.  I doubt fairness will cause these practices to end.  More likely, it needs to be competition.  I'm not sure say Westgate could implement some of these practices, as they have a lot of competition.  Disney, not so much.

Jeff


----------



## Beefnot

Mel said:


> Why should owners get anything at the expense of exchangers?  The premise behind exchanging is that the exchanger enjoys the benefit of the original owner.  Thus at a fixed unit resort, the exchanger stays in the owner's unit, if it is available.  If upgrades are available, then yes offer them first to the owners, but don't kick an exchanger out of the better unit because an owner wants to stay there.



I cannot speak to the historical premise behind exchanging, but as far as I'm concerned, the philosphical premise is that the exchanger enjoys the benefit of a change of scenery from their home resort.  Any benefit over and above that is a perk, not a right.  So I would allow owners to have first dibs on a better unit vs. an exchanger.  I am a permanent exchanger and I just think it's the right thing to do to give owners of the resorts I trade into priority over me.



Mel said:


> If you charge the exchangers for items included in maintenance fees, that portion of the fees should be rebated for the owners who don't stay at the resort.  The owners have already paid for "free" wifi?  Then why can't the exchanger who is staying in my unit use my free wifi?



Determination of maintenance fees are based on a budgeting process, no?  The revenue earned from nickel and diming exchangers would simply be another line item in their income statement, just like interest income on their banking account balances. Once they assess all their forecasted expenses and reserves needed for the following year, they would then net it out against their other revenues to determine what the MFs should be for the year.  So my point is, that extra revenue ultimately makes its way into the MF determination.  Now, I have never been on an HOA, don't know how that whole process works, and am speaking more from my finance experience in the corporate world, so maybe I'm way off base.  But at least that's how I would think it works.


----------



## ampaholic

Beefnot said:


> -snip
> and am speaking more from my finance experience in the corporate world
> -snip-



Why am I not surprised.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I don't care all that much about views, especially if I get a trade UP.  We had a 2 bed at WKORV, and it was parking lot view.  I would take that view over about anything I can get at most of the other resorts.  The unit was fabulous.  Our DIL was impressed that we got it with a 1 bed at SBP.  It was nice to have the kids with us that trip, and the unit was impressive.


----------



## Beefnot

ampaholic said:


> Why am I not surprised.



Or...I may be lying.  I might really be an operations executive for a large retail bottling company.  Or office manager for a plastics manufacturer.  Or...a TS scammer...


----------



## geekette

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't care all that much about views, especially if I get a trade UP.  We had a 2 bed at WKORV, and it was parking lot view.  I would take that view over about anything I can get at most of the other resorts.  The unit was fabulous.  Our DIL was impressed that we got it with a 1 bed at SBP.  It was nice to have the kids with us that trip, and the unit was impressive.



oh good, not just me:  views are not important to me, either.  Rare that I'm looking out anyhow.  coffee on the balcony overlooking a dumpster is still better than coffee at home before going to work.

upgrade is better, but I don't even ask for those.  I take whatever unit they put me in and so far there have been none that I've had to complain about, and lack of view would never be a complaint from me.


----------



## dougp26364

Margariet said:


> That sounds fair. I always consider it unfair that owners should get better units than exchangers.



So what you're saying is, if you're staying at your home resort and you get that coveted parking lot view right above the dumster with the daily 06:00 wake up call from the trash service banging the trash dumpsters as they empty them, you wouldn't complain? Especially if you found out an exchanger had a prime unit location/view.

If you're like most owners, as soon as you saw the dumpster dive unit, you'd be high tailing to the front desk asking why you, as an owner and payer of the MF's at that resort, were given the worst location possible. If you ever found out that exchangers were given the best location and you the worst, if you're like most people I know, you'd explode.


----------



## timeos2

Beefnot said:


> I cannot speak to the historical premise behind exchanging, but as far as I'm concerned, the philosphical premise is that the exchanger enjoys the benefit of a change of scenery from their home resort.  Any benefit over and above that is a perk, not a right.  So I would allow owners to have first dibs on a better unit vs. an exchanger.  I am a permanent exchanger and I just think it's the right thing to do to give owners of the resorts I trade into priority over me.
> .



No, the idea was you got to give up yours for someone what else has. No fees or costs except exchange fee involved.  Any disparity is covered in trade power/TPU/whatever the exchange co uses to supposedly smooth over the differences. It NEVER involved any cash from either side. Never was intended to. It is a bastardization of the system to have any imposed.


----------



## Mel

JeffW said:


> For reference, I read that warehouse clubs (BJ's / Sam's / Costco) can't offer discounted gas to their member are they do in other states, because like above, it would create two classes of customers (though, not sure how cash vs credit isn't similar).  Must be a Jersey thing...


No, not allowing you to pump your own gas is a Jersey thing, but not being allowed to charge different prices is not.  BJ's in Connecticut won't sell gas to non-members, because they can't offer a discount.  But it must be a gas thing, because they can charge the 5% surchage in the club for everything else for non-members. 


JeffW said:


> I think in an ideal environment, feedback would correct the problem:
> 
> - exchange trades into a resort
> - resort charges for everything, gives nothing
> - resort is dinged on satisfaction surveys
> - demand for exchanges go down
> - owner can no longer get good exchanges because their resort is not highly desired (easy now w/ RCI and varying TPU's)
> - owner asks HOA why, and tells them to stop it
> - future exchangers no longer pay
> 
> However where this breaks is #4, demand for exchanges goes down.  Disney is a perfect example .  I'm sure no one likes paying the $95 exchange fee surcharge.  But is anyone not going to return there because of it?  Unlikely.  I doubt fairness will cause these practices to end.  More likely, it needs to be competition.  I'm not sure say Westgate could implement some of these practices, as they have a lot of competition.  Disney, not so much.


That's not the only place it breaks down.  #6, when the owner complains to the HOA, nothing is done, because the board members don't exchange, so they don't see the reduced trade fee as impacting them, but they would be impacted by the resulting fee increase if they stop charging the fees.  Granted, with many new resorts there might be enough exchangers to impact HOA elections, but most of the resorts where that may be the case are probably still controlled by the developers, even if they're sold out.


dougp26364 said:


> So what you're saying is, if you're staying at your home resort and you get that coveted parking lot view right above the dumster with the daily 06:00 wake up call from the trash service banging the trash dumpsters as they empty them, you wouldn't complain? Especially if you found out an exchanger had a prime unit location/view.
> 
> If you're like most owners, as soon as you saw the dumpster dive unit, you'd be high tailing to the front desk asking why you, as an owner and payer of the MF's at that resort, were given the worst location possible. If you ever found out that exchangers were given the best location and you the worst, if you're like most people I know, you'd explode.


I have ended up in such a unit when exchanging back into my home resort.  I did report some maintenance issues, but I did not request to be moved.  The others staying in the units near mine were an even mix of owners and exchangers - owners usually stay in their own unit whenever possible, though we couldn't have, because it was being renovated.


----------



## dougp26364

Mel said:


> .........
> I have ended up in such a unit when exchanging back into my home resort.  I did report some maintenance issues, but I did not request to be moved.  The others staying in the units near mine were an even mix of owners and exchangers - owners usually stay in their own unit whenever possible, though we couldn't have, because it was being renovated.



