# Bamboozled by Diamond Resorts



## csalter2 (Jan 14, 2009)

I can't believe this. I own with Diamond and when I bought additional points last year they agreed my maintenance fees for 2009. They credited me the amount of the maintenance fees on my account and it showed all year. I did not think that I had to worry about them. Then on January 1st I see a maintenace fee amount on there. I thought it was just some error. I called today and the customer service rep told me that because the maintenance fee went up for 2009 I had to pay the difference. I told the rep that I was told that the maintenance fee for the year was supposed to be covered as indicated on my contract. She got the contract and it showed a credit for the amount of last years maintenance fees. I checked mine and that's what it was. This is not right. That amount that was credited indicates that they were paying maintenance fees for the year. In my opinion they are reneging on their agreement with me even if they only credited the account. That to me is just not right. Am I wrong for feeling this way?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jan 14, 2009)

Feelings are feelings.  You are entitled to them.  However, the contract is the binding document.  If the contract does not cover an increase in fees you are stuck.  Thats how it works in the world of business.  We as a society are finding out the hard way that we cannot put our trust in business.  Any business.  Business can be trusted to do only one thing - act in its own self interest at all times while ignoring the interests of society at large.  Some people have theorized that acting in ones (businesses) self-interest always works to the betterment of all.  That has objectively proven to be an incorrect view numerous times.  

The timeshare industry was at one time unregulated.  The practices of the industry as a whole resulted in regulation.  Regulation cannot offer full protection to consumers.  Any business transaction properly involves a certain amount of risk.  That will not, cannot and should not be attempted to be eradicated. The old adage "Buyer Beware" still holds true and is necessary for our economic system to work.  Fraud and manipulation are matters that must be wringed, once again and always, out of the system.  There is, however, an obligation on every buyer or participant in a business transaction to protect themselves.  You cannot count on anyone else to do it.

If you feel strongly about the matter, you will likely need an attorney to take the matter to court over an issue of contract interpretation.  In all likelihood, the cost of the pursuing the legal matter will exceed the increased maintenance fees.

Anger, shock, dismay and other reactions to business being business is understandable but not rational.


----------



## BillR (Jan 17, 2009)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Feelings are feelings.  You are entitled to them.  However, the contract is the binding document.  If the contract does not cover an increase in fees you are stuck.  Thats how it works in the world of business.  We as a society are finding out the hard way that we cannot put our trust in business.  Any business.  Business can be trusted to do only one thing - act in its own self interest at all times while ignoring the interests of society at large.  Some people have theorized that acting in ones (businesses) self-interest always works to the betterment of all.  That has objectively proven to be an incorrect view numerous times.
> 
> The timeshare industry was at one time unregulated.  The practices of the industry as a whole resulted in regulation.  Regulation cannot offer full protection to consumers.  Any business transaction properly involves a certain amount of risk.  That will not, cannot and should not be attempted to be eradicated. The old adage "Buyer Beware" still holds true and is necessary for our economic system to work.  Fraud and manipulation are matters that must be wringed, once again and always, out of the system.  There is, however, an obligation on every buyer or participant in a business transaction to protect themselves.  You cannot count on anyone else to do it.
> 
> ...



*I disagree totally!  The trouble with the country today is the mamby pambys who are scared of their shadow and let others put it to them.  Business being business was a different morality 20 years ago - there is no morality or ethics in our current society and the US, unfortunately, is failing fast!

Csalter2 - go for it!  Has anyone heard of the ARDA scam that DRI is pulling?​*


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jan 18, 2009)

BillR said:


> *I disagree totally!  The trouble with the country today is the mamby pambys who are scared of their shadow and let others put it to them.  Business being business was a different morality 20 years ago - there is no morality or ethics in our current society and the US, unfortunately, is failing fast!
> 
> Csalter2 - go for it!  Has anyone heard of the ARDA scam that DRI is pulling?​*




