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

[DeniseM]

It might be a technicality here folks. This fee is imposed by VSE, and not the owners association.

This would be a bogus argument because the management company works for, and at the pleasure of the owner's associations.

 

[bizaro86]

Since I own a voluntry resale week, I am not a member of SVN. I would be glad to accept the fee if they were to grant me a complimentary SVN membership, but I doubt they'd consider that.

 

[blondietink]

I can't get on the vistana website tonight to look up the governing docs like Denise suggested. Perhaps they are already changing the governing docs?

 

[VacationForever]

Since I own a voluntry resale week, I am not a member of SVN. I would be glad to accept the fee if they were to grant me a complimentary SVN membership, but I doubt they'd consider that.

Their new fees apply to both voluntary resale weeks and VSN.

 

[SMHarman]

It might be a technicality here folks. This fee is imposed by VSE, and not the owners association. The governing docs, which stipulate no fee or permitted usage refer to the owners association, and not VSE. Although a home resort reservation, VSE is now simply charging a fee for it.

I hope this is not the case legally, but it could be how they plan to get away with it.

Markus

Then how would I make this change directly with the hoa for no fee. Email then.

 

[dioxide45]

Then how would I make this change directly with the hoa for no fee. Email then.

The verbiage in Denise's post does indicate "in writing".

 

[DavidnRobin]

IMO it is 'pie is sky' thinking that the VSN rules were not written with the ability to impose a reservation fee - using the rationale that they shared (regardless of opinion). No doubt, ILG/VSE/VSN Legal has considered all aspects of imposing this fee (likely with powerpoint slides and reviewed at all corporate levels) - as standard practice by large corporations with large Legal departments. Note steps used by them (e.g. removing online ability to change reservation name) - these were planned months ago.

Note: that ridiculous 'poll' is not from me...

 

[Robert D]

Does anyone know if this fee will be credited to the various resort condo associations or will the Vistana management company keep it?

 

[SMHarman]

Does anyone know if this fee will be credited to the various resort condo associations or will the Vistana management company keep it?

It's costing Vista management $59 to put this name on there.

Of for that great European law that was uses to fight overdraft fees about the cost of the fee being commensurate to the cost of the task.

 

[Robert D]

Vistana management is already being reimbursed for all of their costs for servicing owners plus a profit.

 

[Ken555]

It might be a technicality here folks. This fee is imposed by VSE, and not the owners association. The governing docs, which stipulate no fee or permitted usage refer to the owners association, and not VSE. Although a home resort reservation, VSE is now simply charging a fee for it.

I hope this is not the case legally, but it could be how they plan to get away with it.

Markus

Just check SDO, and other than numerous changes in red by II since I last downloaded a copy, there is a section which contains:

9. PERMITTED USERS
A. An Owner may permit another person to occupy the Assigned Unit during the Interval Week without charge by the Association.

Assuming this is correct, then I don't see how Vistana can charge anything for adding a guest name to a reservation since they are the direct management company of the Association and there is no other way to add a guest to a reservation.

On the other hand, if II wishes to charge the HOA for each guest reservation as part of their management tasks then they may be able to adjust their management contract to do so. This would result in every owner paying for it, but is the only method I can see at this point for them to get away with additional fees.

Or am I mistaken?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[okwiater]

I think folks are confused about the distinction between VSN (StarOption) and Home Resort reservations.

If the condo docs specify that an Owner may allow another person to use their unit without charge, then the fee when applied to home resort usage is clearly not legal. However, once you have "exchanged" your unit within VSN using StarOptions, Vistana as the operator of that network can impose whatever rules they want. It's no different than II changing or adding fees -- if you don't want to pay them, don't exchange using that network.

I've browsed a few of my association docs already and it seems pretty clear that most of them are going to contain similar language. As mentioned previously, WKV prohibits charging for guest usage. So does SMV.

Vistana should immediately revise and clarify that this fee applies only to VSN reservations, and not Home Resorts. Otherwise they'll probably find themselves on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit.

 

[dioxide45]

I think folks are confused about the distinction between VSN (StarOption) and Home Resort reservations.

I think the ones confused are those working for Vistana making these decisions.