There have been times when we've exchange back into resorts where we own. Every time we have been there as exchangers, our priorty for unit location has been below that of owner staying on their own time but at the higher end of exchangers who have exchanged into the resort. 

Most resorts have a hierchy of status for unit placement. While it's not necessarily written in stone, it gives the resort a framework of how/where to place guests. Unit placement is rarely, if ever, comletely random. 

Without a framework things could get ugly quickly with owners at the resort. Owners have the ear of the HOA and owners are the ones sending in the check every year for MF's. A resort wants to keep their owners happy.

As to exchanging back into a resort. It use to be that when we exchanged back into a resort we owned, I never said anything and just accepted whatever unit assignment we were given. Once, upon check in, I mentioned that even though we were exchangers, we actually owned a week at the resort. We had just exchanged back in with an outside unit because we enjoyed the resort so much. At that point the front desk person told me to ALWAYS make sure they knew that and had it marked on our reservation. The hierchy was explained and, while we would still be behind owners staying on their own time, we would be at the top of the list for placement of exchangers coming in. 

Sometimes I take their advice, sometimes I don't. I've found very few resorts that have a unit location so bad as to make our vacation stay intolerable. Sure some locations are better than others but, over all, most resorts have been built to greatly limit the number of undesirable locations so as to avoid the inevitable complaints.


----------



## geekette

dougp26364 said:


> So what you're saying is, if you're staying at your home resort and you get that coveted parking lot view right above the dumster with the daily 06:00 wake up call from the trash service banging the trash dumpsters as they empty them, you wouldn't complain? Especially if you found out an exchanger had a prime unit location/view.
> 
> If you're like most owners, as soon as you saw the dumpster dive unit, you'd be high tailing to the front desk asking why you, as an owner and payer of the MF's at that resort, were given the worst location possible. If you ever found out that exchangers were given the best location and you the worst, if you're like most people I know, you'd explode.



I sleep through most anything so that's never been an issue.  And I'm probably not like most people you know.   

If I cared about specific unit, I'd deal with it at booking.  I think the only time I ever did that was a 2 villa rental for a 14 person birthday party in Mexico.  I have never posted anything like "what's the best unit to reserve at ...(resort x)?"

If an owner reserved a prime unit that I didn't want to spend my points on, and an exchanger picks it up, it's not my business.  I got what I "paid" for.  I do generally try to check in as early as possible, but I'm usually there for the area, not the unit.  

I'll leave it to others to get a head of steam over it.  Life's too short and I'm on vacation, so what's to worry about?  I learned long ago that perfection rarely exists so I don't waste energy trying to make a vacation perfect.  that's not my idea of relaxing.  So far none of my guests have ever balked at the view.  

Hey, if Dumpster View or Loud Landscaping Lane units get me a break on exchanger fees elsewhere, I'll volunteer for it!


----------



## Margariet

dougp26364 said:


> So what you're saying is, if you're staying at your home resort and you get that coveted parking lot view right above the dumster with the daily 06:00 wake up call from the trash service banging the trash dumpsters as they empty them, you wouldn't complain? Especially if you found out an exchanger had a prime unit location/view.
> 
> If you're like most owners, as soon as you saw the dumpster dive unit, you'd be high tailing to the front desk asking why you, as an owner and payer of the MF's at that resort, were given the worst location possible. If you ever found out that exchangers were given the best location and you the worst, if you're like most people I know, you'd explode.



It doesn't matter if I want the best view in the resort or the best unit. I was just referring to the verdict of the NJ supreme court which said that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking. I was wondering what the court would say about owners getting preference in units. 


<< Originally Posted by e.bram 

I have a condo(full year) in NJ which I have rented. The HOA decided to charge the tenants more for parking than owners. an owner took the HOA to court. The NJ supreme court ruled that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking.

ps. The Court also order all excess funds be rebated bt the HOA. >>


----------



## JeffW

Margariet said:


> ...I was wondering what the court would say about owners getting preference in units.
> ...



My guess would be nothing, since there's no direct cost differential.  If they charged say $100 to owners to upgrade to an oceanfront view, but $200 for exchanges, that's likely a more discernable difference that a judge wouldn't be happy with.  

Jeff


----------



## csxjohn

Margariet said:


> It doesn't matter if I want the best view in the resort or the best unit. I was just referring to the verdict of the NJ supreme court which said that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking. I was wondering what the court would say about owners getting preference in units...



Good for NJ.  When the right thing isn't being done and people are discriminated against, the courts step in.

It's a shame this has to happen but when people start getting greedy and start treating other people unfairly and don't see the errors in their behavior, someone will eventually  complain to the courts.


----------



## dougp26364

Margariet said:


> It doesn't matter if I want the best view in the resort or the best unit. I was just referring to the verdict of the NJ supreme court which said that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking. I was wondering what the court would say about owners getting preference in units.
> 
> 
> << Originally Posted by e.bram
> 
> I have a condo(full year) in NJ which I have rented. The HOA decided to charge the tenants more for parking than owners. an owner took the HOA to court. The NJ supreme court ruled that there could not be two classes of owners and all occupants have to pay the same rate for parking.
> 
> ps. The Court also order all excess funds be rebated bt the HOA. >>



You said you considered it unfair the owners get better units than exchangers. That didn't seem to refer to the NJ courts which ruled hat one class of owners can't be charged more than another class of owners for parking fees. 

My experience has been that owners get the unit classification they purchased. I have yet to be upgraded to a "better" unit at any of the resorts I own. I have seen exchangers in "better" units than what I purchased and, I have been placed in "deluxe" units as an exchanger. 

Views and location are subjective. It does not create one class vs another as in the NJ case. 

Fee's, on the other hand, are objective. I could see where a NJ court might rule in favor of no additional fee's for exchangers, as that could be creating another class of guests at a timeshare resort. Timeshare, by it's very definition, is the sharing of time. Owner or guest might not matter in the eyes of the court. All guests are sharing time.


Then you have resorts that create different classes of owners within their own system. Elites often receive perks that regular owners do not recieve. With DRI I get free wifi and daily USA Today newspapers at most DRI managed resorts. With Marriott's DC points I get to make reservations in advance of regular members. HGVC and Wyndham has perks for their elites. We might call them perks but I'm sure the management companies refer to them as incentives.

So, based on the NJ ruling, do you think the incentives for having elite status should be removed? How about FF programs that offer incintives to FF's with more miles flown? What about hotel rewards programs? There's also credit cards the offer additional perks for having better credit scores. 

The NJ ruling simply stated you can't charge one tenant more than another tenant for the same service. I believe that's where that ruling starts and stops. It's not going to apply in many other situations and certainly not to the debate about "better" units when it comes to owners vs exchangers.

What started this thread was one (yes, as far as I can verify it's only ONE) Marriott resort that charges exchangers a fee to park but does not charge owners. It's one of the Marriott resorts we've avoided exchanging into because I do not believe it's fair to charge an exchanger a fee that owners are not charged. I suppose Beachplace Towers could be in jepordy if anyone took them to court in Florida over charging parking fee's to one but not the other class of guest. Somehow I doubt anyone is willing to put up the money to find out.


