• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 27 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG started 28 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Check out our happy birthday post here: Happy Birthday TUG!
  • TUG is asking for recent reviews of older resorts, earn a free year membership!

    Read more here
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $17,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $17 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

One in Four Rules - A Provisional Primer

Topeka Tom

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
342
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Topeka, KS
RCI's One in Four Rules. Yes, I used the plural, "one in four rules." I have yet to see a discussion or read a resort advisory that properly recognises that there are several one in four rules. There are important differences, and we need to keep that in mind, and perhaps should be taking some actions. First, I'll describe some of the varieties of one in four rules, then the consequences, as I see them, and suggest some actions.

Vanilla. Resort XYZ imposes a one in four rule which says that you can exchange into Resort XYZ only one in four years. Getaways, Last calls, Extra Vacations and rentals do not count. Interestingly, weeks booked by someone else and given to you by way of guest certificate also do not count, because the resort tracks by account number. In my mind this is the simplest and most common of the one in four rules, so I called it the vanilla version.

Orange Lake CC. OLCC has, for whatever reason, imposed a version of the vanilla rule, but they allow one trade in three years. I am not aware of any others, but I have not studied this exhaustively, nor I know how to do that, and I would not be surprised to learn of one or two more.

Cherry Blossoms. That's what I think of whenever I think about Door County in Wisconsin. Several exclusive resorts there have one in four rules that permit only one visit every four years. Extra vacations and last calls count! Don't you just have to smile, wondering about all the thinly disguised rental places RCI has, and how they track that?

700 Pound Gorillas. That's how a few families of resorts act, with RCI's approval and complicity. These resort chains apply their one in four rules to all resorts in the chain, or to designated resorts. If you visited the ABC resort in Grand Cayman, for instance, then you could not book a trade into the ABC resort in St. Thomas. There's a sordid tale, indeed, in the way one of these was initiated. RCI wouldn't honor confirmations made under the then-current rules, and played the finger-pointing and long, dumb, stare game -- the same game the resort played. I know that a few of the VC's were outraged, an emotion I could still hear, more than a year later, as I discussed the incident with one of them.

A Misconception. All prior exchanges count, even ones made before a one in four rule was imposed. I once convinced a VC that a one in four didn't apply to me, because my last exchange had been prior to the imposition of the rule. The exchange was made. I then did some checking and found out that all visits do apply, even if they were made before the rule came into effect. RCI quickly cancelled, refunded, restored, etc., and another exchange was quickly made. It seemed to me that there was no effort to blame me or cause me inconvenience, even though it was my fault and I probably deserved a ration of inconvenience.

So What? Exchangers have no protection from resorts that want to impose some variety of the one in four rules. The most we can do is try to understand what those rules are, and to protect ourselves from changes. I have outlined four varieties of the rules above, and welcome corrections and elaborations. That's a start toward understanding them.

Protection? Here's a strategy for protecting yourself against changes in the one in four rules. Ask your VC to mail you a copy of the resort's rule. If they don't have a copy, have it read to you. If you comply with the rule, ask to have a note put into your file confirming that you asked for a written copy, and that none was available, and that the guide found that you were in compliance when you booked your exchange. Make the request during normal business hours, when experienced guides with seniority are working. They are more likely to know how to post the note and actually to do it. If a problem comes up, you will have a record that there was no written rule for you to study, and that an RCI guide found you in compliance when you exchanged.

It's an RCI thing. Only RCI permits these rules and enforces them. Another strategy for booking into many of these resorts is to book exchanges via another company. I know that this is seldom a practical solution, but when it is, the one in four rules are a consideration.

I know people say they welcome criticism and correction, and generally, that's a darned lie! But, I do, I do!
 

hofftkmn

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Points
226
Thanks, Tom. That's the kind of helpful information that makes TUG such a great resource.
 

Carolinian

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
3
Points
273
Location
eastern Europe
Using an independent exchange company is a good way around a 1 in 4 rule, and is just another reason that we should all be requesting our home resorts to publcize to the membership that they have the ability to use these companies. It benefits timesharing in so many ways to increase the competition in the exchange business.
 

djyamyam

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
100
Points
273
Location
Canada
Carolinian said:
Using an independent exchange company is a good way around a 1 in 4 rule,
Is it the resort or the exchange company with the 1 in 4 rule? :confused: If I read you correctly, a person could exchange into a MP or an OLCC via RCI one year and then say via SFX or DAE the next? Some of the previous posts on other threads seemed to indicate that it was the resort that cancelled the exchange as check-in date got closer upon checking their records and not the exchange company.
 

Bill4728

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
272
Points
719
Location
Lake Tapps, WA
Some of the previous posts on other threads seemed to indicate that it was the resort that cancelled the exchange as check-in date got closer upon checking their records and not the exchange company.
Yes that's true, but only RCI has a contract with the resort, for the 1 in 4 rule. So if SFX or DAE confirm you into a unit at one of these resorts, the resort can't cancel you because there is no contract allowing them to do so.
 

