Interval International Getaways and how they suspended my account

[vacationeer786]

I had this happen to me a few months ago. I received an email from II telling me that my account was locked until I remove the auction. I called them and apologized and explained why I was auctioning it. They cancelled the getaway and refunded me the full amount.

I suggest you contact them and ask why can't they refund your money. Here is the number I called 1-800-828-8200, it's their customer service department.

I tell you what! I will never do it again!

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I thought Consolidated was renting weeks, not II. I don't care if II rents Getaways. I think they also rent on some generic website. Are you saying that II rents on eBay? I wouldn't think so, but they may. I wasn't here when Craig Urbine was posting regularly. I only saw an occasional post from him over the past 4 1/2 years. I only joined a few weeks before the big upgrade to this new BBS.

II rents weeks. I don't think they do on eBay, but they rent out weeks on other venues for whatever the market will bear. When challenged about this issue, Craig was very specific that II did so, and that II had less than zero interest in changing that practice

Apparently II isn't as blatant as RCI about it's rental program, and this has led many people to believe that II doesn't rent out weeks. Those people are mistaken.

 

[timeos2]

It's almost humorus

II rents weeks. I don't think they do on eBay, but they rent out weeks on other venues for whatever the market will bear. When challenged about this issue, Craig was very specific that II did so, and that II had less than zero interest in changing that practice

Apparently II isn't as blatant as RCI about it's rental program, and this has led many people to believe that II doesn't rent out weeks. Those people are mistaken.

It's nearly funny to see the posts from those who apparently don't pay attention that II rents time just as RCI does who keep saying "go to II". They don't have even 1/3 of the total inventory of RCI so of course they don't have as much to rent either but they most certainly do rent. If enough owners fall for the "go to II" spiel (I feel sorry for them if they do) then eventually the rentals will become as obvious as RCI and then we'll hear the crying start all over again.

The real basic problem is the inability of a week for week system to balance itself, thus requiring either free upgrades to owners of the 80% of the time that is fair at best and poor toward the bottom that want the 20% that is high value. Either the high value time gets given away in unfair upgrades or it gets sold off, as there is no mechanism to adjust poor time value upward in weeks (such as using two weeks for one exchange or adding a fee for the upgrade). As long as owners insist on a straight week for week trade - the vocal ones basically wanting those free upgrades to continue to put additional value on their low value time - then rentals are the only way to preserve the better value of the top weeks. A better valuation system, such as a well done points program, adjusts for the values through the number of points needed and auto-balances demand to supply. Weeks can never accomplish that needed goal.

It bugs the weeks owners to find out that what they own may not be in the top 20% but the line has to occur somewhere. Points shows it while weeks hides it but either way they don't have the power to get the time they want unless they have a strong week under the covers. There is a reason an off season week or a low quality unit can't get a Marriott or DVC. It isn't a fair trade. No amount of bluster about relative demand or overall supply changes that fact.

 

[BevL]

Our original poster hasn't been back. I'm guessing he/she didn't get the sympathy they were looking for.

 

[davidvel]

I believe that this is a violation of interstate commerce clause and a restriction on my right of transferability of my property.

Any insight you can offer me would be greatly appreciated.

I could be completely off base here, (wouldn't be the first time), but my intuition in reading the language of your post (above) and your user name (ls0917), leads me to believe you may be a law student. If not, you still seem to have some limited knowledge of generic common law doctrines.

Most 1Ls are much like first year medical students: they have just enough knowledge to be dangerous to themselves and their relatives. So, since you asked for any insight, here you go: be very careful about applying generic legal doctrines you may learn or read about to a particular situation until you have performed comprehensive legal research or an opinion from a qualified practitioner. As to your problem, I agree with the comments above.

Whether you have common law rights to assign the units to others or not, II's certainly has rights to enforce their contract with you.

P.S. the commerce clause is a constitutional doctrine that Congress invented a long ago with the support of the Supreme Court to regulate our lives far behind what the founding fathers ever wished. Best of luck!