----------



## tschwa2

RCI slipped this little gem into the exchange info.




> Offer includes only accommodations and specifically excludes travel costs and other expenses that may be incurred.



Which kind of gives resorts free reigns to charge for extra fees.  I think it would be kind of hard to argue the parking or internet charge for exchangers vs owners especially when owners have a line item in their budget that they already paid for it or if it was a developer perk for purchasing retail and that is spelled out and reimbursed for those owners as a line item on the budget.  Views would be even harder to argue in court.  

If an HOA wants to cut its expenses by estimating the number of owner occupants and exchangers and only budgets certain expenses for owner occupants if they make exchangers aware of this and lets them choose to come or not then I think it is fine.  Also if they take any extra money received and put it back into the budget ok.  If the developer charges owners and then pockets the extra money it is not so good.  

In certain areas where there are not equivalent exchanges it probably works for the resort. In overbuilt areas- don't exchange in if you don't like it.  Or make sure you trade earlier into one that doesn't charge.  If it wasn't disclosed before trading in by all means ding them on it on the survey.  If it was then why did you choose to stay there.  If it was all you could get maybe there was a reason for it.


----------



## dougp26364

tschwa2 said:


> RCI slipped this little gem into the exchange info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which kind of gives resorts free reigns to charge for extra fees.  I think it would be kind of hard to argue the parking or internet charge for exchangers vs owners especially when owners have a line item in their budget that they already paid for it or if it was a developer perk for purchasing retail and that is spelled out and reimbursed for those owners as a line item on the budget.  Views would be even harder to argue in court.
> 
> If an HOA wants to cut its expenses by estimating the number of owner occupants and exchangers and only budgets certain expenses for owner occupants if they make exchangers aware of this and lets them choose to come or not then I think it is fine.  Also if they take any extra money received and put it back into the budget ok.  If the developer charges owners and then pockets the extra money it is not so good.
> 
> In certain areas where there are not equivalent exchanges it probably works for the resort. In overbuilt areas- don't exchange in if you don't like it.  Or make sure you trade earlier into one that doesn't charge.  If it wasn't disclosed before trading in by all means ding them on it on the survey.  If it was then why did you choose to stay there.  If it was all you could get maybe there was a reason for it.



I would agree. Vote with your wallet and you feet. If you get stuck because it wasn't made clear when you made the exchange request, then giving the resort a 1 rating on customer service and an explanation for the rating in comments (if given the option) is the next best way to go.


----------



## Margariet

dougp26364 said:


> You said you considered it unfair the owners get better units than exchangers. That didn't seem to refer to the NJ courts which ruled hat one class of owners can't be charged more than another class of owners for parking fees.
> 
> My experience has been that owners get the unit classification they purchased. I have yet to be upgraded to a "better" unit at any of the resorts I own. I have seen exchangers in "better" units than what I purchased and, I have been placed in "deluxe" units as an exchanger.
> 
> Views and location are subjective. It does not create one class vs another as in the NJ case.
> 
> Fee's, on the other hand, are objective. I could see where a NJ court might rule in favor of no additional fee's for exchangers, as that could be creating another class of guests at a timeshare resort. Timeshare, by it's very definition, is the sharing of time. Owner or guest might not matter in the eyes of the court. All guests are sharing time.
> 
> 
> Then you have resorts that create different classes of owners within their own system. Elites often receive perks that regular owners do not recieve. With DRI I get free wifi and daily USA Today newspapers at most DRI managed resorts. With Marriott's DC points I get to make reservations in advance of regular members. HGVC and Wyndham has perks for their elites. We might call them perks but I'm sure the management companies refer to them as incentives.
> 
> So, based on the NJ ruling, do you think the incentives for having elite status should be removed? How about FF programs that offer incintives to FF's with more miles flown? What about hotel rewards programs? There's also credit cards the offer additional perks for having better credit scores.
> 
> The NJ ruling simply stated you can't charge one tenant more than another tenant for the same service. I believe that's where that ruling starts and stops. It's not going to apply in many other situations and certainly not to the debate about "better" units when it comes to owners vs exchangers.
> 
> What started this thread was one (yes, as far as I can verify it's only ONE) Marriott resort that charges exchangers a fee to park but does not charge owners. It's one of the Marriott resorts we've avoided exchanging into because I do not believe it's fair to charge an exchanger a fee that owners are not charged. I suppose Beachplace Towers could be in jepordy if anyone took them to court in Florida over charging parking fee's to one but not the other class of guest. Somehow I doubt anyone is willing to put up the money to find out.



Yes, I do refer to the NJ supreme court because I do consider it unfair to make two types of occupants and I am just curious to know what a judge might think of this. Many owners are occupants through exchange in other places. I see no reason why non-owners should get the parking lot view or the blind wall or the unit next to the elevator. In fact when that happens to us I always ask for another unit. Sometimes units are assigned but often we just get another unit. I also consider it very strange from a commercial point of view that a timeshare resort offers new guests - with whom they would like to have a sales talk - the worst units in the resort. This has nothing to do with a court or judge but just with my commercial thinking.

That's all for me for this thread. If everyone thinks it's fair that owners should get preference above non-owners, it's fine with me. We hardly go to the resorts where we own weeks because they are very high traders with RCI. So it must be my pre-occupation!


----------



## e.bram

Rather than go to court it is a lot easier and cheaper to slip the desk clerk a $20.00 bill and ask for the ocean or skyline view.


----------



## Carolinian

This is only an issue for floating weeks.  If you have a fixed week, you already know specifically which week and unit you have, and should not expect anything any different.  If you bought the dumpster-front unit, that is your problem.




dougp26364 said:


> So what you're saying is, if you're staying at your home resort and you get that coveted parking lot view right above the dumster with the daily 06:00 wake up call from the trash service banging the trash dumpsters as they empty them, you wouldn't complain? Especially if you found out an exchanger had a prime unit location/view.
> 
> If you're like most owners, as soon as you saw the dumpster dive unit, you'd be high tailing to the front desk asking why you, as an owner and payer of the MF's at that resort, were given the worst location possible. If you ever found out that exchangers were given the best location and you the worst, if you're like most people I know, you'd explode.


----------



## Patri

Charging exchangers more undermines the entire exchange system upon which timeshares are marketed. The owners who deposited HAVE PAID the same fees as the owners who stay at the resort, so no matter who uses the unit, the amenities should be the same.

And as someone else said, while the resort could be a trade up for some (as far as the cost of m/f at their own resort), for others it is a step down. It all balances out.


----------



## csxjohn

Patri said:


> Charging exchangers more undermines the entire exchange system upon which timeshares are marketed. The owners who deposited HAVE PAID the same fees as the owners who stay at the resort, so no matter who uses the unit, the amenities should be the same...



This was my exact point, you say it better than I did.


----------



## Dori

Well-stated, Patri!  That was one of my points in my previous post. I realize that many have greater MF's, but having to combine 2 weeks to obtain a particular resort with higher TPU's does make a fair and equitable exchange. No way should exchangers be charged extra for amenities.

