[2/10/17 UPDATE] VSE charging for 3rd party reservation changes! [+Contact Info. for complaints]

[jw0]

Harborside and Sheraton Broadway Plantation also contain the no fee for guest cert language.

Interesting. I found the language in the Harborside II governing document, but I could not find it for the Sheraton Broadway Plantation. It's a long document so it's possible that I'm missing it, but it definitely is a definite document than what I have for the Harborside II.

 

[tschwa2]

I did a quick look now and can't find it either but I did see it the first time I checked last week before saving it to my Onedrive.

 

[ciscogizmo1]

Okay, I just rented my unit on Friday. I normally ask for $200 deposit and I put the unit in their name and then, forward them the email. Also tell them they can call. So, the renter calls and they told him that the reservation was under a different name. So of course, the renter was a little suspicious. I called owner services to confirm the reservation was in their name and they said yes. At no point the rep did not say that they couldn't call. So, I gave the renter the owner services number to call and they refused to verify. So, I called owner services back and had them verify via a 3 way call. Talk about wasting time. So, the renter and I made 4 calls. Is this a new policy where they won't verify over the phone to the renter that the unit is in their name? I also notice they never asked for the renter's address? Is that new? What do they verify check-in against? ID?

 

[DavidnRobin]

Is this a new policy where they won't verify over the phone to the renter that the unit is in their name? I also notice they never asked for the renter's address? Is that new? What do they verify check-in against? ID?

Yes. Correct. ID.

 

[bogey21]

What's to stop them from raising that fee, or adding additional fees for "services" which we all thought were part of what we were already paying for?

The answer is "nothing". Corporate entities are always looking for ways to increase their income and profits and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

George

 

[DeniseM]

Okay, I just rented my unit on Friday. I normally ask for $200 deposit and I put the unit in their name and then, forward them the email. Also tell them they can call. So, the renter calls and they told him that the reservation was under a different name. So of course, the renter was a little suspicious. I called owner services to confirm the reservation was in their name and they said yes. At no point the rep did not say that they couldn't call. So, I gave the renter the owner services number to call and they refused to verify. So, I called owner services back and had them verify via a 3 way call. Talk about wasting time. So, the renter and I made 4 calls. Is this a new policy where they won't verify over the phone to the renter that the unit is in their name? I also notice they never asked for the renter's address? Is that new? What do they verify check-in against? ID?

This started Dec. 1 - there has been zero notification about it from Vistana, although there is a thread about it here. The rollout was rough - great confusion/misinformation from Reps.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[GrayFal]

I speculate that SVN never imposed this fee because their lawyers knew the content of the underlying docs better than ILG/Vistana.

It's not as if it is an unusual fee in the peer group. Who else does not charge? Disney, Marriott?

Though arbitration does make this a tough nut to fight.

Bluegreen does not charge.

 

[tschwa2]

I don't know of any other major developer that charges for deeded weeks (that aren't enrolled in any points program). My current weeks include deeded Wyndham, Marriott, Holiday Inn, BlueGreen - of these Wyndham is the only one that charges guest certs if your week has been converted to points both for using ARP at the deeded week and booking at other resorts. Hilton does not charge deeded non points -affiliates but does charge owners booking for guests outside of their home week period.

The former Gold Key resorts that are now managed by DRI requires you to specify usage prior to 30 or 60 days and changes including adding a guest name within this period are charged a fee. I think Westgate has similar rules at many of their resorts. I believe DRI managed deeded non points weeks at their core resorts do not require a fee to add a guest cert.

I would imagine Hyatt does but I don't know that for sure.

 

[heathpack]

I would imagine Hyatt does but I don't know that for sure.

Yes, Hyatt does charge.

 

[dioxide45]

Yes, Hyatt does charge.

No coincidence that Hyatt is also owned by ILG.

 

[heathpack]

No coincidence that Hyatt is also owned by ILG.

Hyatt always charged for this (or at least as long as I've owned). This predates being owned by ILG.

 

[SMHarman]

Hyatt always charged for this (or at least as long as I've owned). This predates being owned by ILG.

Ah so ILG is just adjusting and equalizing the terms of their owned programs.

 

[cubigbird]

Have we heard any further responses from VSE or are they just ignoring owners now?

 

[dioxide45]

Have we heard any further responses from VSE or are they just ignoring owners now?

Post #211 is the last reported response.

 

[DeniseM]

Have we heard any further responses from VSE or are they just ignoring owners now?

I don't think they are ignoring owners - I think they are scrambling madly behind the scenes to figure out how to circumvent the published rules. It's hard to understand how they could have implemented a fee, without reviewing the existing terms and conditions. It doesn't speak well of organization and management.

