Buyer’s Remorse

[brp]

Yes, I agree, people need to take responsibility for their actions, but why don’t the developers and salesman have to take responsibility for what they say?

Ethically, they do. Legally, they don't as anything not written is not binding. As I said, I don't like them (as a general rule, some are very nice). But the information on the differences between what they say and what is real is available.

I'd favor a law that made more of what is said binding, but that would be hard to implement.

Cheers.

 

[dayooper]

Ethically, they do. Legally, they don't as anything not written is not binding. As I said, I don't like them (as a general rule, some are very nice). But the information on the differences between what they say and what is real is available.

I'd favor a law that made more of what is said binding, but that would be hard to implement.

Cheers.

While I agree with your premise of personal accountability, corporations and those they represent them need to have accountability too. They system is gamed toward the corporations as they can say anything, true or not to convince people to purchase. There are so many topics where the truth is stretched, twisted and flat out made up that it’s not ethical to expect someone to look up every single thing a salesman said, even afterward. Yes, people shouldn’t purchase without studying it first but what some of these salesman do is nothing more than a con.

I believe a start would be to have the sales presentations recorded. Yes, there would be a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that would have to be figured out. I have ideas, but I’m no lawyer (nor would I want to be one) so I will leave them in my head for now. I agree that both parties need to be held accountable, but truth in what is said needs to happen in this arena.

 

[OldGuy]

Ethically, they do. Legally, they don't as anything not written is not binding. As I said, I don't like them (as a general rule, some are very nice). But the information on the differences between what they say and what is real is available.

I'd favor a law that made more of what is said binding, but that would be hard to implement.

Cheers.

Stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

 

[OldGuy]

While I agree with your premise of personal accountability, corporations and those they represent them need to have accountability too. They system is gamed toward the corporations as they can say anything, true or not to convince people to purchase. There are so many topics where the truth is stretched, twisted and flat out made up that it’s not ethical to expect someone to look up every single thing a salesman said, even afterward. Yes, people shouldn’t purchase without studying it first but what some of these salesman do is nothing more than a con.

I believe a start would be to have the sales presentations recorded. Yes, there would be a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that would have to be figured out. I have ideas, but I’m no lawyer (nor would I want to be one) so I will leave them in my head for now. I agree that both parties need to be held accountable, but truth in what is said needs to happen in this arena.

Chill. Be patient.

When an entire industry misbehaves, and fails to police itself, someone will, when enough consumers are hurt. 1.5 million households does not appear to be enough, but maybe enough to draw attention to it.

 

[brp]

Chill. Be patient.

When an entire industry misbehaves, and fails to police itself, someone will, when enough consumers are hurt. 1.5 million households does not appear to be enough.

Interesting viewpoint. I have no vested interest since I know how to find information, so nothing to be patient about.
We shall see.

Cheers.

 

[OldGuy]

I know how to find information

Like this?

A few weeks ago, we published an article regarding the state of timeshare sales presentations in Arizona. Since the early stages of timesharing, contract disclosure has been a problem in the industry. Although many lawmakers with stakes in fractional ownership wanted to fault buyers for making impulse decisions, the State of Arizona agreed that disclosure laws were necessary. They also determined that extending a buyer’s right to rescission (cancellation period) was needed as well.

Today, tens of thousands of timeshare owners claim they would have never made the purchase if they knew what it really entailed. Whether this is their fault or not, they now have added protections that force timeshare companies to provide more information on the front end and additional time to make the decision final.

The passing of this law is a big deal for consumer advocates who have been stating the obvious for quite some time now. Buyers now have a better chance to get out of something that can be perpetually difficult to deal with. Aside from post-purchase advantages, the law also applies to anyone planning on attending a timeshare presentation. Arizona residents are nationally protected. Sponsor and Republican, Shawnna Bolik believes the decision makes the state “a national leader in enacting consumer protections for timeshare buyers,” and that the bill help “curb deceptive practices by some in the timeshare industry.”

