Topeka Tom
TUG Member
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!
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!