[2016] Account review email [Accts. suspended]

[ecwinch]

It is my belief that there is likely some punitive motive at play as well. There are owners who knew, or should have known, that the system was allowing them to make many more reservations than their truly correct point allotment should allow for. Some owners were locked due to inadequate understanding of legitimate scenarios, but others may have been locked, and may continue to be locked, because of 'illegitimate' scenarios. Like going to the ATM and withdrawing $500 from an account with $2,000 in the account, but having the ability to do this hundreds of times. In that scenario, the Bank believes that the customer knew, or should have known, that his account was not being properly credited and was taking advantage of a glitch. There may only be a tiny minority of individuals who fall into this bucket, but those locked for illegitimate scenarios should not be holding their breath for an apology from Wyndham.

Here is a more accurate analogy:

It's like having millions of dollars in the bank, and on random occasions you make a ATM withdrawal and the correct funds are not properly withdrawn from your account. Say one out of every fifty transactions. And having a lot of money in the bank, you don't see the need to balance your checkbook.

And in what universe does the bank expect the client to be better at keeping the account balance, than the bank?

And imagine - in your scenario - the bank cannot point out the transactions where they failed to accurately withdraw the correct amount. They just say they "know" your account balance is wrong, but cannot provide the audit trail showing what your correct acct balance should be.

 

[ronparise]

Here is a more accurate analogy:

It's like having millions of dollars in the bank, and on random occasions you make a ATM withdrawal and the correct funds are not properly withdrawn from your account. Say one out of every fifty transactions. And having a lot of money in the bank, you don't see the need to balance your checkbook.

And in what universe does the bank expect the client to be better at keeping the account balance, than the bank?

And imagine - in your scenario - the bank cannot point out the transactions where they failed to accurately withdraw the correct amount. They just say they "know" your account balance is wrong, but cannot provide the audit trail showing what your correct acct balance should be.

Perfect and
exactly right.. which is why I say punishment is not a thing here

and you have given us a reason (the reason) this isnt resolved... Wyndham knows we have more points then we should (and so do we) but no one can figure out exactly how many too many

 

[TeleiosMan]

Here is a more accurate analogy:

It's like having millions of dollars in the bank, and on random occasions you make a ATM withdrawal and the correct funds are not properly withdrawn from your account. Say one out of every fifty transactions. And having a lot of money in the bank, you don't see the need to balance your checkbook.

And in what universe does the bank expect the client to be better at keeping the account balance, than the bank?

And imagine - in your scenario - the bank cannot point out the transactions where they failed to accurately withdraw the correct amount. They just say they "know" your account balance is wrong, but cannot provide the audit trail showing what your correct acct balance should be.

Your analogy may be accurate as it relates to the scenario you are outlining. What I am suggesting is that, at least in a tiny minority of cases, the ratio was far, far higher than 1:50. High enough that a punitive motive is at play as well. The 1:50 guys would be collateral damage while the fiasco is sorted out.

 

[ecwinch]

Your analogy may be accurate as it relates to the scenario you are outlining. What I am suggesting is that, at least in a tiny minority of cases, the ratio was far, far higher than 1:50. High enough that a punitive motive is at play as well. The 1:50 guys would be collateral damage while the fiasco is sorted out.

And what do you point to support your suggestion that it was much higher for a minority of cases? The inference is that someone figured out a loophole that they were exploiting. When combined with your OP, that implies that some of those who have documented their problems are getting what they deserved.

Because if it was in fact punitive - then someone here might be entitled to punitive damages for having their accts frozen.

 

[TeleiosMan]

Perfect and
exactly right.. which is why I say punishment is not a thing here

and you have given us a reason (the reason) this isnt resolved... Wyndham knows we have more points then we should (and so do we) but no one can figure out exactly how many too many

I am not so convinced that the Bank would shut down certain customers' access to their accounts because of a 1 in 50 transaction problem across that customer base. They investigate it and then correct the accounts as appropriate. But if they are seeing what amounts to a 25:50 or 40:50 problem, then things get interesting. The 1:50 or 0:50 guys, further facilitated by a collegial disposition, may have a quicker and less uncomfortable go of it. The others, well, good luck.

Full disclosure: I am not Robert Longwell and although I do have some personal experience that is very pertinent to this situation, I am speculating and do not purport to know with a high degree of confidence of which I speak.

 

[Bigrob]

I am not so convinced that the Bank would shut down certain customers' access to their accounts because of a 1 in 50 transaction problem across that customer base. They investigate it and then correct the accounts as appropriate. But if they are seeing what amounts to a 25:50 or 40:50 problem, then things get interesting. The 1:50 or 0:50 guys, further facilitated by a collegial disposition, may have a quicker and less uncomfortable go of it. The others, well, good luck.

Full disclosure: I am not Robert Longwell and although I do have some personal experience that is very pertinent to this situation, I am speculating and do not purport to know with a high degree of confidence of which I speak.

