[2006] SVO Resale: Yes you can requalify/retro [MERGED]

[Politico]

philyphan,
And we're also waiting on an explanation on why Starwood insists it can select the week deposited for non-svn weeks deposited in II (e.g. resale SDO week). Thank you very much.

 

[jarta]

Philyphan, ... Really, you need to take your comments elsewhere.

I have found Starwood has, by lack of supervision or design, allowed its salespeople and supervisors of salespeople discretion to "bend the rules" at times to close a sale. Then, when the "bending" for a particular sale hits TUG, 2 things happen.

First, TUGGERS broadcast it as a new "rule" in effect for all Starwood purchases. Thus, anyone who reads this BB naturally wants the same treatment under the "rules." They bombard Starwood with requests for equal treatment and, if denied, blame Starwood for not knowing or complying with its own "rules." Starwood loses prestige, not to mention credibility that the price of the week is actually the price.

Second, Starwood gets wind that TUG is advertising a "favor" that was done outside the "rules" to make a sale as a new Starwood "rule." Starwood undoubtedly resents the publication of a sales technique meant to close an individual sale as a new "rule" that's applicable to everybody. Starwood knows that if everybody gets a "bending of the rules," the price of the unit has effectively dropped. So, Starwood reacts by "changing the rule" back to what it was and plugging what it considers to be a loophole.

I'm sure Starwood is not happy that the "rules" have been bent in so many cases. And, when they are, that the instances turn up here. Is that your problem? Did someone in Starwood management bark at you or your friends?

So, whose fault is it? This is a BB and TUG is designed to let people know about how to use the Starwood "rules" to their best advantage. (But, TUG is not limited to posting information about Starwood.) BTW, you are not making things easier for your soon to be ex-employer. Defending the indefensible is itself indefensible. lol!

Better you should take a hike. ... eom

 

[calgarygary]

I disagree with Jarta - stay & play Philyphan. I happen to believe that no one in this labour market is dumb enough to jeopardize their job by posting on this bb so like the Starwood posters at flyertalk, I think you have been sent here on a mission. Your mission has been busted and now it is time to fess up and start answering the many posts that will fly your way. Let's begin with some of the same problem solving that goes on at flyertalk. How about getting Starwood to accept the non SVN contracts as they are written and allow those Starwood owners to deposit their selected weeks into II.

 

[nodge]

stay & play Philyphan.

Indeed Philyphan! We have both a soapbox and a shovel for you to borrow. Your choice on which to use.

(Hint, hint . . . Put down the shovel. You've already dug yourself in deep enough . . . ..)

-nodge

 

[DeniseM]

I disagree with Jarta - stay & play Philyphan. I happen to believe that no one in this labour market is dumb enough to jeopardize their job by posting on this bb so like the Starwood posters at flyertalk, I think you have been sent here on a mission.

Gary, you may be right, but if you read back through the poster's other posts you will see a significant lack of good will, and not much sophistication as far as writing or reasoning. I can't imagine Starwood "sending" someone like this to represent their company. I'll bet you a Mai Tai that this person is acting independently - especially since they posted confidential info. from an owner's Acct.

 

[James1975NY]

Wow!

That is all that I have to say

 

[Weez]

Gary, you may be right, but if you read back through the poster's other posts you will see a significant lack of good will, and not much sophistication as far as writing or reasoning. I can't imagine Starwood "sending" someone like this to represent their company. I'll bet you a Mai Tai that this person is acting independently - especially since they posted confidential info. from an owner's Acct.

DeniseM,

I have to ask the question, are you pursuing this further? (I hope)

 

[LisaRex]

DeniseM,

I have to ask the question, are you pursuing this further? (I hope)

DeniseM has no standing (e.g. she was not harmed in any way). It would be SDKath who has a cause of action.

 

[DeniseM]

DeniseM has no standing (e.g. she was not harmed in any way). It would be SDKath who has a cause of action.

Lisa is correct...

 

[Bill4728]

Gary, you may be right, but if you read back through the poster's other posts you will see a significant lack of good will, and not much sophistication as far as writing or reasoning. I can't imagine Starwood "sending" someone like this to represent their company. I'll bet you a Mai Tai that this person is acting independently - especially since they posted confidential info. from an owner's Acct.

DeniseM,

I have to ask the question, are you pursuing this further? (I hope)

DeniseM has no standing (e.g. she was not harmed in any way). It would be SDKath who has a cause of action.

No, I think Weez is asking if Denise is pursing her Mai Tai?

 

[Weez]

DeniseM has no standing (e.g. she was not harmed in any way). It would be SDKath who has a cause of action.

