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

[okwiater]

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.

I never said I was "OK" with it. I am simply saying it's permissible. I think it's important to reserve our indignation for things that are plainly wrong, as opposed to things we just don't like.

 

[SMHarman]

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.

So a home resort reservation should not be subject to the fee.

So the only people that should be hit by this are.

1)Owners gifting usage of staroptions to family members.

2) Owners renting non home resort reservations against T&C.

Now curiously why would a family member want confirmation that your 'gift' is valid.

Surely any three way confirm call to confirm a reservation that is not home resort should automatically result in cancelation of that reservation for being against T&C.

Boy would that improve exchange availability.

 

[Ken555]

Obviously, Vistana/II will do whatever they can to increase fees. If it's not explicitly disallowed in the governing documents and if they can't change those documents...then we should expect such fees to be added in the future. This really shouldn't be a surprise to any of us, and most of us have written on TUG that we should expect such actions for 10+ years!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dsmrp]

So a home resort reservation should not be subject to the fee.

So the only people that should be hit by this are.

1)Owners gifting usage of staroptions to family members.

2) Owners renting non home resort reservations against T&C.

Now curiously why would a family member want confirmation that your 'gift' is valid.

....

Yes a home resort reservation shouldn't be subject to the fee.
Suppose family members, e.g. adult children are arriving much earlier to resort than I am. If I want to add their name on the reservation so they can check in and not have to wait for me, then I shouldn't have to pay for it. There's no reasonable leeway here when VSE is specifying the names have to be on the deed in order to avoid the fee for any reservation. If I'm making a SVN options reservation and I want my daughter to check-in early, then per my SVN docs, I'll need to pay the fee.

VSE can per the T&C, charge fees for SVN reservations, cancellations etc...and they probably will some day. They'll then look a lot more like HGVC's fee structure...but HGVC's (current)policies at least allow for owners to retain some resale value.

 

[SMHarman]

Yes a home resort reservation shouldn't be subject to the fee.
Suppose family members, e.g. adult children are arriving much earlier to resort than I am. If I want to add their name on the reservation so they can check in and not have to wait for me, then I shouldn't have to pay for it. There's no reasonable leeway here when VSE is specifying the names have to be on the deed in order to avoid the fee for any reservation. If I'm making a SVN options reservation and I want my daughter to check-in early, then per my SVN docs, I'll need to pay the fee.

VSE can per the T&C, charge fees for SVN reservations, cancellations etc...and they probably will some day. They'll then look a lot more like HGVC's fee structure...but HGVC's (current)policies at least allow for owners to retain some resale value.

And if you told your daughter her name was on the booking would she want a conference call wit SVN to confirm

 

[dsmrp]

And if you told your daughter her name was on the booking would she want a conference call wit SVN to confirm

A conference call would certainly help distinguish the real family from the calabash cousins, wouldn't it ??? I don't rent my TS weeks, even if I could; we do the old fashioned thing of using our TS ownerships

I'd expect no fee if I was only ADDING their name to the reservation, not taking mine off of it.
If I were gifting home resort week use to my children, then I'd begrudgingly pay for a guest cert, just as if were an II exchange. I don't see an easy/low cost way to distinguish renters from friends or family on SVN reservations. But it should be fairly easy for VSE to identify home resort reservations.

 

[canesfan]

Maybe instead of an email campaign we should be tweeting our displeasure. New potential owners will see it and Vistana will not like it on their feed with a bunch of displeased owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SMHarman]

Maybe instead of an email campaign we should be tweeting our displeasure. New potential owners will see it and Vistana will not like it on their feed with a bunch of displeased owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And a Facebook group

And a hash tag #vsnjunkfees?

And using their hashtags #vacationlife

Also trip advisor reviews.

 

[Bierhund]

A campaign to damage VSE will only devalue what you own. Driving potential owners away will eventually cause your maintenance fees to go up, as costs are spread across fewer users. Long after the issue of transfer fees is resolved, twitter feeds and negative trip advisor reviews remain.
By all means, express your displeasure to VSE management, but keep it in-house and make sure you don't shoot yourself (and the rest of us) in the foot in the process.

 

[cubigbird]

I've been wondering why we haven't done this. The majority of owners have no idea TUG exists. We have to get the message out. I know airlines and hotel chains really strive to answer problems stated on social media so to not tarnish their image.

 

[cubigbird]

Maybe instead of an email campaign we should be tweeting our displeasure. New potential owners will see it and Vistana will not like it on their feed with a bunch of displeased owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based on the lack of replies it doesn't sound like the email campaign is getting through.

 

[DeniseM]

I am sure it's getting through - but Vistana is not prepared to respond right away, because they apparently didn't know that they implemented a rule that violates the current terms and conditions. I would not expect to hear from them until they figure out what they are going to do.

 

[lily28]

I am sure it's getting through - but Vistana is not prepared to respond right away, because they apparently didn't know that they implemented a rule that violates the current terms and conditions. I would not expect to hear from them until they figure out what they are going to do.