While consumers definitely won here, timeshare representatives were able to strip some of the original provisions by persuading lawmakers to combat the proposal. Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita once again stood with the opposition. In the end, they were able to keep the law from including an ability for consumers to cancel in the first year without penalty or after 10 years or once the property was paid off. They also removed disclosing 30 year cost estimates and a proposed 24 hour cooling off period. They believed they dodged a bullet here.

https://vacationownershipconsultants.com/bill-passes-in-favor-of-new-timeshare-sales-law-in-arizona/

I am posting this to show that real people in real life in real legislatures are already almost there, not just an OldGuy babbling on the Internet. The only thing stopping it in this example is the lobby money to bribe the more available legislators.

You cannot endlessly take advantage of consumers, lie and deceive, and then hold them captive, forever, without there eventually being consequences.

I might mention that a couple months ago I suggested something similar to the underlined portion, and got the Internet equivalent of being tar-and-feathered.

 

[OldGuy]

It's why even owners have the following as their signature:

98% of timeshare sales people give the rest a bad name.

 

[JIMinNC]

Like this?

A few weeks ago, we published an article regarding the state of timeshare sales presentations in Arizona. Since the early stages of timesharing, contract disclosure has been a problem in the industry. Although many lawmakers with stakes in fractional ownership wanted to fault buyers for making impulse decisions, the State of Arizona agreed that disclosure laws were necessary. They also determined that extending a buyer’s right to rescission (cancellation period) was needed as well.

Today, tens of thousands of timeshare owners claim they would have never made the purchase if they knew what it really entailed. Whether this is their fault or not, they now have added protections that force timeshare companies to provide more information on the front end and additional time to make the decision final.

The passing of this law is a big deal for consumer advocates who have been stating the obvious for quite some time now. Buyers now have a better chance to get out of something that can be perpetually difficult to deal with. Aside from post-purchase advantages, the law also applies to anyone planning on attending a timeshare presentation. Arizona residents are nationally protected. Sponsor and Republican, Shawnna Bolik believes the decision makes the state “a national leader in enacting consumer protections for timeshare buyers,” and that the bill help “curb deceptive practices by some in the timeshare industry.”

While consumers definitely won here, timeshare representatives were able to strip some of the original provisions by persuading lawmakers to combat the proposal. Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita once again stood with the opposition. In the end, they were able to keep the law from including an ability for consumers to cancel in the first year without penalty or after 10 years or once the property was paid off. They also removed disclosing 30 year cost estimates and a proposed 24 hour cooling off period. They believed they dodged a bullet here.

https://vacationownershipconsultants.com/bill-passes-in-favor-of-new-timeshare-sales-law-in-arizona/

I am posting this to show that real people in real life in real legislatures are already almost there, not just an OldGuy babbling on the Internet. The only thing stopping it in this example is the lobby money to bribe the more available legislators.

You cannot endlessly take advantage of consumers, lie and deceive, and then hold them captive, forever, without there eventually being consequences.

I might mention that a couple months ago I suggested something similar to the underlined portion, and got the Internet equivalent of being tar-and-feathered.

How would the cancelation after 10 years work? Many larger developers with active sales will allow owners today to deed back their units to avoid future maintenance fees, but that won’t work for independent resorts no longer in active sales. It would impose a burden on the HOA with unpaid fees. Certainly the law could not allow any refund of the purchase price after 10 years of use.

To me, rather than imposing such draconian provisions, a better role for government might be to help facilitate transparency and knowledge of the resale market so people who want to get out have a viable path out rather than forcing HOAs or developers to take back units.

 

[brp]

I am posting this to show that real people in real life in real legislatures are already almost there, not just an OldGuy babbling on the Internet.

I wish them luck. It will be interesting to watch since I have no vested interest (being able to find the readily-available relevant information) and am on the sidelines. We shall see.

Cheers.