I think its Namby Pamby not to be responsible for your own actions.  I think it is Namby Pamby not to read your contract carefully and instead rely on the kindness of strangers.  Fraud, on the other hand,  is criminal and should be punished. Corporations are neither moral or immoral. Further, morality can't be legislated.  Ethical conduct in business can be legislated to a certain extent and is currently regulated.  The public has a right to restrain companies from fraud and market manipulation.  It is obvious that the public should demand and get better accountability and transparency by business.  I don't diagree with that point.  When we get the short end of the stick in a personal business transaction, however, we need to examine what we did wrong and not just whine all over the place how we got the shaft by the evil business people.  If we don't learn from our mistakes when doing business we will constantly make the same mistakes over and over again.  That would be the inidividual's fault not the "evil" business.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Jan 18, 2009)

BillR said:


> I disagree totally!  The trouble with the country today is the mamby pambys who are scared of their shadow and let others put it to them.  Business being business was a different morality 20 years ago - there is no morality or ethics in our current society and the US, unfortunately, is failing fast!



As I learned in my undergraduate Contracts Law class "a contract is a contract is a contract".  If the OP's contract clearly states that increases in maintenance fees are not covered under the terms of the contract, then the difference is due and payable.

And if the OP decides not to be a "mamby pamby" and decides to sue Diamond Resorts, she will summarily lose based on the information she's provided.  Going after Diamond will be a potentially expensive, almost certainly time-consuming, and ultimately frustrating and failed enterprise.


----------



## csalter2 (Jan 18, 2009)

WalnutBaron said:


> BillR said:
> 
> 
> > *I disagree totally!  The trouble with the country today is the mamby pambys who are scared of their shadow and let others put it to them.  Business being business was a different morality 20 years ago - there is no morality or ethics in our current society and the US, unfortunately, is failing fast!
> ...


----------



## Blondie (Jan 18, 2009)

Most all of my resorts are places where I pay my maint fees in advance so I can either use the points or bank a week. When the actual fee does come due, some months or even a year or more later, I am billed for any increase and that, I believe, is standard practice in the industry. I don't think you are being taken to the cleaners. It sound more like a misunderstanding than an act of duplicity. Maint fees are not usually set until just before they come due and members who pay in advance, even those who do so because they are buying a unit, often pay the current year's fees. The additional fees are billed later. Sorry you are so upset but maybe you just did not know to ask about this particular issue.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jan 19, 2009)

With all due respect, Csalter got the promised credit.  Why Csalter should not have to pay an increase in maintenance fees that is being paid by everyone else, is hard to understand.  
I don't see anything deceptive about what DRI did.


----------



## CharlesS (Jan 20, 2009)

*Let's hope and work for change*



pgnewarkboy said:


> We as a society are finding out the hard way that we cannot put our trust in business.  Any business.  Business can be trusted to do only one thing - act in its own self interest at all times while ignoring the interests of society at large.


While I, unfortunately, have to agree that many businesses fall into that category, the same case can be made for individuals also.  I have met people who have taken pride on how they have cheated the government on taxes or the insurance company, etc.  It seems that people in all walks of life have been acting in their own self-interest.  Hopefully, the enthusiasm and excitement we see on this inaugural day is a sign that we are now, finally willing to work for change.

Charles


----------



## viejoverde (Jan 21, 2009)

If you read your contract you would be one of the very few. Then if you read all of it you would have also read that you would also be liable for any future "special assessments", they could be $500 or $5000 and no way to get out of them, so i wouldn't worry too much for the difference in your maintenance increase they are charging you for this year.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jan 21, 2009)

If the contract clearly states that the MF's for 2009 will be paid and there is no amount limit set, then you have an arguement. If in the fine print is says that 2009 MF's will be paid up to a limit (the 2008 MF's), then they've fulfilled their agreement with you. If all that's on paper is an estimate, then I'd say that's a grey area. 

You have only a couple of choices IMO:

1. Pay the amount in question and move on. 

2. Complain and escalate the matter, pointing to specific area's of the contract that indicate only that the 2009 MF's would be paid and that there was no limit set on that amount. IMHO, estimates are only estimates and not a limit. That would be a fine point that you may or may not win.