She would need to be involved, DeniseM has access to the ip address(s) and the email address(s) that registered each account. I wouldnt really want to see those names emails and ips released to SDKath that would be on par with what has already taken place.

 

[Weez]

No, I think Weez is asking if Denise is pursing her Mai Tai?

lol that too

 

[calgarygary]

No, I think Weez is asking if Denise is pursing her Mai Tai?

Give me a break! Let me first agree to the bet before she chases me down for payment. I think it is still quite possible that Starwood threw our bbs at some new hire that was not just drinking the kool aid but mixing it for those around him/her. Enthusiasm may have replaced common sense but I still can't imagine someone coming to the defence of their company at the risk of their job. I can believe that some one was given a job to do and did it incompetently. Maybe this is one of the new jobs created by the good cop.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Just got back from a biz trip to Boston - and must just LOL at this thread (good to see some pick-up). I wish I knew about this before because my response to PP would have been harsher. (in case you were not aware - Philly fans are well-known for being rude and obnoxious).

Dude - you are an idiot - post here or don't - I do not give a flying [Frito]. However, who was ever lied to on TUG? Link a single post of a lie - other than yours of course.

 

[DeniseM]

philyphan seems to be lying low today, but he/she did visit TUG early this morning. My guess is that he/she is tied up with personnel meetings today!

 

[duke]

From the OP

I am the original poster of this thread and if you go back and read the first post you will see that the same rules apply now.

It's important to point out that the idea of Retro or Requalifing a resale was given to me by a SVO sales manager. He was helpful and, of course, wanted to sell a timeshare, but also was trying to help me. Nobody was gaming the system. The deal had to work out best for each party. You know the drill.

I welcome the many persons from SVO who Denise found were registered. Their ability to get input from us only makes the system better. Moreover, the actual posting by this SVO person provides us additional information to make a better decision.

Even better would be a person like "Starwood Lurker" on FlyerTalk. I can't even explain the value he has brought to that forum.

Lighten up on comments. It's to our advantage to have SVO persons monitoring and posting on this board.

And by the way, I welcome SVO looking me up in their system to figure out who I actually am. Then please send me a big fruit plate and some champagne when I check in instead of the crappy candy and form letter from the resort manager.

duke

 

[DavidnRobin]

I too welcome SVO to post on TUG. However, I will not tolerate lies and misinformation by anyone - just as I will not tolerate them during an Owner's update. I am still trying to figure out what lies PP was referring too.

Everyone who has read this seminal resale thread (all the way thru) - along with Katherine's thread - would also know that the rules change over time (whether or not they were changed by SVO in response to these threads) - and it is SVO who controls the rules. The 'Negma' clause clearly states that one should not take the verbal word of a salesperson - and get it in writing - as we did for our 'deal'.

SVO TUG plays an advisory role in this TS game - what ever is stated on TUG should also be used with caution - since the SVO rules can change at anytime unless it is in the signed VOI contract.

 

[DeniseM]

Lighten up on comments. It's to our advantage to have SVO persons monitoring and posting on this board.

And by the way, I welcome SVO looking me up in their system to figure out who I actually am. Then please send me a big fruit plate and some champagne when I check in instead of the crappy candy and form letter from the resort manager.

duke

No one has criticized the SVO lurkers - I wish they would post!

But there is no way that philyphan's behavior is acceptable.

 

[n2fc]

Questions & info...

I would appreciate some knowledgeable person to attempt answers to the following...

1) We own 2 weeks in Vistana Fountains (developer purchased) that were brought in to SVN post-refurb for a total of 152,000 SO

2) I am interested in achieving Elite status (minimum 159,000 SO for 3*)

3) I have 4 (resale) Vistana Courts weeks that will probably be brought into SVN after refurb (maybe)...

QUESTIONS:
1) Does mere ownership of the requisite SO total get you Elite status?
2) If I purchase a resale at a mandatory resort will thet get me Elite or is something else necessary?
3) If the Courts weeks get brought in to SVN after the refurb also, will those SO get me Elite without the need for additional developer purchases?

Inquiring minds want to know...
TIA and Happy New Year!

PS: Latest Starwood site shows they raised the req. for 5* Elite to 649,000 SO! What is to stop them from perpetually raising the requirements?

 

[pointsjunkie]

I would appreciate some knowledgeable person to attempt answers to the following...

1) We own 2 weeks in Vistana Fountains (developer purchased) that were brought in to SVN post-refurb for a total of 152,000 SO

2) I am interested in achieving Elite status (minimum 159,000 SO for 3*)

3) I have 4 (resale) Vistana Courts weeks that will probably be brought into SVN after refurb (maybe)...

