Call to Starwood about new system

[Stefa]

Do you realize that now, when you put in a "request first" request with II, you will lose your reservation for your "platinum week," and if you don't get the exchange you want, you can't get your platinum week back, and they can give you any old off-season week? - you're OK with that?

To be fair, Denise, there is a difference between Starwood assigning a set trading power to all weeks based on resort/season (which Bucky said he didn't have a problem with) and the other aspects of the new systems (such as no request first, not being able to search more than one year out) which I don't believe he was defending. I can live with the generic trade power, although I'm not crazy about it. The real issues I have are with the other aspects of the system which are needlessly confusing and seem to be put in place to make owners unhappy.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Bucky makes a valid point. Loose lips may indeed sink ships.

ABOUT RCI, since Bucky brought RCI's change power issues into this thread (though I have no idea why???), I want to clarify what happened to RCI, although it is off topic here.

Bucky makes way too many assumptions, however. RCI didn't downgrade trading power over DVC availability. Brian Noble determined that the new system RCI put into place in November was a simpler system, with only a few trading levels, and now they have partitioned trading power into more levels, with more intracacies, just as it was before November. This was a sort of transition time, and it made a lot of sense. When RCI tried to add the extra trading power levels, and they re-evaluated 200K weeks for supply/ demand, they ran into big problems that they tried to avoid back in November by having fewer levels. I wish they would just have left it alone, but they didn't.

Now we are taking our weeks elsewhere, and it's not because we don't see Disney anymore. I don't know of anyone who is saying that, because I know the answer to that dilemma: lease RCI Points and get DVC. It's simple, no long-term commitments, and cheaper than owning DVC.

It's the general lack of 2 bedrooms in areas we travel the most, even at the Orlando Orange Lakes resorts, which were always easy exchanges for us, even into the 3 bedrooms. I am not talking about post-November, I am talking always, always easy for us.

I can get any week I want at the Marriotts in II. It's RCI's general lack of prime inventory that is the biggest problem, when we could get anything before. I can rent weeks in Orlando for September from RCI for $249, so why am I paying MF's of $500 to get an exchange? I won't do it anymore. If I am going to exchange my weeks, I am going to get prime inventory through alternate exchange companies with my prime summer weeks!!!!! I can get the Hawaii resorts through several other companies. The only thing I cannot get is Shearwater, which I can get with RCI Points.

I have been bashed so many times on the Foxrun group, specifically by one person who kept saying, "Loose lips sink ships," ironically. Now the criticism is here on TUG, with my post. Coincidence?

 

[Pit]

Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner. But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.
As I have stated here before, making one call to request an I.I. deposit which is from your home resort in the season owned is a legitimate approach to the matter. It may not be optimal for some owners, but it is both legitimate , and how many timeshare owners exercise their exchange requests elsewhere.
For every negative someone can point to, an offsetting benefit can be cited to the owner base at large.

I am not a proponent of Starwood's management of this issue, and others. But, I am saying that the new implementation is something hard to argue with, if substance and fairness is the measure, IMO.

Fredm

I have to disagree with you here. Primarliy because "fairness" is a subjective term. The basic problem with the current implementation is legality. From where does Starwood derive the legal right to substitute a generic week for a reserved week on behalf of the (non-SVN) owner? This is simply not supported by the relevant legal documents. The concept of a floating week, as defined in the CCRs, applies only to reservations, not to usage rights.

As a hypthetical example, consider two SDO owners, one with floating weeks 1-52 and a second owner with fixed week 10. Now, suppose the floating week owner goes through the exercise of reserving week 10. Both of these owners have the same legal rights to deposit their week 10 reservations. However, Starwood and II have conspired to assign a lower trade value to the float week owner deposit than the fixed week owner (Gold Plus vs. Platinum). The float week owner has been harmed, in the legal sense, by this agreement between II and Starwood.

Assigning a generic trade value (even if its called "Platinum") that reduces an owner's exchange opportunities is clearly harmful to the owner. This may indeed benefit other owners, but that is no justification for infringing property rights.

 

[jerseygirl]

Well said Pit. Developers take full advantage of the float week concept to sell a bunch of crappy weeks. To then attempt to dilute what was sold is unconscionable.

 

[gmarine]

Yes, I think most of us here also have a life, since we are the ones interested in traveling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Its sad to see how some people go through life with such a chip on their shoulder.

pacman

Well said. Ditto. On the plus side, he knows his opinion is uninformed.