 

[OldGuy]

How would the cancelation after 10 years work? Many larger developers with active sales will allow owners today to deed back their units to avoid future maintenance fees, but that won’t work for independent resorts no longer in active sales. It would impose a burden on the HOA with unpaid fees. Certainly the law could not allow any refund of the purchase price after 10 years of use.

To me, rather than imposing such draconian provisions, a better role for government might be to help facilitate transparency and knowledge of the resale market so people who want to get out have a viable path out rather than forcing HOAs or developers to take back units.

First, I appreciate that in wondering how one thing might work, you acknowledge the need for something.

I can only guess, and that guess would be that after some amount of time of being a responsible owner, always meeting their obligations, and having paid/paid off everything they were obligated to, owners should have the right to exit, not be held financially captive, for valid reasons, like non-performance by a resort.

I can only guess that the intent of legislation like that would be to allow the consumer to make a decision as to whether the resort has provided what the consumer was told they would. That goes to the 1.5 million households that ARDA, inadvertently, admits are dissatisfied. That's a HUGE portion, and attests to problems.

It is not lost on me that associations are the victims, and strapped with, the lies of developers, the same as consumer/owners, but it seems inconsistent to blame that on and penalize consumers/owners, and ignore the cause.

It's likely the lobbyists pointed out the developer v. association issue.

 

[dayooper]

Chill. Be patient.

When an entire industry misbehaves, and fails to police itself, someone will, when enough consumers are hurt. 1.5 million households does not appear to be enough, but maybe enough to draw attention to it.

Why do I need to chill and be patient?

 

[OldGuy]

Why do I need to chill and be patient?

You don't:

I have no vested interest since I know how to find information, so nothing to be patient about.

 

[DazedandConfused]

I personally think 21-30 days is a good time frame for recession, but not longer. The 10 day is too short, especially when you consider many people buy while on vacation.

It is also amazing to me that Disney DVC owners rarely complain and they have a mega high retention rate (above 90% for 5 years) so they must be doing something right.

HGVC is the closest thing to DVC and even has some things better than Disney, but I find the sales staff at HGCV much more "weasely" than Disney. Also the immediate resale value of HGVC is terrible as compared to DVC. In other words, if you buy HGVC and immediately sell, you will lose 75% or more and with Disney you will generally be less than 20%.

 

[JIMinNC]

First, I appreciate that in wondering how one thing might work, you acknowledge the need for something.

I can only guess, and that guess would be that after some amount of time of being a responsible owner, always meeting their obligations, and having paid/paid off everything they were obligated to, owners should have the right to exit, not be held financially captive, for valid reasons, like non-performance by a resort.

I can only guess that the intent of legislation like that would be to allow the consumer to make a decision as to whether the resort has provided what the consumer was told they would. That goes to the 1.5 million households that ARDA, inadvertently, admits are dissatisfied. That's a HUGE portion, and attests to problems.

It is not lost on me that associations are the victims, and strapped with, the lies of developers, the same as consumer/owners, but it seems inconsistent to blame that on and penalize consumers/owners, and ignore the cause.

It's likely the lobbyists pointed out the developer v. association issue.

I certainly support strong consumer protection laws, particularly in industries like timeshare with a history of deceptive sales practices. Having said that, I do think those laws need to be reasonable and recognize they should not give the consumer so many protections that it harms other involved parties such as HOAs or the developers that don't totally abuse the process.

I support more robust rescission periods (at least 15 days), stronger up-front disclosures (maybe even a bold-print disclosure that the buyer must sign informing them that a resale market exists and they should investigate options during the rescission period), and better enforcement of deceptive sales practices. But allowing an owner to just walk away from their maintenance fee obligation and stick it to the HOA and the other owners strikes me as unfair to the other impacted parties. Why allow someone to totally walk away from a decision they made in a way that directly harms others? I think government rules work best when they work to strengthen the marketplace in a way that benefits consumers, and then let the market forces do their job. One reason that developers can get away with charging exorbitant prices is because the resale market has very little transparency to the average buyer. Improve that visibility with disclosures and more liberal rescission periods versus laws that arbitrarily take away the basic market forces.