Dori


----------



## Beefnot

What if a resort recognized that damage and disregard for facilities (as empirically compiled from, say, complaints, housekeeping, surveys, etc.) was disproportionately caused by exchangers? I know that wouldn't describe us TUGers--the [far less than] 1%--but what if on the balance, the actions of exchangers were hiking the MFs of owners?  If this were true, would you find any merit in a resort's methods for extracting nuisance fees from exchangers?


----------



## bshmerlie

Exchangers shouldn't be charged extra for amenities. Now if everyone would just volcalize this to their own resorts as well as the ones they visit.


----------



## bshmerlie

Beefnot said:


> What if a resort recognized that damage and disregard for facilities (as empirically compiled from, say, complaints, housekeeping, surveys, etc.) was disproportionately caused by exchangers? I know that wouldn't describe us TUGers--the [far less than] 1%--but what if on the balance, the actions of exchangers were hiking the MFs of owners?  If this were true, would you find any merit in a resort's methods for extracting nuisance fees from exchangers?



If you're going to use that logic then maybe they should stop renting out rooms for a profit.  That is causing wear and additional use on our rooms.  Maybe that profit should be used to help keep our MFs low.


----------



## Beefnot

bshmerlie said:


> If you're going to use that logic then maybe they should stop renting out rooms for a profit.  That is causing wear and additional use on our rooms.  Maybe that profit should be used to help keep our MFs low.



The renting out of rooms for profit is what helps keep your MFs low.  Every $ of revenue from other sources reduces the revenue needed from owners to maintain the resort.


----------



## Carolinian

I have actually known of fixed week resorts, in the deep off season when they can do it, upgrading exchangers to a larger unit to butter them up for good report card numbers to RCI, while they never do that for owners.  Scores on those report cards are something that resorts keep an eye on.

And, of course, if you are hit with an inappropriate fee, slam them hard on your scores - 1's in both ''Resort Hospitality'' and ''Check-in / out'', both of which count toward award status.  Slam Manhattan Club. Slam Disney. Slam anyone with an inappropriate fee.


----------



## ace2000

Unfortunately, these extra fees are becoming more and more common.  I stayed at Wyndham Orange County recently and got charged with parking fees and internet use fees.  They also provided a nice basket of snacks and even bottles of wine in the room.  LOL - I was thinking that was very nice of them, and then when you opened the cabinet door you saw the price list with the outrageous pricing.  

What can you do, except write them up on the reviews?  But, we are fighting against the trend.


----------



## bshmerlie

Beefnot said:


> The renting out of rooms for profit is what helps keep your MFs low.  Every $ of revenue from other sources reduces the revenue needed from owners to maintain the resort.



Yes, but in your example you implied that damage and actions of exchangers could cause our MFs to go up.  But you failed to mention those costs are offset by the profit they make from all the rooms they rent out.


----------



## dougp26364

Margariet said:


> Yes, I do refer to the NJ supreme court because I do consider it unfair to make two types of occupants and I am just curious to know what a judge might think of this. Many owners are occupants through exchange in other places. I see no reason why non-owners should get the parking lot view or the blind wall or the unit next to the elevator. *In fact when that happens to us I always ask for another unit. *Sometimes units are assigned but often we just get another unit. I also consider it very strange from a commercial point of view that a timeshare resort offers new guests - with whom they would like to have a sales talk - the worst units in the resort. This has nothing to do with a court or judge but just with my commercial thinking.
> 
> That's all for me for this thread. If everyone thinks it's fair that owners should get preference above non-owners, it's fine with me. *We hardly go to the resorts where we own weeks because they are very high traders with RCI.* So it must be my pre-occupation!



That second to last line tells me I was correct in what I was thinking. You primarily exchange, so this is of self interest to you. If you used your home resort more often, I'm sure you'd be down at the front desk asking why you, as an owner, got the lessor location while an exchanger got the better location, same as you do when you exchange. I doubt it matters whether your an exchanger or owner staying on your own time. For you, someone else should always get the lessor location while you should get what you want. 

As for the courts having an opinion, why should they? If you exchange for a 2 bedroom unit and get a 2 bedroom unit, you got what you bargained for. Location wasn't a consideration when you completed the transaction.


----------



## bshmerlie

dougp26364 said:


> That second to last line tells me I was correct in what I was thinking. You primarily exchange, so this is of self interest to you. If you used your home resort more often, I'm sure you'd be down at the front desk asking why you, as an owner, got the lessor location while an exchanger got the better location, same as you do when you exchange. I doubt it matters whether your an exchanger or owner staying on your own time. For you, someone else should always get the lessor location while you should get what you want.



I personally always ask for the best view or the best building I can get.  Why wouldn't you?  The worst they can say is no.  Tell them you're a light sleeper and that will keep you away from the elevator and trash dump. 

In all seriousness ...you should always ask for an upgrade. Especially if you are traveling in an off season...many times you can get it.


----------



## Tia

Patri said:


> Charging exchangers more undermines the entire exchange system upon which timeshares are marketed. .....



I think RCI does more to undermine the entire exchange system by renting out deposits for their profit. Yes owners have paid all the maint. fees, but as has come up before not all ts maint. fees = other ts maint. fees as costs vary in parts of the country/world. Seems to me too that RCI also gives high TPU value to certain resorts/places based on thin air.


----------



## timeos2

Tia said:


> I think RCI does more to undermine the entire exchange system by renting out deposits for their profit. Yes owners have paid all the maint. fees, but as has come up before not all ts maint. fees = other ts maint. fees as costs vary in parts of the country/world.



True but a different thread altogether.


----------



## Margariet

dougp26364 said:


> That second to last line tells me I was correct in what I was thinking. You primarily exchange, so this is of self interest to you. If you used your home resort more often, I'm sure you'd be down at the front desk asking why you, as an owner, got the lessor location while an exchanger got the better location, same as you do when you exchange. I doubt it matters whether your an exchanger or owner staying on your own time. For you, someone else should always get the lessor location while you should get what you want.
> 
> As for the courts having an opinion, why should they? If you exchange for a 2 bedroom unit and get a 2 bedroom unit, you got what you bargained for. Location wasn't a consideration when you completed the transaction.



I must be bothering you! Cheer up. As far as I know, I don't know you and you don't know me, so stop shouting at me. I am not at all someone who always wants the best things for myself. I am for justice for all. Everyone deserves a good unit, exchangers and owners alike. I really wouldn't care at all if I get a better unit at the resorts where we own.

But I am out of this thread and out of your life: Life is too short and too beautiful to shout and to waste your energy on a hypothetical question. So go out in the sun and enjoy.


----------



## bnoble

> Wyndham Orange County


This isn't a Club Resort, but an Associate Hotel---there aren't any "owners" there per se, just hotel inventory made available to Wyndham in exchange for something else (probably cash).  Those fees/minibar charges are pretty typical for a mid- to upper-tier business class hotel, and that's exactly what this one is.  It also costs a ridiculously large number of points to book internally.



