[MERGED] VIP Downgrade letter

[chapjim]

It was a dedicated line. The gentleman said he and a few others staff the line. His initial answer was that we will be downgraded from Founders to Platinum. He seemed ready to negotiate something because he asked ‘what outcome would we like’. I told him about our direct wyndham purchase last year where they wrote in that we would be founders and our desired outcome is for them to honor the contract so we remain founders. He found that contract but he was not ready to or able to negotiate us staying founders. He said give him 5 business days to research whether this would be a ‘sales violation’.

During casual conversation he pointed out that most impacted members are those who purchased these agreements from 2003-2013 and have been getting elevated vip level for years. In our case (and yours) there was a very recent purchase primarily to become founders so I think that should matter a lot. BTW it seems the whole downgrade initiative is an excersize in customer abuse .. its one thing to change a policy going forward but applying it retroactively is just asking for badwill.

Bob

I must have missed something. I didn't see anything about retroactive application.

 

[Jan M.]

I must have missed something. I didn't see anything about retroactive application.

From what I read in the email he posted it only applies to biennial contracts purchased before November 1, 2013. What I'm not clear on is if that date is when the very first owner bought or the date the current owner purchased the contract. I'd think it's the date the current owner bought but maybe not.

 

[chapjim]

From what I read in the email he posted it only applies to biennial contracts purchased before November 1, 2013. What I'm not clear on is if that date is when the very first owner bought or the date the current owner purchased the contract. I'd think it's the date the current owner bought but maybe not.

I wouldn't call that retroactive application.

Since OP purchased from Wyndham, I would agree that date of purchase is the relevant date.

I can't wait to hear what Wyndham does if the contract really does guarantee VIP Founders

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

That's terrible. Wyndham just loves to change things on us.

They are giving themselves a bad reputation for changing policies. It's what gives timeshare a bad name.

As a non- owner / TUG Wyndham forum reader -
"They are starting to sound more and more like- WESTGATE"

 

[OutSkiing]

I must have missed something. I didn't see anything about retroactive application.

In every purchase or conversation about direct sale purchase I’ve been in Wyndham uses the term ‘grandfathered’ so that if things change in the future you are grandfathered into your vip level as of date of sale. So by retroactive I mean this is reversing that postion. If new purchases such as the one we made last year were to occur in the future then I see it not qualifying for the particular VIP level but this is applying to a purchase already made and a level already attained.

Bob

 

[chapjim]

In every purchase or conversation about direct sale purchase I’ve been in Wyndham uses the term ‘grandfathered’ so that if things change in the future you are grandfathered into your vip level as of date of sale. So by retroactive I mean this is reversing that postion. If new purchases such as the one we made last year were to occur in the future then I see it not qualifying for the particular VIP level but this is applying to a purchase already made and a level already attained.

Bob

Okay but to me, retroactive application would mean Wyndham went back to the date of your purchase and made any adjustments that would have negated whatever benefit you had of the VIPF that you would not have had prior to attaining VIPF. Clearly a PITA and probably not something Wyndham could do accurately.

 

[90_Min_Sales_Pitch]

I think that Wyndham should honor established VIP levels, grandfather them in, and make this change on new purchases only.

 

[paxsarah]

I think that Wyndham should honor established VIP levels, grandfather them in, and make this change on new purchases only.

It seems to me the problem here is that this exception was never written into Wyndham’s VIP levels. It may be written into individual contracts (or not, but affected individuals should check), but was never a written policy. Wyndham has written grandfathering policies that deal with total points levels and benefits, but they never mention this particular biennial doubling issue.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I think that Wyndham should honor established VIP levels, grandfather them in, and make this change on new purchases only.

They cannot do that because it would not be equitable. Here's the official statement we have received from Wyndham after following up on this issue with Wyndham management:

"This issue is limited to a small subset of owners who had purchased a converted Affiliate, converted Fixed or Float Week, or Personal Interval Choice (PIC). It is a back end system points amount solution and not a front end website issue. This small subset of owners has received more points in their VIP calculation as compared to other owners that own the similar inventory. After this change all similarly situated owners will be treated correctly."

Personally, I think I see the core problem. Wyndham cannot discriminate or provide a non-equitable solution here. As others have said - it appears that this issue didn't occur after Nov 2013. So we have a smaller subset of impacted owners who received more than what they were actually entitled to receive for points having to do with biennial contracts. Wyndham essentially has two choices. Either all owners receive too much points credit - or all owners receive the proper amount of points credit. The rules cannot be different for what is the same situation. Otherwise, all of the owners who only received proper credit - can point to this smaller subset of owners who essentially received double the points credit - and argue that they should receive the same equitable outcome. It's one or the other. Wyndham isn't going to give all owners more points credit than they are actually entitled to, so those owners who did receive too much credit - are being course corrected now. For those impacted owners who have VIP and their levels are being negatively impacted - this situation is far from ideal - but I can at least understand the why now. The rules have to apply the same to all accounts, even with grandfathering. For those arguing this should be grandfathered - the reality is that all grandfathered VIP owners would have to receive the same "more points in their VIP calculation as compared to other owners that own the similar inventory." Wyndham isn't going to grandfather artificial points credits for all owners - because if they did - those owners would have their VIP levels increased automatically due to receiving more points credit - just like the VIP owners that are being negatively impacted due to the announced changes. It's one way or the other - the rules have to equitably apply to all involved.