QUESTIONS:
1) Does mere ownership of the requisite SO total get you Elite status?
2) If I purchase a resale at a mandatory resort will thet get me Elite or is something else necessary?
3) If the Courts weeks get brought in to SVN after the refurb also, will those SO get me Elite without the need for additional developer purchases?

Inquiring minds want to know...
TIA and Happy New Year!

PS: Latest Starwood site shows they raised the req. for 5* Elite to 649,000 SO! What is to stop them from perpetually raising the requirements?

good question. if the courts are brought in then the amount of staroptions you will have will determine 3 or 4*.

 

[Ken555]

Latest Starwood site shows they raised the req. for 5* Elite to 649,000 SO! What is to stop them from perpetually raising the requirements?

Nothing. Starwood has unilateral right to change, or even discontinue, SVN and membership levels (and benefits...) at any time.

 

[DeniseM]

I would appreciate some knowledgeable person to attempt answers to the following...

1) We own 2 weeks in Vistana Fountains (developer purchased) that were brought in to SVN post-refurb for a total of 152,000 SO

2) I am interested in achieving Elite status (minimum 159,000 SO for 3*)

What are you goals in reaching Elite status? i.e. - what do you hope to achieve?

3) I have 4 (resale) Vistana Courts weeks that will probably be brought into SVN after refurb (maybe)...

Did you buy these weeks recently or some time in the past? It's hard to say, but the word on this has been that only people who bought previous to a certain date will be allowed to join the SVN. (Not current resale owners.)

QUESTIONS:
1) Does mere ownership of the requisite SO total get you Elite status?

Correction (sorry) - Yes - if purchased from the developer or requalified.

2) If I purchase a resale at a mandatory resort will thet get me Elite or is something else necessary?

Correction - (my error-sorry) - the correct answer is no, they must be requalified (thanks grgs) -

From the SVN Elite Terms & Conditions listed on MSC:

4. Only authorized SVN Resorts may offer and enroll SVN Members into SVN Elite. Starwood VOIs purchased through an unauthorized third party broker or on the resale market do not qualify for SVN Elite Membership.4. Only authorized SVN Resorts may offer and enroll SVN Members into SVN Elite. Starwood VOIs purchased through an unauthorized third party broker or on the resale market do not qualify for SVN Elite Membership.

See the other requalifying thread for SDKath's strategy.

3) If the Courts weeks get brought in to SVN after the refurb also, will those SO get me Elite without the need for additional developer purchases?

I would think so.

Inquiring minds want to know...
TIA and Happy New Year!

PS: Latest Starwood site shows they raised the req. for 5* Elite to 649,000 SO! What is to stop them from perpetually raising the requirements?

There is nothing to stop them - in fact, there is nothing to stop them from eliminating any Elite perk, or eliminating the program all together. They have already eliminated one of the most attractive features (automatic timeshare upgrades for Elite owners.)

 

[rani]

Hra Timeshare

Hi all,

I own two 3 bed lock-offs at hra which i bought in 2008 from starwood directly and have a 3* elite status. I'm in the process of buying a 1 bed in the
platinum season privatlely, my lawyer in the Bahamas is dealing with the harbourside lawyers directly.Would my new purchase be counted towards
my elite status?

 

[Bill4728]

Hi all,

I own two 3 bed lock-offs at hra which i bought in 2008 from starwood directly and have a 3* elite status. I'm in the process of buying a 1 bed in the
platinum season privatlely, my lawyer in the Bahamas is dealing with the harbourside lawyers directly.Would my new purchase be counted towards
my elite status?

NO unless you want to buy yet another TS direct from starwood (after this resale closes) you can't get this resale to count toward elite.

If you really wanted to do it , basically, after buying resale, you buy more direct from Starwood and as part of the deal, ask them to "retro" your resale into SVN

 

[SDKath]

PS: Latest Starwood site shows they raised the req. for 5* Elite to 649,000 SO! What is to stop them from perpetually raising the requirements?

Just to clarify, they can't raise the SO requirements on someone who is already 5*. So if you have 649,000 SOs and are now 5* platinum, you will be that as long as you maintain that many SOs, even if they decide to raise the requirement to 700k SOs in a year or two...

If you have Courts, hang in there and wait to see if your purchase date will allow you membership into SVN. I think though that Starwood was using a very old purchase date (must own by 1/2008 if I recall correctly) when they brought Springs and Falls into the system. That means if you didn't own those weeks before that time, you would not be allowed into SVN. Someone posted an internal memo to Redweek last year confirming that this date would be the cutoff for all the SVR units eventually.

How long have you been the owners of those Courts weeks?

Katherine