> The owners who deposited HAVE PAID the same fees as the owners who stay at the resort, so no matter who uses the unit, the amenities should be the same


This is the original point of the thread, and I agree with it.  But, they are not in a growing number of cases.  As always, the thing to do as a consumer is to weight the value you are getting for what you are paying, and decide if it is a good deal or not.  If enough people decide "not a good deal" then the trade power will go down (decreasing the costs to exchange in) and/or the resort will back down.  But, if people still go, the fees will stay and potentially even increase.  As long as the fees are disclosed up front, I can make a decision that's best for me.


----------



## Beefnot

Margariet said:


> I must be bothering you! Cheer up. As far as I know, I don't know you and you don't know me, so stop shouting at me. I am not at all someone who always wants the best things for myself. I am for justice for all. Everyone deserves a good unit, exchangers and owners alike. I really wouldn't care at all if I get a better unit at the resorts where we own.
> 
> But I am out of this thread and out of your life: Life is too short and too beautiful to shout and to waste your energy on a hypothetical question. So go out in the sun and enjoy.



Where was the shouting you referenced? I missed it. Challenging is not shouting. THIS IS *SHOUTING*!


----------



## ace2000

bnoble said:


> This isn't a Club Resort, but an Associate Hotel---there aren't any "owners" there per se, just hotel inventory made available to Wyndham in exchange for something else (probably cash). *Those fees/minibar charges are pretty typical* for a mid- to upper-tier business class hotel, and that's exactly what this one is.


 
Yes, you're saying what I said.  I made the point that it's becoming typical across the industry.  Instead of raising the overall rates, they start nickel and diming you on the fees.  

In this case, instead of raising the overall MFs on all owners, they start being creative in other ways by charging exchangers.  The trend is getting worse.


----------



## Beefnot

bshmerlie said:


> Yes, but in your example you implied that damage and actions of exchangers could cause our MFs to go up.  But you failed to mention those costs are offset by the profit they make from all the rooms they rent out.



I also failed to mention a number of revenue and expense sources, but that is somewhat beside the point.  It is e fiduciary duty of HOAs to act in the best interests of its members. Renting out empty units is table stakes. Also, collecting compensatory revenue for the disproportionate wear and tear caused by exchangers could be another potentially acceptable action. 

Now, I do not know if it is a true statement that exchangers are more destructive than owners (although I would not be surprised) or if that is the rationale for nuisance fees even if it were true; I'm simply suggesting that there may be a different hypothetical perspective that could justify nuisance fees.


----------



## dougp26364

Margariet said:


> I must be bothering you! Cheer up. As far as I know, I don't know you and you don't know me, so stop shouting at me. I am not at all someone who always wants the best things for myself. I am for justice for all. Everyone deserves a good unit, exchangers and owners alike. I really wouldn't care at all if I get a better unit at the resorts where we own.
> 
> But I am out of this thread and out of your life: Life is too short and too beautiful to shout and to waste your energy on a hypothetical question. So go out in the sun and enjoy.



Who's shouting? I don't believe I used caps anywhere? I use bold to highlight area's I'm refering too. 

No, you're not bothering me. I simply think of this as a discussion or debate. You feel that unit location assignments should have no preference. I understand that resorts do have a hierchy and the reasons for such a hierchyt. You exchange a lot, we do both exchanges and home resort stays. I know that one of the reasons we purchased to use as three specific resorts was the benefit of having higher priority for unit location when making a reservation.

Fair or not, that's the way it is. The one thing I am positive of is that it's legal so long as the unit you're given matches the descritpion of the unit you agreed to when making the exchange. Everyone gets a good unit as far as the front desk is concerned. View and location are a matter of opinion. When it comes to owners at a resort, it's just that their opinion matters more than an exchanger. I understand this, accept it and take it into consideration when making an exchange and when thinking about buying a timeshare.


----------



## Mel

Beefnot said:


> The renting out of rooms for profit is what helps keep your MFs low.  Every $ of revenue from other sources reduces the revenue needed from owners to maintain the resort.


But those profits only help the HOA, and the bottom line, if those are HOA owner units, or units being rented by the HOA because the owner is in default (and even then, local law may require that anything in excess of the default must be remitted to the owner).  In a best case scenario, the HOA doesn't own any units, and any rentals are done through a rental agent - any profits are made by that rental agent and the owner of the week.  And that implies that there are in fact profits.  In many cases this is irrelevant, because it is not the HOA, but the developer who is renting those weeks.  The HOA never sees that money, and the HOA might also never see the money being collected from the exchangers and renters.



bnoble said:


> This is the original point of the thread, and I agree with it.  But, they are not in a growing number of cases.  As always, the thing to do as a consumer is to weight the value you are getting for what you are paying, and decide if it is a good deal or not.  If enough people decide "not a good deal" then the trade power will go down (decreasing the costs to exchange in) and/or the resort will back down.  But, if people still go, the fees will stay and potentially even increase.  As long as the fees are disclosed up front, I can make a decision that's best for me.


But again, that's part of the problem.  In some cases the fees are disclosed, but recently we have seen TUG members complaining about fees at Vacation Village resorts.  They have started charging a $50 mandatory fee for wifi and in-unit safe, and will charge all incoming exchangers, no matter when they confirmed their exchange.  RCI is not offering alternatives.  I would be upset if I had confirmed and extra vacation for $200 (which I did for one of those resorts in April), and found I now have to pay 25% more.


Beefnot said:


> I also failed to mention a number of revenue and expense sources, but that is somewhat beside the point.  It is e fiduciary duty of HOAs to act in the best interests of its members. Renting out empty units is table stakes. Also, collecting compensatory revenue for the disproportionate wear and tear caused by exchangers could be another potentially acceptable action.
> 
> Now, I do not know if it is a true statement that exchangers are more destructive than owners (although I would not be surprised) or if that is the rationale for nuisance fees even if it were true; I'm simply suggesting that there may be a different hypothetical perspective that could justify nuisance fees.


I too am not sure if exchangers cause more damage (I would suspect non-owning renters might, but exchangers might be less likely because the do own another timeshare).  But even if they do, it should be the responsibility of management to charge guests if they do damage - that's what the deposit is for when you check in.  I suspect there is no way to track who causes more general wear and tear, but resorts don't usually check up on those things and more than they track which class of guest uses facilities like the pools more.  I own in Orlando, and suspect that owners probably use the pools more, because exchangers stay there less frequently, and probably spend more time off-resort at the parks.

But with these fees, it ultimately it boils down to 2 classes of _owners_, not owners vs exchangers.  If an owner's guest (whether renting from the owner, exchanging directly with the owner, exchanging through an exchange company, or simply staying as a guest of the owner) is charged for a service, that owner should not also be paying for that service as part of the maintenance fee.


----------



## dougp26364

bnoble said:


> ........This is the original point of the thread, and I agree with it.  But, they are not in a growing number of cases.  As always, the thing to do as a consumer is to weight the value you are getting for what you are paying, and decide if it is a good deal or not.  If enough people decide "not a good deal" then the trade power will go down (decreasing the costs to exchange in) and/or the resort will back down.  But, if people still go, the fees will stay and potentially even increase.  As long as the fees are disclosed up front, I can make a decision that's best for me.