 

[OutSkiing]

They cannot do that because it would not be equitable. Here's the official statement we have received from Wyndham after following up on this issue with Wyndham management:



Personally, I think I see the core problem. Wyndham cannot discriminate or provide a non-equitable solution here. As others have said - it appears that this issue didn't occur after Nov 2013. So we have a smaller subset of impacted owners who received more than what they were actually entitled to receive for points having to do with biennial contracts. Wyndham essentially has two choices. Either all owners receive too much points credit - or all owners receive the proper amount of points credit. The rules cannot be different for what is the same situation. Otherwise, all of the owners who only received proper credit - can point to this smaller subset of owners who essentially received double the points credit - and argue that they should receive the same equitable outcome. It's one or the other. Wyndham isn't going to give all owners more points credit than they are actually entitled to, so those owners who did receive too much credit - are being course corrected now. For those impacted owners who have VIP and their levels are being negatively impacted - this situation is far from ideal - but I can at least understand the why now. The rules have to apply the same to all accounts, even with grandfathering. For those arguing this should be grandfathered - the reality is that all grandfathered VIP owners would have to receive the same "more points in their VIP calculation as compared to other owners that own the similar inventory." Wyndham isn't going to grandfather artificial points credits for all owners - because if they did - those owners would have their VIP levels increased automatically due to receiving more points credit - just like the VIP owners that are being negatively impacted due to the announced changes. It's one way or the other - the rules have to equitably apply to all involved.

I feel that is just an exercize in logic to justify an action. There must be numerous inequities born from historic purchases because VIP owners have acquired their VIP levels in many different ways. Converted fixed fairfield weeks, converted fixed affiliate weeks, PIC points, PIC express and what about Shell conversions and owners of the recently acquired resort in south Myrtle Beach? Not to mention the temporary VIPs from package purchases.

It is interesting that PIC was mentioned .. I wonder if anyone here with PIC points is affected. BTW my wait for an answer from Wyndham about what sales promised in 2021 is not up until middle of this week.
Bob

 

[Sandi Bo]

The statute of limitations is 7 years. Shouldn't Wyndham at some point be held accountable for their blunders. How many times are things like this going to come up? SMH

 

[cbyrne1174]

The statute of limitations is 7 years. Shouldn't Wyndham at some point be help accountable for their blunders. How many times are things like this going to come up? SMH

Enough to make it so that people don't even bother to shoot for VIP. I personally was too scared to PIC to Gold before November 2020 because I felt like sometime down the road Wyndham will say that my PICs no longer count towards status because they changed their exchange affilliation or something. That's the exact kind of BS that I can totally see Wyndham try and pull. I remember I got the idea because @HitchHiker71 did just that and showed how it would pay for itself pretty quickly, but I have really low risk tolerance so I NOPED out. I instead used the money to replace my husband's car sooner than I normally would so we could drive to further locations.

 

[WManning]

I think that Wyndham should honor established VIP levels, grandfather them in, and make this change on new purchases only.

Why not ask Wyndham to have resale points grandfathered in and be used with VIP benefits? Wyndham is tring to eliminate all loopholes that existed but we're not a listed benefit. It seems to me a lot of VIP owners want themselves excluded if it affects their situation. Someone in a earlier post commented that owners should feel lucky they were able to recieve more then what was listed as a benefit. Just maybe after Wyndham corrects all the system loopholes its possible they might try to fix the online user experiance!

 

[dayooper]

Why not ask Wyndham to have resale points grandfathered in and be used with VIP benefits? Wyndham is tring to eliminate all loopholes that existed but we're not a listed benefit. It seems to me a lot of VIP owners want themselves excluded if it affects their situation. Someone in a earlier post commented that owners should feel lucky they were able to recieve more then what was listed as a benefit. Just maybe after Wyndham corrects all the system loopholes its possible they might try to fix the online user experiance!

Here’s the thing, the OP bought directly from Wyndham for the reason to upgrade to Founders. It was written in the contract by a representative of the company that they would be grandfathered in. Should Wyndham not be held responsible for the contracts they sign?

 

[WManning]

Here’s the thing, the OP bought directly from Wyndham for the reason to upgrade to Founders. It was written in the contract by a representative of the company that they would be grandfathered in. Should Wyndham not be held responsible for the contracts they sign?

If it's written in the contract absolutely! Unfortunately most of the time owners rely on what was promised by sales.

 

[dayooper]

If it's written in contract absolutely! Unfortunately most of the time owners rely on what was promised by sales.