 

[DeniseM]

To be fair, Denise, there is a difference between Starwood assigning a set trading power to all weeks based on resort/season (which Bucky said he didn't have a problem with) and the other aspects of the new systems

There is a difference, and that is why I was asking him if was aware that there were other changes involved that would have a very negative effect on the owner of a platinum week. He didn't comment on those changes, so I'm wondering if he is even aware of them!

 

[Fredm]

Fredm

I have to disagree with you here. Primarliy because "fairness" is a subjective term. The basic problem with the current implementation is legality. From where does Starwood derive the legal right to substitute a generic week for a reserved week on behalf of the (non-SVN) owner? This is simply not supported by the relevant legal documents. The concept of a floating week, as defined in the CCRs, applies only to reservations, not to usage rights.

As a hypthetical example, consider two SDO owners, one with floating weeks 1-52 and a second owner with fixed week 10. Now, suppose the floating week owner goes through the exercise of reserving week 10. Both of these owners have the same legal rights to deposit their week 10 reservations. However, Starwood and II have conspired to assign a lower trade value to the float week owner deposit than the fixed week owner (Gold Plus vs. Platinum). The float week owner has been harmed, in the legal sense, by this agreement between II and Starwood.

Assigning a generic trade value (even if its called "Platinum") that reduces an owner's exchange opportunities is clearly harmful to the owner. This may indeed benefit other owners, but that is no justification for infringing property rights.

Pit,

I agree that "fairness" is a subjective term.
I also agree that non-SVN owners are not ahead by the implementation of this methodology. I personally do not like it.

Where we disagree is in what is defensible. But, that is just my opinion.

Your disagreement with me is respectful. I appreciate it. Reasonable disagreement is what civil discussion is about. It is also what allows thoughtful comment to be absorbed.
Too often around here any opinion that goes against the hue and cry of discontent is viewed as being a spin merchant for Starwood.

I have been critical of Starwood's policies on a number of occasions.
Most disturbing to me is their insincerity. It can be insulting.
Having said this, I do not believe that property rights are violated because of the deposit value which represents an owner exchange request. Nor do I believe they violate the resort governing documents.
The reason for my saying so is to give pause to those who wish to make an argument of it. There is enough to do battle over without fighting a losing cause.

Want to test my opinion? It really is not too hard. A class action is not necessary. Take Starwood to Small Claims Court as an individual civil action. Claim that your property rights have been violated. Claim that Starwood has violated the terms of the resort CC & R's. As a consequence you have suffered monetary loss in the quality of your exchange experience. Ask that you be compensated for the devaluation caused by the violation.
What you are really asking the judge to do is rule on the question of violating the CC&R's. Either they have or they have not. Proving monetary damages may be more complicated, but that's not the point. You could be awarded zero on that count. Just get a court to agree with you that your property rights have been violated.
If you can, a great service will have been performed for all non-SVN owners. Respectfully, I don't think you will win.

Now, an example of Starwood's insincerity is their claim that the new implementation has no material effect on its owner exchange experience. That's plain bs. It is also insulting to those that know better. Usurping the definition of "request first", and not permitting an owner to retain a home resort reservation, is the really objectionable, and indefensible, portion of the new methodology. But, that is also just my opinion.

 

[pianodinosaur]

I have been watching this thread as an SPG member who does not own at a Starwood Property. If I understand correctly, a person who buys resale at Sheraton Broadway Plantation at the worst possible season has the same II trading power as someone who purchases WKORV platinum directly from Starwood. If I understand correctly, one must purchase direct from Starwood to have both SVN membership and the ability to convert StarOptions to SPG points.

If I had purchased WKORV directly from Starwood I would be furious. If I had purchased WKORV resale, I would still be furious but only half as much. If I had purchased resale at Sheraton Broadway Plantation during the winter season, I would be very pleased.

Therefore, I wonder how Starwood benefits from this. This seems to be a very heavy handed way to encourage SVN members to trade internally using their StarOptions. Perhaps Starwood saves money by having more internal trades than having to go through II. It is also becoming quite apparent that purchasing resale at SDO (an option that I have considered) has been a very good financial deal. The new II trading regulations seem to make SDO less valuable as a trader. This not only punishes those who purchase resale but those who purchased direct from Starwood and have SVN membership. However, the SVN owners at SDO would then be much more likely to trade internally.