IMO this is the most important point. Consider the value of the exchange and, if the exchange doesn't have enough value for what you're giving up, don't make the exchange. There are resorts and/or resort groups we won't exchange into unless it's our only choice. Westgate is an example of a resort group we prefer to stay away from.

Ironically, Sunterra was a resort group we avoided before DRI bought them out. We had made two exchanges into Sunterra resorts when they were managed by Sunterra and simply decided the quality wasn't good enough compared to what we were giving up. 

The resort charging for parking that started this thread, Marriott's Beachplace Towers, is a resort we'd like to exchange into but haven't because I'm not paying for parking. I refuse to supplement Beachplace Towers MF's when I've already paid for parking at the resort used for exchange.

There's a resort in Lake Tahoe called the Ridge Crest that we've exchanged into in the past. It's a nice enough resort but, I won't use just anything to exchange into it. Most of what we own I would consider overkill as far as trade power to get in. When we did exchange in, we used studio units for their one bedroom units. Because of the difference in quality of the resort and accomadations I consider this a relatively fare exchange.

The issue is when you don't know about fee's because they're not listed or, the resort enacts fee's after the fact. So far we haven't been surprised. If/when we ever are, I'll voice my opinion to the resort management and it will be reflected in the customer service rating with an explanation as to why.

I can't say that I mind the fee's for wifi. I understand that each resort has to decide if it's a pay for use or if all owners should pay for it whether they use it or not. The problem with this arguement is that I'm paying for childrens play equipement that I don't use. Others are paying for exercise equiement that they don't use. Sometimes guests are paying for pools when they don't swim. Daily newspaper delivery is a cost to all owners even if you don't read the local newspaper or USA Today. So the arguement can be made, why does an HOA feel it can charge for some services but not others?

Like you said, one just has to know what they're giving up and what they're getting in return. Sometimes we accept the differences, sometimes we don't. If a resort oversteps the line to often and makes the resort unappealing for exchange, you'd like to think it's demand and value as an exchange would go down.


----------



## bnoble

> Yes, you're saying what I said. I made the point that it's becoming typical across the industry. Instead of raising the overall rates, they start nickel and diming you on the fees.


Except that in the hotel end of the lodging industry (vs. the timeshare end) these charges---parking, internet, exorbitant mini-bar, automatic gratuities, etc.---have been the norm for years and years now.  Indeed, the more expensive the property, the more likely there are charges for these other items, and the higher those charges are likely to be.


----------



## dougp26364

bnoble said:


> Except that in the hotel end of the lodging industry (vs. the timeshare end) these charges---parking, internet, exorbitant mini-bar, automatic gratuities, etc.---have been the norm for years and years now.  Indeed, the more expensive the property, the more likely there are charges for these other items, and the higher those charges are likely to be.



And isn't it odd that the higher end hotels have more extra fee's than than the lower end? I have found it interesting that I'm more likely to pay for wifi when paying $200/night for a hotel room than if I were to pay $50/night at a Super 8.


----------



## pacodemountainside

Think  that might have to do with $200 a night rooms  generally being put on the expense account!


----------



## wvacations

Not sure I understand using the term "Perks" when to refering to services/amenities that are paid for with MF. I have a line on my MF report for things like "Internet"; "Parking"; Etc. These are not "Perks" for owners they are paid for and the resort has no right to charge again for a service/amenity that I have already paid for regardless who is using my week.


----------



## ace2000

pacodemountainside said:


> Think that might have to do with $200 a night rooms generally being put on the expense account!


 
You got it!  And that explains a lot.


----------



## timeos2

wvacations said:


> Not sure I understand using the term "Perks" when to refering to services/amenities that are paid for with MF. I have a line on my MF report for things like "Internet"; "Parking"; Etc. These are not "Perks" for owners they are paid for and the resort has no right to charge again for a service/amenity that I have already paid for regardless who is using my week.



That is my feeling exactly. Having an option - for owners & exchangers/renters - of things like WiFi (which still 50% or more say they either don't use, have an optional way to connect or use free services elsewhere) which isn't a need for all visitors or even a majority aren't like linen service, towels, pools, a check in desk (hey, you want to check in? $25 fee!), kids play areas, tennis courts, etc. Most of those amenities are one time costs paid by the Developer to install & maintained or improved by the HOA - others are necessities (you want old sheets from the last three visitors or supply your own sheets/towels, etc?).  In non-urban areas free parking is expected (I'm willing to give a bit on that in urban timeshares as it is extremely expensive to provide & monitor parking there) but charging for things already included for owners (including parking if it is given to them) is a no no.  

At least to me it is clear that if an owner gets X so does an exchange guest. Renters? You can charge them anything the market bears - they aren't paying for a home resort in these cases.  But exchangers are and they are the stand in for your owners that deserve exactly what that owner would get. Period. Do less or charge extra and you should be rightfully downgraded in any available ranking.  If it's a fixed time resort that includes the unit they are assigned.


----------



## bnoble

> Think that might have to do with $200 a night rooms generally being put on the expense account!


For starters, a $200 room is a bargain in most of the places to which I travel on business.

But, not all of the places that charge fees are business-class properties.  Plenty of luxury/resort-class properties do this too.  My guess: if you paying what a room costs there, you don't really blink at a $7 bottle of water.

And, honestly, I often don't---even when I'm traveling on my own dime.  Yes, it's $6 more than it should be, but for $6 I don't have to walk down to the convenience store to get one.  Sometimes, saving the walk is worth $6.


----------



## ace2000

bnoble said:


> For starters, a $200 room is a bargain in most of the places to which I travel on business.


 
$200 a night a bargain?  Check out hotwire next time.  Anyway, we're getting off point here.


----------



## Dori

Many posters have mentioned that the extra fees for parking, amaenities, etc., help to pay for damages. At almost every resort we exchange into, the front desk charges a  refundable deposit to our credit card. I was always under he impression that this was to cover damages we may incur.

Dori


----------



## dougp26364

I'm wondering if this is much ado about nothing. 

How many resorts have extra fee's that they charge exchangers but not owners? We take several timeshare vacations each year and have yet to be hit with a surcharge for anything other than wifi.

I've been aware of only two resorts that have extra fee's charged to exchangers but not owners. Westgate's Smokey Mountain resort charges exchangers who want to use their indoor water park and Marriott's Beachplace Towers charges exchangers to park. 

Is this really becoming a major issue amongst timeshare properties or are we just worried that it might?

I know a couple of years ago I started moving what I could into resort groups because it made it easier and less expensive to reserve within those groups vs exchanging through I.I. Maybe there's a larger benefit to be had with this strategy. I still have one timeshare that we trade through I.I. on a regular basis but we have yet to be hit with a surcharge that I'm certain owners at that resort don't pay.


----------



## Beefnot

Dori said:


> Many posters have mentioned that the extra fees for parking, amaenities, etc., help to pay for damages. At almost every resort we exchange into, the front desk charges a  refundable deposit to our credit card. I was always under he impression that this was to cover damages we may incur.
> 
> Dori



It is a little more challenging when it comes to towels that go missing, carpets that look like a herd of elephants have been over it, miscellaneous scuffs and marks on the wall, etc. I have managed an apartment complex before and there is plenty of wear and tear that happen, some of which is not readily recognized until days or months after it may have happened.