Don't worry. No one was confusing you with RRLongwell/Avislo/lcm. It's clear you have a unique and informed perspective. If it is as I suspect you probably are unable to share why you know what you do. If I were putting two and two together, I might suspect that a frequent poster to this thread who is being treated differently from the rest of the set is in fact being subjected to the "punitive" treatment you've described.

 

[Avislo]

And what do you point to support your suggestion that it was much higher for a minority of cases? The inference is that someone figured out a loophole that they were exploiting. When combined with your OP, that implies that some of those who have documented their problems are getting what they deserved.

Because if it was in fact punitive - then someone here might be entitled to punitive damages for having their accts frozen.

Could be. But that would take a lawsuit to get it.

 

[ecwinch]

Ergo my signature line.

 

[dagger1]

Could be. But that would take a lawsuit to get it.

 

[Avislo]

It is my belief that there is likely some punitive motive at play as well. There are owners who knew, or should have known, that the system was allowing them to make many more reservations than their truly correct point allotment should allow for. Some owners were locked due to inadequate understanding of legitimate scenarios, but others may have been locked, and may continue to be locked, because of 'illegitimate' scenarios. Like going to the ATM and withdrawing $500 from an account with $2,000 in the account, but having the ability to do this hundreds of times. In that scenario, the Bank believes that the customer knew, or should have known, that his account was not being properly credited and was taking advantage of a glitch. There may only be a tiny minority of individuals who fall into this bucket, but those locked for illegitimate scenarios should not be holding their breath for an apology from Wyndham.

Definition from the Internet:

"From these definitions, you can get an idea that a hack is a procedure or a way of doing something that:

1. Demonstrates cleverness or ingenuity
2. Solves a meaningful problem
3. Is not a common or well-known solution to the problem
4. May not be the most straightforward or appropriate solution"

Wyndham probably believes they have been "Hacked" under definition number 4. Others that used the various "Tricks" may believe they would be covered under definition number 1. Arguably, Wyndham is trying to respond using definition number 3.

The punitive theory does explain a lot on why when restrictions are placed on someone they do not come off easy.

By the way, I do not speak for others, however, I am not you nor is the picture being used by someone making fun of me a picture of me. Best of luck with you informative posts.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Here is a more accurate analogy:

It's like having millions of dollars in the bank, and on random occasions you make a ATM withdrawal and the correct funds are not properly withdrawn from your account. Say one out of every fifty transactions. And having a lot of money in the bank, you don't see the need to balance your checkbook.

And in what universe does the bank expect the client to be better at keeping the account balance, than the bank?

And imagine - in your scenario - the bank cannot point out the transactions where they failed to accurately withdraw the correct amount. They just say they "know" your account balance is wrong, but cannot provide the audit trail showing what your correct acct balance should be.

Adding a little more color to the banking scenario. The bank is not able to provide you a real time balance as you transact throughout the day. 6 out of 7 days of the week they usually provide a beginning balance each day (but not always). You can call a teller and they will manual total your points for you. You may have learned some tricks that allow you to somewhat, but not with complete detail, check your point balances as you transact. And if you suspect an error you will likely be told it could take 48 hours for your account to update.

 

[comicbookman]

Definition from the Internet:

"From these definitions, you can get an idea that a hack is a procedure or a way of doing something that:

1. Demonstrates cleverness or ingenuity
2. Solves a meaningful problem
3. Is not a common or well-known solution to the problem
4. May not be the most straightforward or appropriate solution"

Wyndham probably believes they have been "Hacked" under definition number 4. Others that used the various "Tricks" may believe they would be covered under definition number 1. Arguably, Wyndham is trying to respond using definition number 3.

The punitive theory does explain a lot on why when restrictions are placed on someone they do not come off easy.

By the way, I do not speak for others, however, I am not you nor is the picture being used by someone making fun of me a picture of me. Best of luck with you informative posts.

Actually, incompetence and an unwillingness to believe nothing nefarious is going on is a better explanation of why restrictions do not come off easily. Wyndham's poor communication fits this theory far better than the punitive one. Your definition of Hack is completely irrelevant, as is most of what you post. The current situation has nothing to do with the dictionary.

 

[dagger1]

Definition from the Internet:

"From these definitions, you can get an idea that a hack is a procedure or a way of doing something that:

1. Demonstrates cleverness or ingenuity
2. Solves a meaningful problem
3. Is not a common or well-known solution to the problem
4. May not be the most straightforward or appropriate solution"

Wyndham probably believes they have been "Hacked" under definition number 4. Others that used the various "Tricks" may believe they would be covered under definition number 1. Arguably, Wyndham is trying to respond using definition number 3.

The punitive theory does explain a lot on why when restrictions are placed on someone they do not come off easy.

By the way, I do not speak for others, however, I am not you nor is the picture being used by someone making fun of me a picture of me. Best of luck with you informative posts.

 

[wjappraise]

Actually, incompetence and an unwillingness to believe nothing nefarious is going on is a better explanation of why restrictions do not come off easily. Wyndham's poor communication fits this theory far better than the punitive one. Your definition of Hack is completely irrelevant, as is most of what you post. The current situation has nothing to do with the dictionary.