3. Failing to get an answer that is satisfactory to you, you could file a complaint with the appropriate agencies in the state in which the contract was sold and in which the contract was signed if this was done by mail. This will likely be a long process but could eventually result in your account being credited with the amount in question.

4. Take you contract to a lawyer for their interpretation and suggestions as to whay recourse you may or may not have. Calling your local bar association may help find an attorny at a reasonable cost. Having a lawyer draft and send a letter to DRI in support of your claim may help greese the wheels to a satisfactory conclusion or, it could be a waste of money and time. You really need to read through the contract before taking this step to determine if you honestly feel it's a worthwhile cause and worth the time and money invested. 

While I haven't been a big supporter of DRI and it's many issues these past couple of years, I can say that when someone complains and it gets high enough up, they do listen. If they're wrong they have generally made good on their mistake or promises.


----------



## csalter2 (Feb 23, 2009)

*DRI is on the Up and Up With Me*

Hello Everyone,

I am happy to report the Diamond Resorts International did take care of the maintenance fees issue. They are honoring their agreement to pay the maintenance fee. I am very pleased about this because that was the deal closer for me. 

I have always been pleased with my timeshare purchase from Epic to Sunterra to now DRI. My kids and I use the points for family vacations and it is a treat. I love my Marriott Ko Olina but I like the flexibility of my DRI points. I have been taking time to visit the DRI properties and its affiliates. Although some of the resorts are not as swanky as some of the Marriott properties, they usually have nice size accommodations and real clean. I also like the upgrades I have seen at some of the properties like the Grand Beach II. The 3 bdrms lockoffs are really, really nice. We are going to have a family reunion there this summer. I love Palm Springs and I am just waiting to see that refurbished so that I can take frequent trips to Palm Springs at no additional costs. 

With the new locations here in Socal such as the Carlsbad and Coronado properties. I can travel to spots that are within and hour and a half and not have to break too much of a sweat and have lots of fun.

I like being a happy owner and will probably continue to  be as long as the properties are well maintained.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm glad that this has all worked out for you. I still think it's a shame that they did not honor their agreement without you having to argue the point with them. Reputable companies do not force their customers to have to fight for what was agreed upon in the original contract.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Feb 25, 2009)

dougp26364 said:


> I'm glad that this has all worked out for you. I still think it's a shame that they did not honor their agreement without you having to argue the point with them. Reputable companies do not force their customers to have to fight for what was agreed upon in the original contract.




I really wish that "reputable" companies satisfied all customer disputes quickly and to the satisfaction of the customer.  Read Conde Naste Traveller magazine , the Ombudsman section, and you will find that it is simply not the case.  The Ombudman handles consumer complaints related to cruises, hotels, resorts, rental cars, etc. etc.  This is not a magazine that caters to the low rent traveller.  I am no longer astounded at the shabby treatment received by travellers by the biggest most expensive names in the travel industry.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2009)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I really wish that "reputable" companies satisfied all customer disputes quickly and to the satisfaction of the customer.  Read Conde Naste Traveller magazine , the Ombudsman section, and you will find that it is simply not the case.  The Ombudman handles consumer complaints related to cruises, hotels, resorts, rental cars, etc. etc.  This is not a magazine that caters to the low rent traveller.  I am no longer astounded at the shabby treatment received by travellers by the biggest most expensive names in the travel industry.



OK, I can change my statement. DRI is good about honoring what they put in writing so long as the owner is good about making them honor it. It's a shame when you feel you must constantly force your timeshare management company to toe the line with their written agreements.


----------



## nightnurse613 (Feb 25, 2009)

So, maybe we should change the title from Bamboozled by DRI to DRI Comes Through or ????? I would like to think that, in the final analysis,  DRI did the right thing.   All's well that ends well.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 26, 2009)

nightnurse613 said:


> So, maybe we should change the title from Bamboozled by DRI to DRI Comes Through or ????? I would like to think that, in the final analysis,  DRI did the right thing.   All's well that ends well.




And that is the one decent thing about DRI. When it's pointed out that something they've done is wrong, they generally seem to correct that mistake. I'm just hoping that, as time goes on, making those mistakes will be eliminated all together.


----------