----------



## bnoble

> Check out hotwire next time.


Often, I do not have a choice of properties.  Staying three blocks (or worse, a few miles) away from "the hotel" that everyone else is at is nearly as bad as not going in the first place.


----------



## MuranoJo

timeos2 said:


> At least to me it is clear that if an owner gets X so does an exchange guest. Renters? You can charge them anything the market bears - they aren't paying for a home resort in these cases.  But exchangers are and they are the stand in for your owners that deserve exactly what that owner would get. Period. Do less or charge extra and you should be rightfully downgraded in any available ranking.  If it's a fixed time resort that includes the unit they are assigned.



I've been following this thread and was about to post, but John's post summarized my feelings very well.  Except I'd expect my renters to also get my bennies and location/view.  However, open market rentals from the resort or RCI are fair game IMO.

And my guess is that exchangers are more respectful of the property and would cause less damage than renters.  They likely don't have a "We're just staying at a hotel" mindset.


----------



## skimble

I have not read the whole thread (it's long), so if this has been brought up, please forgive.

I believe there is an ulterior motive that coincides with the extra income these fees bring the association.  
When an owner rents his week on Redweek, Craigslist, TUG, etc., they do not need to list fees.  Exchangers who list weeks must have a disclaimer about the fees if they are to avoid legal conflict and the possibility of the guest throwing a fit at check-in.  Fees cannot be mitigated by an exchanger who rents his week; he is forced to be upfront about them.  Thus, fees help to differentiate the exchanger renter (rule breaker) from the owner.


----------



## geekette

skimble said:


> I have not read the whole thread (it's long), so if this has been brought up, please forgive.
> 
> I believe there is an ulterior motive that coincides with the extra income these fees bring the association.
> When an owner rents his week on Redweek, Craigslist, TUG, etc., they do not need to list fees.  *Exchangers who list weeks must have a disclaimer about the fees if they are to avoid legal conflict *and the possibility of the guest throwing a fit at check-in.  Fees cannot be mitigated by an exchanger who rents his week; he is forced to be upfront about them.  Thus, fees help to differentiate the exchanger renter (rule breaker) from the owner.



?  

So you are saying that owners can keep mum on fees but someone renting out an exchange must list them to avoid legal hassles?  not following your logic at all here, especially differentiating exchange rentals from owner rentals?  

Please elaborate.


----------



## Mel

I think I understand what Skimble is suggesting, though I disagree.

He is thinking someone who rents directly from an owner would not be subject to these fees, while someone who rents from an exchanger would be subject to them.  But that only works if the resort only charges exchangers.  But I'm not sure that is what happens at many resorts - they charge anyone and everyone except for owners using their own weeks.

Further, it doesn't distinguish between exchangers who play by the rules, and exchanger who rent their weeks to someone else.  I doubt rental of exchanges plays into this at all.  It is simply a money-grab; a way to make more money and to artificially keep maintenance fees down.


----------



## marty77

Beach Quarters in Virginia Beach, VA charges owners $2 a day per person to use their gym, yet charges exchangers and hotel guests $5 per person per day.  It's an awesome gym, locker room, showers, hot tub, steam room and sauna - well worth paying for.  But I never could understand the difference in charging that way.  For a family of four to use it 3 days during the stay, it could run $24 or $60.  That's a big difference.


----------



## dr.debs

*Kona Coast resort Exchange*

We just returned from exchanging my MCV 2br/2 ba for a 2 br/2ba at the Kona coast resort Phase II. As traders we were given a choice of golf course or internal view and charged both an "exchange"  fee of $5/day, and an air conditioning rental fee of $11/day. A charge of $150 was posted to my credit card the first day we checked in to cover any additional fees/charges. Although my MCV annual fees are less than what I would predict the annual fees at this resort would be (given it's hawaiian location), The additional fees, plus the II exchange fees brought the total up to what I probably would have paid to rent a week at a similar resort. We enjoyed our stay, and I would stay there again for many reasons, but IMO the nickle and dime charges do add up, and are a definite negative to the exchange experience.


----------



## SOS8260456

dr.debs said:


> . As traders we were given a choice of golf course or internal view and charged both an "exchange"  fee of $5/day, and an air conditioning rental fee of $11/day.



Rental fee for air conditioning?  Did you have the option of declining the air conditioner?


----------



## DerekS

Carolinian said:


> The obnoxious ''hospitality fee'' at Manhattan Club, for example, is charged to RCI exchangers, but not to owners OR to SFX exchangers.



Carolinian

I have an RCI exchange into the Manhattan Club in October. What is this ''hospitality fee'' ?  i.e. how much and what does it cover? I know that there is a daily cocktail and canape reception for owners but not exchange guests.

On the wider front obviously everyone can't have the prime units. Some guests have to have the better units and others the less desirable ones. I have no problem with the resort giver the owners the better ones. I firmly believe that in all other cases owners and exchange guests should be treated eqaully. When I exchange into a resort I am there as the owner's proxy and I believe that I am entitled to the same privileges as the owner.  Similarly when someone ekse exchanges into my home resort then that person should get all my rights at no additional charge.


----------



## bnoble

It should be on your confirmation under Urgent Information.  (And, only *RCI* exchangers pay it---not owners, not guests, not even those using independent exchanges like SFX).

What does it cover?  Nothing, really.  No one else pays it, but you don't get anything extra for it that other guests don't get.  It's just added friction on any RCI exchange into MC.


----------



## timeos2

We should simply dub any of these unfair & bogus charges as the "II/Disney Penalty Fee" in honor of those who (il)legitimatized it.  Thanks Disney & II, you really stood up for your members.


----------



## geekette

timeos2 said:


> We should simply dub any of these unfair & bogus charges as the "II/Disney Penalty Fee" in honor of those who (il)legitimatized it.  Thanks Disney & II, you really stood up for your members.



I think you also have to get RCI in the name.  It's really unclear who gets those extra "RCI Exchanger Fees" but RCI is ok by it and the resorts that charge it are also.

Let's just call them Greed Fees.  

If I exchanged more, I'd get into a letter writing campaign to pummel RCI and whatever Greed Fee resort I recently got dinged by.


----------



## Mel

Once upon a time, RCI refused to allow these fees.  Disney was originally part of RCI when we first joined (early 90's) and then switched over to II when RCI wouldn't let them charge their transportation fee, and II did.  Now both exchange companies allow such charges.

I agree with John regarding the name, because that's where it all started.

RCI did fairly early on allow extra charges that everyone payed (but should have been part of maintenance fees), such as utility charges, but you would have to pay those with a direct exchange, or as a guest of the owner as well.  At least with an exchange they usually spell those fees out for you.  I would hate to show up for direct exchange, and only find out at check-in that I owe these extras, as I'm likely to have factored the value of what I was exchanging based on the expectation that I wouldn't have to pay those fees.

It does bug me that RCI has allowed resorts to change the terms of the exchange contract after confirmation.