Bingo! As has been noted here, Wyndham's actions in this matter well illustrate the unholy alliance of ignorance and arrogance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wjappraise]

View attachment 3526

Oh my goodness. That GIF is priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dagger1]

Oh my goodness. That GIF is priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This "thumbs up" guy seems to be the only one that understands/agrees with Avislo/RRLongwell/llmc1....

 

[ronparise]

I often times agree once I understand what he's trying to say

 

[wjappraise]

This "thumbs up" guy seems to be the only one that understands/agrees with Avislo/RRLongwell/llmc1....

I love the fact that he felt the need to state that was not truly a picture of him!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BellaWyn]

I love the fact that he felt the need to state that was not truly a picture of him!

HA! WJ, was just thinking that same thing! LOL!

I go away for 3 weeks and come back to still more RL / Ron / head-scratching diatribe.

To the others that posted updated information specifically about the suspended accounts -- Thank you!

 

[Bigrob]

So I received a call today - will have a follow-up call tomorrow - to set up a convenient time to "re-freeze" my account. The "re-freeze" is supposed to take 48 hours during which time they are going to complete (yet another) points audit... although if it's possible in 48 hours, it makes one wonder why it hasn't been possible after 6+ months. The glimmer of hope is that after this my account has been promised to be "fully reconciled". I don't know if I received this call because I had a couple of call recently trying to identify what happened to the points I credit pooled back in December or what. But if we can get to a resolution it will be a weight off my mind. Anyone else get a call like this recently?

 

[am1]

Best of luck. Hopefully your account gets fully restored and there are no surprises.

 

[wjappraise]

So I received a call today - will have a follow-up call tomorrow - to set up a convenient time to "re-freeze" my account. The "re-freeze" is supposed to take 48 hours during which time they are going to complete (yet another) points audit... although if it's possible in 48 hours, it makes one wonder why it hasn't been possible after 6+ months. The glimmer of hope is that after this my account has been promised to be "fully reconciled". I don't know if I received this call because I had a couple of call recently trying to identify what happened to the points I credit pooled back in December or what. But if we can get to a resolution it will be a weight off my mind. Anyone else get a call like this recently?

No phone call for me. I wish you well. I cannot believe after all these months they still don't have these accounts reconciled. What did they do when our accounts were frozen? Was it truly just punitive as Robert/avislo has claimed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BellaWyn]

So I received a call today -

Rob, appreciate the update. Thank you.

No phone call for me. I wish you well. I cannot believe after all these months they still don't have these accounts reconciled. What did they do when our accounts were frozen? Was it truly just punitive as Robert/avislo has claimed?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did not get any significant meat from the Robert/TeliosMan punitive discussion. Other, more experienced (and transparent in their identity) posters have pointed out numerous times in this thread that a lot of this situation falls to Wyn's:

1) lack of understanding of their own systems
2) incompetence in their IT processes
3) limitations in personnel able to handle complex audit / CS situations.

There is really not much to motivate WYN at this juncture, short of legal involvement, to hurry up and finish. Seven months of dragging their feet in an audit process is ridiculous, especially without interim contact during the process. Sometimes audits DO take time (am currently still working through a client audit that started in May 2016). But almost without exception the auditors have regular interim contact with the assigned contact person specific to the account being scrutinized. Wyn's lack of communication on these suspended accounts is shameful and professionally inexcusable, but not that unusual.

When we first changed over from VIP Plat to PR the program had only been out for 3 weeks. They didn't bother to tell us that once we switched, we would have zero access to the online booking system which we had enjoyed since they rolled the online system out. That was discovered within less than 3 hours of signing the contract for PR. We walked back to the sales people and insisted they cancel the PR contract. They put us immediately in touch with corporate who told us that the PR owners would enjoy access again in "very short order" and insisted it would take less than 30-days to get us back to online booking access again.

It took them 14 months.

Not the same as being fully suspended, no question, but certainly irksome and annoying to be locked out of access then and being made to consume time to do simple tasks that could be done with a point & click. And there seems to be no reasonable hierarchy one can scale to get improved, or even any, information.

They have mastered the "stonewall" method of communication. <--- NOT a compliment!

 

[Bigrob]

No phone call for me. I wish you well. I cannot believe after all these months they still don't have these accounts reconciled. What did they do when our accounts were frozen? Was it truly just punitive as Robert/avislo has claimed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think it was punitive by design. I just don't think they had a good process worked out for how to resolve the issues. FYI, it was TeliosMan, not Robert/Avislo/lcm that suggested it was punitive.
.

 

[BellaWyn]

I don't think it was punitive by design. I just don't think they had a good process worked out for how to resolve the issues. FYI, it was TeliosMan, not Robert/Avislo/lcm that suggested it was punitive.
.

Agree, hence the "no meat" in the discussion perspective. Stand corrected on the Avislo vs TeliosMan. Thanks for pointing that out. Edited post accordingly.