Original Message:
Reservation disappointment does not equal "unfair practices" (by KC):
paulg200 wrote:==================================================1. Re: 2. What rights does an owner have to audit the reservations system?<<None, basically. While you could complain all the way to the top of the particular corporation food chain, the likely response would be to simply provide you with a copy of their internal rules and regulations, terms and conditions of ownership / membership, etc., accompanied by a boiler plate cover letter essentially stating "Enclosed please find our procedures and our terms and conditions.
Ken are YOU saying that you have examined the CC&Rs and BYlaws and... A. The right of owners to demand and get an audit of fair use practices does nto exist. and ... B. If it does not exist as a contractual right it is not an implied consumer right under fairness and/or real estate and/or business/professions codes.
No one in their right mind should complain about FAIR allocation policies uniformly applied. The obvious problem here might be warehouing and rental by unfair developers or management entities.
What do you think?
Paul: Oddly enough, I actually HAVE read virtually all of the paperwork in existence associated with the few facilities at which I own weeks, much of that documentation going back to the early 1980's. It's been a matter of legal interest to me for many years now. However, I believe that documentation to be irrelevant to your dissatisfaction regarding "reservations".
I know VERY little about any of the "corporate" systems (Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, Disney, etc.) since I don't own with any of them, never did and don't plan to now. Accordingly, I don't claim to know about the inner workings of those "big corporates". My own 25 years of timeshare ownership, use and experience has been (and will likely remain) limited to several different "non-corporate" resorts and their (several different) associated management companies.
That much now clearly stated, in "non-corporate" resorts it is generally a management company hired by the HOA / Board of Directors (i.e., not the individual facility itself) that handles the actual reservation process. To that point, you won't actually ever find management company reservation processes or practices identified or defined anywhere in resort CC&R's and/or bylaws. In fact, management companies for resorts can be changed like socks and underwear (...and often are). Over the years, there have been several different companies at EACH of the several resorts at which I own weeks.
I'm not seeking to argue, but just to summarize and repeat what I've already stated, I personally just don't believe that you can hope to make a case for there being "unfair practices" in what is clearly a "first come, first served" reservation system --- one in which 90% of the people are all essentially trying to access (and, consequently, competing for) the exact same 25% of prime weeks. Do the math; some will win, others will lose and the numbers ensure that there will be more losers than winners. It will likely be forever so.
Management company reservation personnel answer the incoming reservation calls on a widely known, pre-determined advance date and time schedule, which is exactly the same for everyone. Accordingly, it's a completely fair, level playing field --- but the odds of winning are simply not with the callers (see previous math reference above). I played the game for some years; winning sometimes, losing more often. Ultimately, I tired of playing the advance reservation telephone call game at all and just bought only "fixed" weeks.
If you feel that you can make a case for "unfair practices" in a reservation system to which any and all owners have exactly equal and identical access in competing for a limited number of available weeks, I can only wish you luck. In my opinion it's "tilting at windmills", but to do so is certainly your right, your option and your prerogative. I respect that, despite my own personal belief that it is likely just a waste of your time and energy.
The practices of the exchange companies is an entirely different (and only indirectly related) matter. These entities have lawfully acquired certain weeks and they can, by their own very clearly written rules, terms and conditions, do with them as they see fit. I certainly don't LIKE the fact that prime weeks become unavailable to other owners if / when the exchange company decides to rent out those weeks directly to the (non-member / non-owner) public instead. I do, however, certainly UNDERSTAND that they would much rather collect a $1,700 rental fee instead of a $170 "exchange fee". At ten times more profit, as a purely business decision that's clearly a "no brainer". Like many other people, I have followed the "progress" of the Murillo vs. RCI lawsuit ("progress" being a relative concept in such a complex and lengthy civil case) since its inception. In all honesty, I am not optimistic that the outcome (even if RCI loses or settles) will actually be of any real benefit to RCI members as far as future access to RCI inventory goes. We shall see...