 

[STEPHEN C. ELLEN]

Have we heard any further responses from VSE or are they just ignoring owners now?

Here is the letter I emailed Suzanne Clark, along with every other LinedIn Executive I could find:

Ms. Clark:

When I purchased my 4 weeks at Kaanapali North 10 years ago, a primary part of the sales agents' pitch was the ease of renting units to 3rd party guests. In fact, many of the sales agents had purchased units for themselves, with the intent of renting them during weeks they would not be utilizing them personally.

I was astounded that I was required to pay a fee for the 3rd party reservation I transferred yesterday. This is in direct violation of the information provided by your sales team, the past 10 years of precedent, and your own Vistana rules and regulations posted for WKORV North and South. allowing 3rd party rentals with no fee:

Guests. You may permit another person to occupy your Assigned Unit during your Use Period(s) without charge by the Association subject to the following restrictions: (i) the maximum allowable occupancy limits may not be exceeded, (ii) guests must observe the Check-In and Check-Out procedures If you intend for a person other than yourself to use your Use Period or to accompany you during your Regular Use reservation, you must provide the Managing Agent with the name and address of such person(s) in writing not less than three days prior to commencement of the occupancy period. You will be responsible for all personal charges and/or damages to the Unit you have occupied resulting from use by your guests. Persons under twenty-one (21) years of age must be accompanied by you or a guest twenty-one (21) years of age or older. Additional rules and regulations governing the recreational areas and the use of such areas by guests will be adopted by the Association and/or the Managing Agent, and may be amended from time to time.

You describe this fee as required due to the increase in 3rd party rentals, however, and hypocritically, you removed the on-line capability of guests updating their own reservations with the 3rd party guest information shortly before changing this policy. On-line updates of this information do not require any time or effort on the part of your reservation agents.

You also removed the ability of 3rd party guests to verify by phone that their information has been updated by the owner. You clearly feel that working against owner's ability to rent to 3rd parties will help Vistana's profitability but it is just undermining your brand and causing negative reviews on multiple public web-sites to expand.

I myself have chosen to now not even respond to your emails offering reduced rate stays at Kaanapali and I have changed my mind about ever considering adding to my ownership at the Westin Nanea Ocean Villas. I will actively recommend that no owners ever purchase from Vistana, both privately, and on any public forum available to potential buyers.

Vistana has proven to be aligned against the interest of current owners, petty, and hypocritical. Most importantly, you have chosen to institute a policy that is in direct violation of your own posted policies and your sales agents promises.

I am requesting contact information on the Vistana in house counsel.

I can also promise highly critical comments on every public domain rating the experience of time-share owners. You have betrayed both the spirit of Starwood Vacation Ownership, the specific sales agent promises, and the published rules and regulations of Vistana on your website for WKORV owners.

It is shocking that you continue to hide behind boilerplate email responses to owners reaching out to you, all sent by your assistant, expressing sympathy with the complaints, yet not moving to correct this terrible policy.

Regards,

Steve

--
Stephen C. Ellen, M.D.

 

[DeniseM]

Excellent letter - thank you for sharing it with Tuggers.

 

[GrayFal]

Excellent letter - thank you for sharing it with Tuggers.

Great letter. Hope you get a response. I have not received anythung from Suzanne or thru the usual channels.

 

[okwiater]

My turn to write a letter:

Ms. Clark,

I am writing to you as a 5-star Elite Owner with regard to the recent implementation of a fee for third-party guest usage of Vistana timeshare properties. I am sure you have been inundated with feedback, so I will be as direct as possible: the fee in its current implementation is flawed for the following three reasons.

First, the fee was implemented without advance notice. I received my first and only notification regarding this fee at 11:00pm on January 25th, a mere one hour prior to its taking effect and after Owner Services had closed for the evening. This deprived me of any opportunity to avoid the fee for existing reservations. As a member of numerous travel programs which have undergone changes throughout the years, this "under the cover of night" approach is a first. I personally had three reservations already booked which we intend to be used by a friend, and now I will either have to pay the fee out-of-pocket or look quite silly in requesting reimbursement after I had already told our friend that she could use our timeshare for free. If I had known about the policy change in advance, I could have avoided the fee in this case, and in the future I would be able to disclose it. Instead, the clumsy and amateurish way you decided to implement this fee has done lasting damage to your brand in my eyes, as well as in those of our friends.