----------



## e.bram

You have to distinguish between deeded properties where the "owners" are actually members and the exchangers are guests. Members deserve better treatment than guests. But with a deeded property the exchangers are lessees and deserve the same rights as deeded owners


----------



## Mel

That's exactly the point - whether I exchange directly with you or through an exchange company, I should be treated the same.  If I exchange directly with you, the contract is between me and you, not me and the resort.  If I am treated as second class, so are you, as my host.


----------



## WinniWoman

Whether or not I exchange or rent or own at a resort, I expect things like air conditioning and use of a pool or exercise facility, parking, etc. to be included-period. Otherwise, I would be better off staying home in the country with my own air conditioning and steam shower and exercise room with my car parked in my own  driveway. What's the point of going to a resort then? I would be better off staying home!


----------



## bobpark56

mpumilia said:


> Whether or not I exchange or rent or own at a resort, I expect things like air conditioning and use of a pool or exercise facility, parking, etc. to be included-period. Otherwise, I would be better off staying home in the country with my own air conditioning and steam shower and exercise room with my car parked in my own  driveway. What's the point of going to a resort then? I would be better off staying home!



I don't agree, at least about the A/C. In some countries/locations, electricity is very expensive. Curacao is one example. There are also places where A/C is not used by locals, as they find their climate "just right." The big island of Hawaii (west and north coasts) are examples. Electricity there is also the most expensive in the US, by more than a factor of 2.

If someone wishes to use significantly more than the usual amount of electricity in these places, I see no problem with expecting them to pay for it.


----------



## csxjohn

bobpark56 said:


> I don't agree, at least about the A/C. In some countries/locations, electricity is very expensive. Curacao is one example. There are also places where A/C is not used by locals, as they find their climate "just right." The big island of Hawaii (west and north coasts) are examples. Electricity there is also the most expensive in the US, by more than a factor of 2.
> 
> If someone wishes to use significantly more than the usual amount of electricity in these places, I see no problem with expecting them to pay for it.



I have no problem with a utility fee or a facilities use fee as long as everyone staying has to pay.  My original complaint is when exchangers are charged for something that I as an owner don't have to pay for.


----------



## csxjohn

*The biggest culprit is Wyndham!*

Wyndham has taken this to the extreme at Smugglers Notch.  The activities pass is free for points owners using their points to stay there.

If you rent from a points owner you then have to pay $350 plus tax and you must attend a sales presentation.

If this trend catches on, exchanging will become cost prohibitive.

See this thread for more details.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176068


----------



## e.bram

Points owners are not really owners. The are members of a trust which can and does makes it's own rules.


----------



## csalter2

e.bram said:


> Points owners are not really owners. The are members of a trust which can and does makes it's own rules.



I very much disagree with this statement. I belong to a trust and I have the same privileges as an owner. When special assessments are charged just as the regular owner. I may not pay as much, but I pay none the less. In fact I contribute maintenance fees to all the resorts in the trust. Heck, there are some resorts that I may spend more time than you do as a week owner because i have enough points to spend a few months there.

I look at it this way. If you own any property, no one treats your property with the same tender loving care that you would as an owner. If you have ever been a landlord, you would understand and wish you had charged extra rent or asked for more in deposit.  

The other piece if you are renting your unit and are concerned about the charges, then higher your asking price and pay for it so the renter does not have to worry about it.


----------



## e.bram

Carlito:
You have what rights the trust says you have and do not know of the deal the trust has with the HOA. Also you have no right to run for membership in the HOA . ie nothing to say about the operation of the TS.


----------



## fluke

e.bram said:


> Carlito:
> You have what rights the trust says you have and do not know of the deal the trust has with the HOA. Also you have no right to run for membership in the HOA . ie nothing to say about the operation of the TS.



Not entirely true.  Depending on how the particular trust is set up you (being general) may have a vote for trust officers.   Who then get to use the voting block of the trust in electing HOA members. At some systems (for example DRI) a less than majority trust ownership essentially runs the HOAs of the individual resorts due to its uniform voting block.


----------



## skimble

Mel said:


> I think I understand what Skimble is suggesting, though I disagree.
> 
> He is thinking someone who rents directly from an owner would not be subject to these fees, while someone who rents from an exchanger would be subject to them.  But that only works if the resort only charges exchangers.  But I'm not sure that is what happens at many resorts - they charge anyone and everyone except for owners using their own weeks.
> 
> Further, it doesn't distinguish between exchangers who play by the rules, and exchanger who rent their weeks to someone else.  I doubt rental of exchanges plays into this at all.  It is simply a money-grab; a way to make more money and to artificially keep maintenance fees down.



Late reply (sorry... just got back in town)  
If I rent out my Grand Pacific week directly, my renter will pay no fees-- and I openly stipulate this in my ads.  Renters who rent their weeks directly through owners pay no resort fees. (at least with Grand Pacific weeks, this is true.)
If someone rents out a an exchange week that they booked through RCI, the renter will incur a fee at the end of the week.  "Owners" need to openly stipulate additional fees in their ad.  Are they always forthright in this?  No, not always.  
As a requirement for listing vacation rentals, Ebay sellers are required to publish a disclaimer that says there are no additional fees.  Yet, fees are not always disclosed.  
If I were renting a week and I went to checkout of the resort only to be surprised by an extra $98 in fees (@$14/day), I'd be pissed and management would hear about it right away.  If the seller/owner doesn't disclose the resort fee, the fee should not be imposed.  Could my tirade in the lobby come back to bite the "owner?"  (RCI rules preclude exchangers from renting their exchange weeks.)  
Those who rent exchange weeks without disclosing the resort fees run this risk.  And, those who disclose the fees in their advertisement are proclaiming that they are breaking the RCI rules.  
I see a win-win for RCI in this.  RCI wins either way.


----------



## geekette

e.bram said:


> Carlito:
> You have what rights the trust says you have and do not know of the deal the trust has with the HOA. Also you have no right to run for membership in the HOA . ie nothing to say about the operation of the TS.



False,  I have run for the board twice.


----------



## pacodemountainside

geekette said:


> False,  I have run for the board twice.



You are correct. When one buys a timeshare from Wyndham they are given a  UDI deed specifying  resort, week and unit(s) number. This is duly recorded with county  clerk/deed recorder. This prevents Developer from overselling and proves your ownership.. The resort has a HOA BOD which starts out as Developer and cronies  and in Colorado must be 100% owner after 80% of  units are sold. Any owner in good standing can run for this BOD.

However,  Wyndham has assigned usage rights to  the VOI Trust which credits owners with symbolic points they use to make reservations. The Trust levies a separate fee from HOA to cover its operating costs. It is supposed to be run by 7 BOD members, however Wyndham through legal  shenanigans has refused to let owners elect their four members, so yes one cannot run for its BOD. Trust  governing documents are available on Wyndham web site!

This is why so important when selling a Wyndham UDI deed to make sure it is recorded with both County Clerk and  Trust. Until Trust records one has no usage rights.

The CWA Trust is a different animal. One gives it their deed and receives a membership and yes they can run for BOD.

Nothing is simple in the wonderful world of Wyndham land.


----------



## e.bram

Paco:
I was referring to those points systems where the trust owns the deeds. Like CWA, Festiva, Innseason and others.


----------