RonaldCol

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
470
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Chicago
djyamyam said:
Is it the resort or the exchange company with the 1 in 4 rule? :confused: If I read you correctly, a person could exchange into a MP or an OLCC via RCI one year and then say via SFX or DAE the next? Some of the previous posts on other threads seemed to indicate that it was the resort that cancelled the exchange as check-in date got closer upon checking their records and not the exchange company.
Not only the post previously, but also the resort tracks whether or not you are in violation of the 1-in-4 ruleS by checking your RCI ACCOUNT for re-reservations. Note, RCI ACCOUNT. If you go to the same resort within that restriction period via another exchange company the resort has no access to your RCI account information to uncover the fact you're violating their RCI-resort rule.
 

RonaldCol

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
470
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Chicago
The Cracks in the RCI Armor ...

I just reread my last post about RCI Account trails and mused over the fact this is one area that is specific to RCI regs and rules and has a direct benefit to RCI that RCI exchangers can drive a Mack truck through.

If TUGgers want to go to a 1-in-4 resort within the restriction period, they can do so easily by going to another exchange company and get into the resort. This works around the RCI bullsh%$.

Hey, the Wizard of Oz is no longer able to hide himself. Slowly, we will bring the invisible hand of free markets to bear upon these monopolistic practices!
 

Gadabout

Guest
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
957
Reaction score
2
Points
16
RonaldCol said:
Not only the post previously, but also the resort tracks whether or not you are in violation of the 1-in-4 ruleS by checking your RCI ACCOUNT for re-reservations. Note, RCI ACCOUNT. If you go to the same resort within that restriction period via another exchange company the resort has no access to your RCI account information to uncover the fact you're violating their RCI-resort rule.
Are you sure they don't keep that RCI account number on file somewhere? You'd be surprised at how much information is kept on customers. I mean, it's not like credit card info, which I think has to be safeguarded and destroyed after a certain period of time.

What is to stop them from keeping that info for say, statistical purposes (as well as the 1-in-4 rule) and then being able to cross-reference it with your name and address?
 

reddiablosv

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
16
djyamyam said:
Is it the resort or the exchange company with the 1 in 4 rule? :confused: If I read you correctly, a person could exchange into a MP or an OLCC via RCI one year and then say via SFX or DAE the next? Some of the previous posts on other threads seemed to indicate that it was the resort that cancelled the exchange as check-in date got closer upon checking their records and not the exchange company.
I know of a certain tugger that has exchanged into the same resort chain within a three year period three times, RCI last call, SFX sell off list, ICE. I don't think the 1 in 4 rule applies yet! Ben
 

Topeka Tom

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
342
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Topeka, KS
Lazy Man's Way

There have been a few threads relating to the one in four rules in the past few days so I thought it might be a good time for a

BUMP :D
 

Bootleg

Guest
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Here's a few more -

There has been talk of the 1 in 4 at the Grand Pacific Resorts in Carlsbad, CA; If you want to get around the 1 in 4, buy at a GPR resort so you can go back to Carlsbad Inn, Seapointe, GP Palisades as often as you like, right?

WRONG - The 1 in 4 is still enforced for RCI trades between GPR resorts. If you own Carlsbad Inn, it applies if you want to go to the Seapointe, Palisades, etc. The only exception to the 1 in 4 here is in to the specific resort you own.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crown Point Resorts in Horseshoe Bend, AR have a 1 in 2 year rule. But since there are two of them and they are almost always available, this is about as effective as screen doors on a submarine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mayans now extend the 1 in 4 to all Mayan Resorts except the Sea Gardens. According to the most recent Urgent Information on the Mayan Palace Resorts, if you have been to a Mayan Palace or Grand Mayan resort, you are supposed to be prohibited from trading back in to any MP or GM resort for the 4 year term.

The exceptions here are their "lead generation" units, identified by the 66XX prefix numbers, in which a member can book two weeks, non-consecutive, and the 2nd unit must have a Guest Certificate. This is to provide more potential targets for their sales programs.
 

CaliDave

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Southern California
Bootleg said:
Here's a few more -

There has been talk of the 1 in 4 at the Grand Pacific Resorts in Carlsbad, CA; If you want to get around the 1 in 4, buy at a GPR resort so you can go back to Carlsbad Inn, Seapointe, GP Palisades as often as you like, right?

WRONG - The 1 in 4 is still enforced for RCI trades between GPR resorts. If you own Carlsbad Inn, it applies if you want to go to the Seapointe, Palisades, etc. The only exception to the 1 in 4 here is in to the specific resort you own.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you get this information? It's completely wrong unless it changed within the last couple months.
Here is what the RCI confirmation states

RCI EXCHANGER: GROUP RULE IS STRICTLY ENFORCED FOR ANY COMBOOF THE FOLLOWING RESORTS: 1285 1379 2885 3007 3008 3987 AND 5362. ONLY 1 CONFIRMATION ALLOWED PER MEMBER ACCOUNT IN 4 YEARS. EXCEPTIONS INCLUDE: GPR OWNERS, POINTS OWNERS, CONSECUTIVE WEEKS & MULTIPLE CONFIRMATION W/SAME START DATE

It says GPR owners. If you own at ANY of the resorts, you ARE a GPR owner. This is from a current So Cal Beach Club online confirmation.

Let me know if RCI has different info. I know all the top management at GPR and I will get it clarified.
 
Top