I get that salesman lie to get a sale, but why shouldn’t what they say be honored? It’s wrong that they are allowed to say whatever they want. Is it wrong that the salesmen and the companies they represent be held to their word? We timeshare owners are held to ours or there are consequences.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Here’s the thing, the OP bought directly from Wyndham for the reason to upgrade to Founders. It was written in the contract by a representative of the company that they would be grandfathered in. Should Wyndham not be held responsible for the contracts they sign?

Actually we haven't seen any actual proof that the specific VIP tier was written into the contract. I'd like to see proof - because every contract I've ever read and reviewed says the exact opposite in the fine print - that the entire VIP program is subject to change at any time - up to and including termination of the program in entirety.

 

[dayooper]

Actually we haven't seen any actual proof that the specific VIP tier was written into the contract. I'd like to see proof - because every contract I've ever read and reviewed says the exact opposite in the fine print - that the entire VIP program is subject to change at any time - up to and including termination of the program in entirety.

I agree, just going by what the OP posted.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I feel that is just an exercize in logic to justify an action. There must be numerous inequities born from historic purchases because VIP owners have acquired their VIP levels in many different ways. Converted fixed fairfield weeks, converted fixed affiliate weeks, PIC points, PIC express and what about Shell conversions and owners of the recently acquired resort in south Myrtle Beach? Not to mention the temporary VIPs from package purchases.

It is interesting that PIC was mentioned .. I wonder if anyone here with PIC points is affected. BTW my wait for an answer from Wyndham about what sales promised in 2021 is not up until middle of this week.
Bob

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I doubt we would find that converted fixed weeks were valued using different points values for different owners for the same inventory for example, or PIC contracts were using different points values for a one bedroom for example, same with PIC express. The rules need to be equitable, otherwise it's pretty easy to demonstrate inequity on Wyndham's part. Same with Shell conversions, it's always the same points conversion values regardless of the owner's in scope. Same with Plantation in Surfside Beach south of Myrtle Beach. I have a friend who owns there through Plantation and has gone to the negotiating table several times now with Wyndham to convert - same points values every time.

 

[WManning]

I get that salesman lie to get a sale, but why shouldn’t what they say be honored? It’s wrong that they are allowed to say whatever they want. Is it wrong that the salesmen and the companies they represent be held to their word? We timeshare owners are held to ours or there are consequences.

In a perfect world sales should be held accountable for the lies and deception. Unfortunately most buyers are to blame for not doing their own due diligence.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I get that salesman lie to get a sale, but why shouldn’t what they say be honored? It’s wrong that they are allowed to say whatever they want. Is it wrong that the salesmen and the companies they represent be held to their word? We timeshare owners are held to ours or there are consequences.

At the end of the day, unless you have documented proof about what was said, it becomes he said she said. While oral contracts are legally enforceable, a level of proof that's required is usually sorely lacking. This is the case regardless of the product or service being sold. What really matters in the written signed contract at the end of the day, and the written signed contract has clauses contained within it that clearly negate 90% of what sales claims. Caveat emptor.

 

[dayooper]

In a perfect world sales should be held accountable for the lies and deception. Unfortunately most buyers are to blame for not doing their own due diligence.

Of course those that purchase from the developer should always do their due diligence, but it still doesn’t make what the salesman and timeshare companies do right. If we just accept the lies and say that’s what timeshare salesman do, we are just perpetuating the behavior. Putting all of the blame on the purchaser is letting the timeshare industry off the hook. It’s similar to saying boys will be boys when they act inappropriately around women. I have 2 boys and I don’t want them to act that way just like I don’t want my kids to become timeshare salespeople and act inappropriately when in front of a potential client.

I know there’s not much we can do to change the actions of the company and the purchaser is absolutely responsible for their purchase, but the idea that it’s ok for the salesmen to stretch the truth and outright lies isn’t right either.

 

[rickandcindy23]

@HitchHiker71 But if you are given a status and enjoy that status for years, and Wyndham turns the tides, then it's very obvious that Wyndham recognized the very status you enjoyed but took it away.

Now the big company takes an owner down a notch because of a change in policy or a realization that this was done incorrectly, and that is just not right.

The mantra on TUG is that everything Wyndham does is okay. Wait until they do that to you.

 

[dayooper]

At the end of the day, unless you have documented proof about what was said, it becomes he said she said. While oral contracts are legally enforceable, a level of proof that's required is usually sorely lacking. This is the case regardless of the product or service being sold. What really matters in the written signed contract at the end of the day, and the written signed contract has clauses contained within it that clearly negate 90% of what sales claims. Caveat emptor.

I understand that. The only way to prevent is by having the conversation recorded, and we know that will never happen. All we really can do is try and inform like we have been doing. With that being said, if you think that salesman telling lies and stretching the truth is acceptable behavior just because it’s not enforceable, than we are not on the same thought processes.

 

[Sandi Bo]

In a perfect world sales should be held accountable for the lies and deception. Unfortunately most buyers are to blame for not doing their own due diligence.

There was a time, where it was thought by some that the new management was working to change the reputation (and integrity) of the sales force (it was suggested we give it some time). I say they have not come through, nor do I hear it spoken of any more. Same ol dirty tricks.