 

[RX8]

Like this?

A few weeks ago, we published an article regarding the state of timeshare sales presentations in Arizona. Since the early stages of timesharing, contract disclosure has been a problem in the industry. Although many lawmakers with stakes in fractional ownership wanted to fault buyers for making impulse decisions, the State of Arizona agreed that disclosure laws were necessary. They also determined that extending a buyer’s right to rescission (cancellation period) was needed as well.

Today, tens of thousands of timeshare owners claim they would have never made the purchase if they knew what it really entailed. Whether this is their fault or not, they now have added protections that force timeshare companies to provide more information on the front end and additional time to make the decision final.

The passing of this law is a big deal for consumer advocates who have been stating the obvious for quite some time now. Buyers now have a better chance to get out of something that can be perpetually difficult to deal with. Aside from post-purchase advantages, the law also applies to anyone planning on attending a timeshare presentation. Arizona residents are nationally protected. Sponsor and Republican, Shawnna Bolik believes the decision makes the state “a national leader in enacting consumer protections for timeshare buyers,” and that the bill help “curb deceptive practices by some in the timeshare industry.”

While consumers definitely won here, timeshare representatives were able to strip some of the original provisions by persuading lawmakers to combat the proposal. Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita once again stood with the opposition. In the end, they were able to keep the law from including an ability for consumers to cancel in the first year without penalty or after 10 years or once the property was paid off. They also removed disclosing 30 year cost estimates and a proposed 24 hour cooling off period. They believed they dodged a bullet here.

https://vacationownershipconsultants.com/bill-passes-in-favor-of-new-timeshare-sales-law-in-arizona/

I am posting this to show that real people in real life in real legislatures are already almost there, not just an OldGuy babbling on the Internet. The only thing stopping it in this example is the lobby money to bribe the more available legislators.

You cannot endlessly take advantage of consumers, lie and deceive, and then hold them captive, forever, without there eventually being consequences.

I might mention that a couple months ago I suggested something similar to the underlined portion, and got the Internet equivalent of being tar-and-feathered.

Interesting that your quotes are taken from an exit company who is exploiting how “bad” the industry is. This particular exit company has an alert on the BBB for misrepresenting their accreditation. They are also F rated. They also have many glowing BBB reviews. I pointed out on another thread how legit companies in business for decades have few BBB reviews yet these exit companies are able to drum up dozens of glowing reviews which makes me wonder how many of them are fake reviews (illegal by the way).

 

[OldGuy]

I did not consider this source because I saw exactly the same info, word for word, on the news outlets when I first posted exactly the same information previously.

Would it change the facts if I posted exactly the same information, only from another source?

BTW, it is exactly the same information, exactly the same explanation of what happened, that AZ proposed a 10-year-or-whenever-the-original-purchase-is-paid-off-whichever-comes-first exit, and ARDA lobbied against it, and won, as I originally posted from a less-biased source.

Just because a biased source shares information doesn't mean it is inaccurate.

What they shared is what happened.
- - - - - -
&, since you brought it up, why do questionable exit companies exist?

 

[brp]

One might also think that someone with this strong an interest in protecting people from the deceptive practices of the timeshare industry might spring to become a Member of TUG as opposed to remaining a Guest. Maybe it's just me, but seems odd.

Cheers.

 

[OldGuy]

Ah, personal attacks. That's cute.

odd I may be

The facts still stay the facts, though.

back to the topic . . .

Here's an abbreviated version of AZ's new timeshare legislation, from a neutral news source:

“The Arizona House of Representatives unanimously passed a version of the timeshare bill with stronger protections for consumers, including a “cooling-off period” of one business day after the sales presentation and a requirement that the timeshare company provide specific estimates of the actual cost of the timeshare,” according to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. “Unfortunately, these additional consumer protection requirements were stripped in the Senate and did not make it into the final legislation sent to the Governor.”