This is what has kept me from purchasing SDO or SBP resale at this time.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Hey Piano, there is still a season at SDO and SBP. Buying winter at SBP is not going to trade as well as the Gold, similar to the old system. If you buy winter at SBP, you cannot see much. I played around with my SBP week before I deposited last time, entering various dates to see what my trading power would be, and believe me, winter isn't going to do well at all, as it should not.

 

[gmarine]

IMO, Starwood knows this new system is not good for owners. If they thought it was a plus for owners and owners would be happy about it, wouldnt they come out right away and advertise it to owners?

No, instead they are hiding the new system, and almost two months after implementing it still have not notified owners other than those who found out on their own.

 

[l2trade]

... It is also becoming quite apparent that purchasing resale at SDO (an option that I have considered) has been a very good financial deal. The new II trading regulations seem to make SDO less valuable as a trader. This not only punishes those who purchase resale but those who purchased direct from Starwood and have SVN membership. However, the SVN owners at SDO would then be much more likely to trade internally.

This is what has kept me from purchasing SDO or SBP resale at this time.

Good points pianodinosaur. I agree.

I live in AZ and SDO is my one and only home resort, so I admit I may be biased, but...

SDO is an excellent property in a perfect Scottsdale location. It is a Premier Resort in II and deserves this level of distinction. I still feel the warm, cozy yet luxurious, at home ambience every time I visit. The huge pool at SDO is one of my very favorites of any resort we've visited. IMHO, the pools at FSA & NCV are a joke in comparison.

There are a couple of beautiful mega resorts (WKV & MCV) nearby to SDO with sister resort hotels. I've stayed at both. They are very nice also, but too spread out and lack the personal touch. Think about less shade and more walking (both negatives during hot AZ months). For example, if you want to use the lazy river, be prepared for the shuttle drive or hike.

Purchasing resale at SDO has been a very good financial deal. With the reduced II trading power and bad economy, resale prices are the lowest I've ever seen. Yes, Starwood's new policy made SDO red 1-52 weeks less valuable for how I've been using them with II. But, II is not the sole arbiter of full real estate deeded ownership value here. As a non-SVN owner, neither are the arbitrary StarOption values of legacy weeks. There are other valuable ways to use your ownership: staying, renting, 3rd party exchange, etc...

So, I think the law of unintended consequences for Starwood has yet to play out here. As a resale buyer, I have less at stake to lose, which allows me to appreciate the irony of the situation. The newer SVN properties have resale right-of-first refusal deed restrictions. This is intended to protect resale values (i.e. - discourage buyers from buying resale vs. new). SDO re-sales have no such deed restriction in place. Starwood has yet to solicit an offer to trade-in, upgrade, consign or repurchase any of my contracts. Instead, they find shaky methods to devalue them. They risk bad press and litigation. Now, the gap between new versus resale prices has never been greater. Starwood is hurting their own brand name and price/value proposition.

 

[Stefa]

I do think SDO will continue to be a decent trader. Last year I let Starwood deposit a week for me and they gave me a fall week that traded quite well. To me the issue isn't about trading power, it is the other annoying aspects of the system that would make me less likely to purchase SVO in the future.

 

[Pit]

Having said this, I do not believe that property rights are violated because of the deposit value which represents an owner exchange request.

I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If Starwood and II have colluded to limit my exchange options vs. another owner (who has reserved the exact same unit/week), they have clearly reduced my deposit value relative to the other owner. How can that be justified?

Nor do I believe they violate the resort governing documents.

Owners have the right to exchange their reserved week. There is no language in the CCRs giving Starwood (or any managment company) the right to alter the owners reservation. From where does Starwood derive the authority to unilaterally cancel owner reservations?

 

[Fredm]

IMO, Starwood knows this new system is not good for owners. If they thought it was a plus for owners and owners would be happy about it, wouldnt they come out right away and advertise it to owners?

No, instead they are hiding the new system, and almost two months after implementing it still have not notified owners other than those who found out on their own.

It occurred to me while mowing my lawn yesterday,that what they did was remove the valid objection non-SVN owners had.

Heretofore, non-SVN owners could raise a valid objection to the deposit of a bulk-bank week. The rules were such that they specifically applied only to SVN members. And, bulk banking subjected an owner to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value.