Second, the fee was implemented under misleading pretenses. Your stated reasoning, that the fee is "a result of the volume of requests we receive for these transactions and the resources required to provide this service," is politispeak at best, and demonstrably false at worst. Mere weeks prior to the implementation of this fee, requests to add guest names to existing reservations could already be completed online. This feature was abruptly removed and then this fee was implemented. You go on to state that vistana.com will be enhanced in 2017 to facilitate these transactions online. Does $39-$59 really represent the cost of processing an online guest name change? If so, that implies a serious management failure, since replacing a human-driven guest name change process with an automated, self-service web feature should reduce costs rather than raise them. Your lack of forthrightness regarding the reasoning for this fee is insulting to me as an Owner and a customer.

Last, and most important, the fee was implemented in violation of your own published Rules and Regulations, as well as many if not most of the CC&Rs. The plain language in these documents states that the properties can be used by third-party guests without charge. For instance, the "Resort Vacation Ownership Rules and Regulations of Scottsdale Sonoran Villas Vacation Ownership Plan" document, which applies to Westin Kierland Villas and was obtained directly from vistana.com after implementation of the fee, states on the second page: "10. Guests. You may permit another person to occupy your reserved Vacation Unit during your Use Period(s) without charge by the Vacation Owners Association..." (emphasis mine). I am aware that similar language exists for other Vistana resorts as well. As such, the application of this fee to Home Resort reservations is in direct contradiction to these documents. Even if some resort documents don't contain this specific language, applying this fee to any Home Resort reservation is objectionable considering that an Owner should be permitted to assign usage of his or her deeded or owned property in any manner of his or her choosing without additional charge. Of course, none of this language prevents you from assessing a third-party guest fee for Vistana Signature Network reservations; however, I would still expect the new fees to be published on an updated Vistana Signature Network Fees chart since that is what's referenced throughout the Rules and Regulations documents.

In summary, the new third-party guest usage fee for Vistana timeshare properties is not only poorly conceived but badly implemented: it was announced with no forewarning, it was justified using dubious reasoning, and it was enacted with complete disregard for the published rules. As a 5-star Elite Owner who had been considering a purchase at Westin Nanea, this violation of trust, decency, and common sense has caused me to question whether Vistana is a company with which I will continue to do business. Therefore, I am requesting that you immediately reconsider the implementation of this policy in the following ways: (1) Clarify that the fee does not apply to any Home Resort reservations; (2) Announce a delay in implementation of the policy for a reasonable period of time (e.g. 30 days) to allow Vistana time to update their VSN documents as well as for people with existing reservations to avoid the fee; and (3) Provide refunds to those who have already paid the fee. Anything short of the above is a breach of trust that will likely do irreparable damage to your brand as well as the long-term prospects of your business.

Sincerely,

okwiater & DW

 

[DeniseM]

Well done, except I complete disagree with this:

(2) Announce a delay in implementation of the policy for a reasonable period of time (e.g. 30 days) to allow Vistana time to update their VSN documents

Vistana is JUST the management company - they do not have the authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions that have existed for many years. Do you really want to OK that? IMNSHO, it sets a dangerous precedence, and probably isn't even legal. The management company can't simply changed the terms that we purchased under.

 

[okwiater]

Well done, except I complete disagree with this:
Vista is JUST the management company - they do not have the authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions that have existed for many years. Do you really want to OK that? IMNSHO, it sets a dangerous precedence, and probably isn't even legal. The management company can't simply changed the terms that we purchased under.

The VSN fees chart is for Vistana Signature Network reservations only, which is a trading program. Unilaterally adding a fee for VSN reservations is distasteful but totally allowable. It's no different than raising the VSN membership fee. They don't need HOA concurrence.

 

[DeniseM]

Whether the fee is for home resort reservations, or Staroptions reservations, it is totally contrived, and simply a money grab from Vistana.

As you wrote yourself, the glaring evidence is their elimination of the on-line tool that owners could previously use to request their own guest confirmations, right before they rolled out the fee.

 

[okwiater]

Whether the fee is for home resort reservations, or Staroptions reservations, it is totally contrived, and simply a money grab from Vistana.

As you wrote yourself, the glaring evidence is their elimination of the on-line tool that owners could previously use to request their own guest confirmations, right before they rolled out the fee.

It may be a money-grab, but they aren't operating the VSN out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to make money and I have no problem with that. I may dislike it but I don't have a fundamental or ethical objection to it. My problem is purely with them doing things they're not entitled to do.

 

[DeniseM]

But, we are already paying huge maintenance fees, and VSN fees - for them to tack on a high additional fee for no extra service, is simply larceny.

Being "OK" with that simply opens the door for future fees.

 

[tschwa2]

The online tool was never automated. It just went into a queue where a Vistana employee still had to work the change manually.

Whether the fee is for home resort reservations, or Staroptions reservations, it is totally contrived, and simply a money grab from Vistana.

Yes they are both contrived money grabs but the documents specified that home resort reservations should be able to add a guest without a fee. There was no such mention of club reservations.