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/05/24/governor-signs-timeshare-reform-legislation/

Note that the AZ AG's office found it disappointing that the parts of the legislation that I previously listed were defeated by lobbyists.

It is not that I necessarily support those harsher items, and I mention them to show that it is not just the musing of an OldGuy, that . . . well, you can read what I said before.

Que sera, sera.

 

[brp]

Ah, personal attacks. That's cute.

Definite apologies if my comment came across as a personal attack. Was not meant to be. I would just think that someone with this strong an interest would want to be a member of the community. As I said, just seems odd. Definitely nothing personal, so really no reason to read that into it. But, of course, infer what you wish. I've explained my intent

Cheers.

 

[dayooper]

You don't:

I have no vested interest since I know how to find information, so nothing to be patient about.

I didn’t say that. That was @brp

 

[OldGuy]

I've had an interest in consumer rights for 50 years, since I took an auto-repair company taking advantage of college students to conference with the AG's office.

It's likely just a personal defect, that I see weak people getting screwed by bullies, & I feel I have some obligation to do something about it.

Becoming of member of anything probably would not change that.

 

[OldGuy]

I didn’t say that. That was @brp

yup

 

[OldGuy]

I have tried to be conservative, not over-hyped, to present how dangerous to owners who like their timeshares owners who are dissatisfied are. I've used the figure 1.5 million households (15% of 4 million owners, both conservative).

I am not sharing the following source, but just to illustrate that the danger may be even greater than I've presented, here's another estimate:

More than 9 million households own timeshares which resort developers frequently market with high-pressure, hard-sell, sales techniques that often result in overpriced, impractical and unwanted contracts. According to industry research, 47 percent of timeshare owners want out of their contracts because of money-related issues.

I share this not because of the source, whatever it is, but because this is what the general public is seeing, fake news or not.

ARDA lobbying to stop consumer-beneficial, or support anti-consumer legislation, is common knowledge.

In advance of today's hearing on Florida's proposed legislation (FL HB 435/ SB 1430), the powerful $9.6 billion timeshare industry lobby is pushing for the passage of this anti-consumer bill.

 

[dayooper]

yup

I guess I’m a little confused. I took your remark as a little condescending, like a parent telling a child everything will be ok. I guess I’m not sure why that was included in your reply to me, but I guess it really doesn’t matter.

 

[JIMinNC]

I have tried to be conservative, not over-hyped, to present how dangerous to owners who like their timeshares owners who are dissatisfied are. I've used the figure 1.5 million households (15% of 4 million owners, both conservative).

I am not sharing the following source, but just to illustrate that the danger may be even greater than I've presented, here's another estimate:

More than 9 million households own timeshares which resort developers frequently market with high-pressure, hard-sell, sales techniques that often result in overpriced, impractical and unwanted contracts. According to industry research, 47 percent of timeshare owners want out of their contracts because of money-related issues.

I share this not because of the source, whatever it is, but because this is what the general public is seeing, fake news or not.

ARDA lobbying to stop consumer-beneficial legislation is common knowledge.

In advance of today's hearing on Florida's proposed legislation (FL HB 435/ SB 1430), the powerful $9.6 billion timeshare industry lobby is pushing for the passage of this anti-consumer bill.

Actually, I think the entry of the big brands like Marriott, HGVC, Westin, Wyndham, etc. has cleaned up many/most of the truly fraudulent practices by developers. They still spin, tell partial truths, and use emotion to push people to buy things they may not need, but the outright fraud is much less prevalent.

On the other hand, many of these up-front fee companies and exit companies are outright frauds and are probably a bigger black-eye for the industry now than the developers themselves. I actually think regulating the exit companies is more important short-term than dealing with the sales tactics. It may not be the same bill, but I thought the Florida bill you linked above was the one that ARDA was backing that would have addressed these exit companies. I'm not sure how that is anti-consumer.