Absent a formally declared set of rules for non-members, Starwood had a dilemma. The legal staff may have told them they could not be arbitrary. So, when pushed they relented.

They then revamped the whole thing to make it uniform in a way that retained their control over the inventory for their benefit.

In the process, request first as we know it, died.
In my view, this is the real travesty of the new methodology.

I know many here contend that this is all a violation of their CC&R's.
Sad to say, I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong. Because that is the only recourse remaining as I see it.

By not making an announcement Starwood does not have to admit there ever was an arbitrary problem with the prior implementation of exchange rules. That is why no fanfare. They spin it only to those that object.

 

[Fredm]

I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If Starwood and II have colluded to limit my exchange options vs. another owner (who has reserved the exact same unit/week), they have clearly reduced my deposit value relative to the other owner. How can that be justified?

Owners have the right to exchange their reserved week. There is no language in the CCRs giving Starwood (or any managment company) the right to alter the owners reservation. From where does Starwood derive the authority to unilaterally cancel owner reservations?

These are two separate issues.

First, they have not clearly reduced exchange value. It may be reduced for some, and increased for others. That is how they justify it. It sucks, but you asked.

Second, yes, owners have a right to exchange.
Nothing I know of gives a floating week owner the "right" to retain a reservation when exchanging it. Indeed, with the "Deposit First" method the reservation is gone. Always has been.

The real problem is the usurping of "Request First". This has always meant preserving the home resort reservation until the request was either filled or canceled. The deposit was revocable.
Well, Starwood is calling all deposits RF. They remain revocable. But, because they have concocted a new scheme, the revocable deposit is generic, hence no reservation date attends the request. So, no retention.
This sucks big time.

Do they have a right to change the rules of exchange? I think so. If implemented uniformly.

The CC&R's grant a right to exchange. They do not define the rules of exchange, except to guarantee that it represents the value of what is owned. For it to be otherwise would raise a like issue. What is really "owned" is the deeded week. No floating week owner seriously claims that they have a right to deposit the deeded week. No, owners were very happy to reserve a season week for deposit, because the rules of exchange permitted it. Not the CC&R's.
Well, the rules have changed.

As already suggested in a prior post, if you think deeded property rights have been violated, challenge it in court. Either they have or they have not. Damages need not be proved. Just the ruling on property rights. Small Claims Court can get it done, if so inclined.

If there is a kink in the deal, it rests with fixed week owners. They have a right to the week they bought.

I am not supporting the new rules. They are a travesty. They have been concocted to eliminate the very real objection non-SVN owners had to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value. Perversely, this new methodology eliminates the problem for Starwood, while retaining their control of the inventory. Owners are doubly screwed.

Rather than permitting owners to control the owned inventory, the new rules lock it down.

Request First is dead. Forget what they call it. Its an entirely new exchange methodology using its own definitions.

I hope I am wrong about the CC&R's. It remains the only recourse available as I see it.

 

[stevens397]

So more to the point - has anyone had any experiences with San Francisco Exchange? I own WMH resale and just got a promotional card from them with all kinds of benefits to deposit my week (currently reserved for early April). Are they the real thing? Will I be impressed with what they have to offer?

Thanks for any feedback. I support those fighting the fight with Starwood, but we also should be prepared to move on, realizing the incredible advantage that Starwood has.

 

[Pit]

These are two separate issues.

First, they have not clearly reduced exchange value. It may be reduced for some, and increased for others. That is how they justify it. It sucks, but you asked.

They clearly have reduced exchange value for float week owners at SDO who make the effort to reserve a high demand week. I gave an example earlier of two owners with identical reservations. These two owners would receive two different trade values under the new system. This is a direct result of Starwood substituting a generic week for the reserved week in the case of the float owner, and Starwood has no authority to make such substitutions absent an agreement with the owner.

Second, yes, owners have a right to exchange.
Nothing I know of gives a floating week owner the "right" to retain a reservation when exchanging it. Indeed, with the "Deposit First" method the reservation is gone. Always has been.

Float owners not only have a right to exchange, they have an exclusive right to control the week they have reserved. This statement, from the CCRs, seems pretty clear to me. I can rent, gift, or exchange a reserved week with anyone I choose.

Any owner may permit a Unit which he is entitled to occupy to be occupied by other persons...

Interval may agree to accept a different (lower value) week from Starwood as a substitue for my deposit, however, they cannot punish me in the process by ascribing a lower value to my deposit. This is exactly what they have done by assigning trade value based on ownership, rather than based on reservations.