 

[cubigbird]

I think folks are confused about the distinction between VSN (StarOption) and Home Resort reservations.

If the condo docs specify that an Owner may allow another person to use their unit without charge, then the fee when applied to home resort usage is clearly not legal. However, once you have "exchanged" your unit within VSN using StarOptions, Vistana as the operator of that network can impose whatever rules they want. It's no different than II changing or adding fees -- if you don't want to pay them, don't exchange using that network.

I've browsed a few of my association docs already and it seems pretty clear that most of them are going to contain similar language. As mentioned previously, WKV prohibits charging for guest usage. So does SMV.

Vistana should immediately revise and clarify that this fee applies only to VSN reservations, and not Home Resorts. Otherwise they'll probably find themselves on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit.

This is a good point. However, since the HOA boards are clearly related to VSE, couldn't they just amend the condo docs or would that require a vote by the owners??

 

[DeniseM]

VSE should not be able to amend the condo Docs. The BOD's probably can, but there are procedures they must follow.

 

[ragdoll]

This is a good point. However, since the HOA boards are clearly related to VSE, couldn't they just amend the condo docs or would that require a vote by the owners??

Here is what it says on page one for WPORV: "These Rules and Regulations may be amended from time to time by the Board of Directors of the Vacation Ownership Plan (the “Board”)." To me, this means they can change anything they like. From what I can tell, the BOD has a Vistana majority.

 

[okwiater]

As an aside, even though it is to my personal benefit as a 5-star Elite owner, I don't see how it is permissible to offer a reduced fee to Elite owners for this service. Vistana is free to recognize Elite status and offer certain benefits, such as waiver of fees for StarOptions banking and Starpoints conversion, and administration of an Elite waitlist. But those benefits are all part of VSN, not part of standard reservation procedures for one's Home Resort which should apply to all condo owners equally.

 

[jhac007]

I own Westin Kierland and Vistana Beach Club, downloaded both sets of docs. As stated by others I see the WKV clause but here is what I see for VBC (so far):

2.5 Transaction Fees. In addition to SVN Membership Fees, SVN Operator has the right to charge such other transaction fees as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion from time to time. Such fees may be charged for transactions including additional reservation request fees, cancellation fees, borrowing fees, Banking fees, rental fees, SVN exchange fees, Starwood Preferred Guest conversion fees, daily use fees, fees for additional housekeeping, and such other items as provided in the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. Daily housekeeping may be made available to guests on request subject to the payment of a fee to the Managing Entity of the SVN Resort in an amount to be published from time to time. SVN Members should inquire as to the amount of the current housekeeping fees with the Managing Entity at the time of check-in. Currently, the only transaction fees charged by SVN Operator are listed on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. These fees include those for the cancellation of a reservation as described in Section 4.7, Banking StarOptions as described in Section 3.6 and the SVN Fees Chart, a Starpoints Conversion Program conversion fee as described on the SVN Fees Chart, fees for additional housekeeping as described in Sections 3.4, 4.2.d and 4.3, daily housekeeping fees as described in this Article, and such other items shown on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion.

and this looks like an addition at some point, bolded by them........

Currently, the only transaction fees charged by SVN Operator are listed on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. These fees include those for the cancellation of a reservation as described in Section 4.7, Banking StarOptions as described in Section 3.6 and the SVN Fees Chart, a Starpoints Conversion Program conversion fee as described on the SVN Fees Chart, fees for additional housekeeping as described in Sections 3.4, 4.2.d and 4.3, daily housekeeping fees as described in this Article, and such other items shown on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion.

 

[okwiater]

jhac007 - There is similar language in the Flex plan documents. But this makes sense only if the fees apply to VSN reservations. How can an exchange program such as VSN apply fees to an Owner's home resort usage?

Furthermore, even if the condo boards wanted to rubber stamp such a fee for home resort usage, I don't see how it could be permissible since it is an obvious breach of fiduciary duty.

Heck, even the management agreement with Vistana "the Management Company" contains a fiduciary duty clause: "Management Company shall act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the execution of its duties and obligations under this Agreement." This implies that at least some nominal "benefit" to Owners would be necessary prior to the imposition of such a fee.