 

[canesfan]

I don't see how putting this out on Social Media devalues what we own. By implementing these bogus fees, they are devaluing what we own. By lying to us in the sales office and owner updates, they are devaluing what we own. Almost every day, someone posts on here about some outrageous lie the sales office feed them either to a potential sale or to an owner. Heck, they are probably still telling them to rent out their weeks to help out with MF (not mentioning the new fee associated with it)! I think giving them a voice on social media to respond would be a good thing They can either right the wrong OR show us how committed they are to the money grab. Either way, we'll see the Vistana future clearly.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Maybe they can change the documents, which requires each of us to print the many pages of legal crap, before they are changed. I am thinking of doing that, so if they say at some point that I am wrong about the wording, I can prove to them that the wording was there.

Could be they will just have to apply this new rule to new owners. I would bet it won't be any part of their sales presentation.

Years ago, when we attended a presentation at Wyndham Bali Hai, the salesperson was telling us all about free guests for platinum membership. He said unlimited. I said not unlimited. He argued with me. I told him he was absolutely incorrect in telling people that. Then he finally admitted there is a fee "after a certain number" of free GC's. So of course they still lie about the unlimited number for Platinum membership. It is so blatant.

 

[jhac007]

Maybe they can change the documents, which requires each of us to print the many pages of legal crap, before they are changed. I am thinking of doing that, so if they say at some point that I am wrong about the wording, I can prove to them that the wording was there.

Why not just download all the documents and save them as files on your hard drive (which also should be backed up) therefore you don't have to waste a lot of paper (nor deal with the hassle)? I did that early and am sure many others did also!

 

[NVPatriot1959]

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.

Here is the exchange I had with Suzanne Clark. No response as of yet to my last message . . .

Thank you for your response Suzanne.

While I understand such a fee if an owner is "VRBOing" their unit/use period, it absolutely should not apply when family members or family friends are using it.

In any case, my wife and I hold ownership in a trust where the two of us and our two sons are trustees. I don't see how Vistana could require payment of this fee if any of the four trustees use our ownership.

Gary Lord

__________________________________________________________________

On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:01 AM, Suzanne Clark <Suzanne.Clark@vistana.com> wrote:

Dear Gary and Tami,

Thank you for your feedback. We (Vistana) are working to clarify the new guest reservation administration fee. Thank you for your patience as we work through the details.

Suzanne Clark
Sent from my iPhone

___________________________________________________________________

On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Gary & Tami Primary <gtlord2@comcast.net> wrote:

I received no response to my message of last week. VSE is in violation of the published rules and regulations:


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.

Gary Lord (5 Star Elite Owner)

 

[DavidnRobin]

Why not just download all the documents and save them as files on your hard drive (which also should be backed up) therefore you don't have to waste a lot of paper (nor deal with the hassle)? I did that early and am sure many others did also!

I have CCRs on CDs and as PDFs - However, it is ludicrous to think they would change documents and think that no one will notice.

As mentioned, this change has to do with VSN (SVN) docs and not HOA docs. If one looks at VSN docs - it surely states that changes can be made at the discretion of VSN (like how they change VSN fees...). If so (and likely), fine... but an argument needs to be made that if this reservation change fee is imposed, then the VSN fee(s) should be reduced as it previously contained the cost of reservation changes that is now covered by the fee.

 

[DeniseM]

I just talked to an owner at WKORV - she called and got a guest confirmation for a home resort reservation a few minutes ago, and she was NOT charged a fee, nor was it mentioned.

I'm hoping that Vistana is rolling the fee back, and this isn't just an error.

 

[VacationForever]

If they indeed realized that they do not have legal right to charge, they should refund all guest fees that they have collected todate.

 

[okwiater]

I hope you're right, but my enthusiasm is tempered. I just called to attempt a name change on both a Home Resort and VSN/StarOptions reservation and was told the fee applied to both changes.

 

[DeniseM]

Hmmm... I can't say I am surprised - they do make a lot of errors.

 

[suzannesimon]

They charged me yesterday. However, I got the name wrong and had to call back. They didn't charge me another $59 the second time. I guess I should be grateful for small favors.

 

[osman]

It has been stated a couple of times in this thread that reservations cannot be sent to a third party. It's not obvious, but there is a way to do it, and it worked for me on a rental last week. On your Vistana home page, click View All Stays. Scroll down to the stay you're interested in. Under Available Actions, choose Email My Confirmation. Your own email will be filled in, but you can change this to any email address. Change it to your renter's email. I like to use this technique with rentals because renters feel more comfortable about renting if they get an email directly from Vistana/Starwood.

Given that this option currently exists, I can't see how Vistana could legitimately justify removing it. If they do remove it, it would be a clear sign that they want to make renting difficult for owners, which as other have pointed out, goes directly against their sales pitches for the past 10 years.

 

[alohakevin]

I would imagine their main intent is to make renting more difficult. Less inventory for them to control potentially. I have a feeling we will be seeing more deterrents. Just speculation on my behalf.