Do they have a right to change the rules of exchange? I think so. If implemented uniformly.

The CC&R's grant a right to exchange. They do not define the rules of exchange, except to guarantee that it represents the value of what is owned. For it to be otherwise would raise a like issue. What is really "owned" is the deeded week. No floating week owner seriously claims that they have a right to deposit the deeded week. No, owners were very happy to reserve a season week for deposit, because the rules of exchange permitted it. Not the CC&R's.
Well, the rules have changed.

You are correct that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements. However, those agreements cannot be used to alter the CCRs or usurp the rights of owners.

Fixed week owners have a right to the week they own, and float week owners have exactly the same rights to the week they reserve.

 

[Fredm]

You are correct that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements. However, those agreements cannot be used to alter the CCRs or usurp the rights of owners.

If you agree that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements, they are not usurping owner rights (so long as it is uniformly implemented).

You see, I think this is a BIG problem. Precisely because they have the right to do it.

Your position is they do not have the right. If that's true, there is no problem. They can't get away with it.

 

[Pit]

If you agree that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements, they are not usurping owner rights (so long as it is uniformly implemented).

I think you'll agree that it is not implemented uniformly when two owners with the exact same unit reservations are assigned different trade value for their deposits. That's why I do not think it can stand, as is.

 

[irish]

i totally agree with FREDM. starwood had a problem. i am sure there were many complaints as to why SVN members were in a sense being "penalized"
by having a 'GENERIC" week deposited while non-svn members were allowed(if they fought hard enough with starwood) to be able to deposit a week of choice. so they,in effect, took care of the problem by changing the rules. i can"t speak to whether this is legal or not but left unchallenged the "new system" will stand.

TO DENISE- i THINK that non svn owners posting on these boards about how they were able to get EXACTLY the week they wanted contributed to the complaints starwood received in regards to the former policy and that is why BUCKY made the comment LOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS. let me add, however, i ABSOLUTELY agree with YOU that information is to be shared on these boards. that is the reason i am a member.. to read and learn.

 

[jerseygirl]

It occurred to me while mowing my lawn yesterday,that what they did was remove the valid objection non-SVN owners had.

Heretofore, non-SVN owners could raise a valid objection to the deposit of a bulk-bank week. The rules were such that they specifically applied only to SVN members. And, bulk banking subjected an owner to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value.

Absent a formally declared set of rules for non-members, Starwood had a dilemma. The legal staff may have told them they could not be arbitrary. So, when pushed they relented.

They then revamped the whole thing to make it uniform in a way that retained their control over the inventory for their benefit.

In the process, request first as we know it, died.
In my view, this is the real travesty of the new methodology.

I know many here contend that this is all a violation of their CC&R's.
Sad to say, I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong. Because that is the only recourse remaining as I see it.

By not making an announcement Starwood does not have to admit there ever was an arbitrary problem with the prior implementation of exchange rules. That is why no fanfare. They spin it only to those that object.

Fred -- I still don't see the legal ground for your argument, sensible as it is. Starwood chooses to maintain two programs, SVN and non-SVN. As such, they have chosen to create two sets of rules. What's objectionable is the argument that they can make some of the rules the same for all, but not all of the rules -- that seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.

 

[Troopers]

 

[jerseygirl]

... LOL .....

You're right .... it's entirely too much drama. I need to remember that we're talking about timeshares, not world peace! Sometimes, though, it's the principle of the thing. Starwood's management disgusts me. Oops ... did I say that out loud? :ignore:

 

[Robert D]

One benefit of the new system that no one is talking about is that you don't get penalized for late deposits. If you're trying to rent your unit and it doesn't rent, or your plans change, you can deposit your week right up to the last day of your usage period and still get the same trading power as if you deposited it a year earlier and aren't restricted to doing flexchanges. At least I think this is the case under the new system.

 

[tlpnet]

I tested with my already deposited 1 BR SDO and I see it. But, I also noticed that when I map search in II, I cannot search an entire region anymore. I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?

It's not a glitch, it was reported over on the Exchanging Board a few days ago. It appears to be a new "feature."

I'm thinking II is a mess of "what do we do now?" because the 3 destination search limitation is gone again. You can now search like you used to be able to. Maybe II does pay attention to TUG.

-tim