 

[okwiater]

WKV has additional interesting language: "The Owner of a Unit shall have the absolute right to rent or lease his Unit, but the lease is subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations and uses contained in this Declaration. During the lease period for a Residential Unit, the lessee and the family members of lessee and a reasonable number of guests shall have the right to use the Common Elements subject to the provisions of this Declaration and the Residential Unit Owner shall have no right to use the same until the termination or expiration of the lease."

How can an absolute right to rent or lease a Unit be abridged by the imposition of a fee?

 

[dioxide45]

I own Westin Kierland and Vistana Beach Club, downloaded both sets of docs. As stated by others I see the WKV clause but here is what I see for VBC (so far):

2.5 Transaction Fees. In addition to SVN Membership Fees, SVN Operator has the right to charge such other transaction fees as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion from time to time. Such fees may be charged for transactions including additional reservation request fees, cancellation fees, borrowing fees, Banking fees, rental fees, SVN exchange fees, Starwood Preferred Guest conversion fees, daily use fees, fees for additional housekeeping, and such other items as provided in the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. Daily housekeeping may be made available to guests on request subject to the payment of a fee to the Managing Entity of the SVN Resort in an amount to be published from time to time. SVN Members should inquire as to the amount of the current housekeeping fees with the Managing Entity at the time of check-in. Currently, the only transaction fees charged by SVN Operator are listed on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. These fees include those for the cancellation of a reservation as described in Section 4.7, Banking StarOptions as described in Section 3.6 and the SVN Fees Chart, a Starpoints Conversion Program conversion fee as described on the SVN Fees Chart, fees for additional housekeeping as described in Sections 3.4, 4.2.d and 4.3, daily housekeeping fees as described in this Article, and such other items shown on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion.

and this looks like an addition at some point, bolded by them........

Currently, the only transaction fees charged by SVN Operator are listed on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion. These fees include those for the cancellation of a reservation as described in Section 4.7, Banking StarOptions as described in Section 3.6 and the SVN Fees Chart, a Starpoints Conversion Program conversion fee as described on the SVN Fees Chart, fees for additional housekeeping as described in Sections 3.4, 4.2.d and 4.3, daily housekeeping fees as described in this Article, and such other items shown on the SVN Fees Chart as may be amended by SVN Operator from time to time in its sole discretion.

In our Bella documents, this is on page 256. That is actually part of the Starwood Vacation Network Multi-site Offering Plan. So this should only apply to VSN based reservations.

 

[okwiater]

I've spent a lot of time reading docs today. Although the language varies, it seems like the deeded ownerships explicitly allow for use of the Vacation Period by a guest (including for rental purposes). So the imposition of a fee targeting guest usage is legally no different than Vistana imposing a fee for an Owner to reserve the unit for themselves. IANAL, but I don't see how this is legal without a change to the CCRs which would almost certainly require the BOD to violate their fiduciary duty to approve.

Bottom line: Vistana should immediately and retroactively exclude Home Resort reservations from this fee.

 

[jhac007]

I've spent a lot of time reading docs today. Although the language varies, it seems like the deeded ownerships explicitly allow for use of the Vacation Period by a guest (including for rental purposes). So the imposition of a fee targeting guest usage is legally no different than Vistana imposing a fee for an Owner to reserve the unit for themselves. IANAL, but I don't see how this is legal without a change to the CCRs which would almost certainly require the BOD to violate their fiduciary duty to approve.

Bottom line: Vistana should immediately and retroactively exclude Home Resort reservations from this fee.

I totally agree!!!

 

[DavidnRobin]

This is a VSN fee as a claim by them to charge for the current cost of reservation charges (look at current VSN docs and not HOA docs - both are part of CCRs) as this is part of VSN management of VSE reservations.

What should be captured in these arguments is that in our current $140 (and $30) VSN fee already contains the offset the cost of reservation changes - if so, then the VSN fee should be reduced accordingly since they are now charging this fee separately. Of course, they could comeback with another increase in VSN fees to captured the supposed cost if this method was found to be 'illegal' - which would cause people who do not need to this service to also pay for it.

That is how I would play it if I were in their position if this additional fee is truly against CCRs.

 

[canesfan]

I'm just surprised that Vistana would implement such a fee without legal counsel in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk