Its our VACATION. Let us HELP clean up the TIMESHARE INDUSTRY.

Many bash (out of understandable frustration) this or that management company or developer. This industry to me is a cup that is way more than half full. I say this because the price of hotel rooms on this planet keeps escalating and properly managed timeshare planning keeps the weekly cost of lodging (including kitchen) and food way down; provided management plays by the rules.

The problems as I experience them conisist of knowing the rules and seeing that they are followed.

There are posters like jay jay and others with more experience than me who may be able to shed some light on the whys and hows to clean this up.

Without mentioning a specific company, I can anecdotally recount a recent experience:

Among the units of time share I love and own are two two-bedroom lockoff units. In order to get a desirable week, I must call ahead 13 months to the day, at 8 AM EST (5 AM my time). Recently on June 3, 2008, I did this to reserve July 3, 2009. Imagine my surprise to have the 800 number busied out for 30 minutes from 5:03 AM to 5:33 AM and then when I finally got to speak to a person, there were "no units left" to reserve. After an hour on the phone, I was finally able to down convert 2 1 bedroom units to two mini-suites (studios) for July 3, 2008. I asked for a supervisor return call. It, this far, has not happened.

Now here are some of the questions that ocur to me: 1. Who regulates timeshare practices in California or the US? 2. What rights does an owner have to audit the reservations system? 3. Is there an appeals process, should there be?

This is a growing area of affordable vacation enjoyment for Baby Boomers. Has anyone got the ear of a Congressman or Senator?

Are there common areas of frustration that unite owners across numerous managemnt companies and developers that could be used to champion reform?

paulg200 asks, in part: >> 1. Who regulates timeshare practices in California or the US? <<

Construction codes and contracts (including right of contract rescission) are governed by state law. Reservation practices, on the other hand, are essentially the "internal rules and procedures" of private companies, dictated by (and exclusive within) the individual particular corporation, management company or exchange company. These internal rules and procedures are not a matter of state or federal law until or unless they actually violate some existing state or federal law (corporations are not comprised of fools ---they would not willingly and openly invite legal problems from either the state or federal govt). =================================================

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. You agreed to be subject to these procedures, terms, conditions and limitations by your voluntary choice to acquire ownership or membership in our system. We comply fully with all of these terms and conditions, as it is in our mutual best interest to engage in fair and standardized practices, rules and procedures. Thank you for your interest in this matter of mutual interest. We hope that you enjoy your future vacations with us." The words might differ a bit, but the theme surely won't. =================================================

Re: >> 3. Is there an appeals process, should there be?<<

No. Appeal what??? The corporations (Hilton, Marriott, et al), all of the the assorted management companies (VRI, Bluegreen, many more besides) and exchange companies (RCI, Interval International, et al) all have long established reservation rules and procedures firmly in place and in practice. In essence, "first come, first served" is simply not subject to "appeal". Booked is booked and full is full --- what is there to appeal?

Personally, I gave up on "floating" week ownership years ago for exactly the reasons and experiences you have now encountered and described. In the final analysis, there is simply only so much "flex" or "float" space available, regardless of the company or location at issue, and the competition is fierce for the limited available space in "prime time" at any and all desirable locations. When it comes to the exchange companies, RCI and II have also now entered into the "direct rental" business themselves, thereby removing prime weeks, units and locations from available member reservation inventory. This is exactly why, for example, RCI is the defendant in an ongoing lawsuit (Murillo vs. RCI), filed by members displeased with the clearly declining amount and quality of RCI exchange inventory. While I might personally dislike RCI, in all fairness their membership terms and conditions very clearly state in writing that they can basically do whatever they want with any week relinquished to their "custody" by any means, whether from a developer or from a member "deposit" of an owned week.

In short summary, while I understand and empathize with your frustration and concern, I believe that you may well be "tilting at windmills". Points and floating ownership both inherently come with a known and unavoidable measure of reservation uncertainty --- and they always will. The only way I know of to avert that reservation uncertainty is to instead buy FIXED weeks at the very facilities where you know that you want to repeatedly visit. That is, at least to my knowledge, the only avenue to an iron clad "guaranty" of access exactly when and exactly where you want that access. The downside, of course, is that this guaranty generally comes with a higher price tag, including in the resale market. =================================================

>> Has anyone got the ear of a Congressman or Senator?<<

Timeshare SALES practices should be federally regulated (in my opinion, anyhow). Aside from that (and I intend no disrespect in saying the following), with all that's amiss in society today with homelessness, inflation, a growing foreclosure epidemic and skyrocketing costs of energy and food, I sincerely doubt that any congressional rep has any interest whatsoever in what basically amounts to a "vacation reservation procedure" complaint.

My own 25 years of timeshare ownership has certainly included frustrations with the realities you have recently met face to face. Unfortunately, however, inherent limitations on reservation availability certainly do not in any way constitute illegal activity.

I agree with Ken that if you wanted a certain week each year at your home resort then you should have bought a fixed week (no guessing, no hassles, the best surprise is no surprise etc.). The main problem with floating weeks is that 90% of owners want to reserve the most desirable weeks (summer, major holiday weeks, ski season etc.) not only for personal use but also to rent if they won't be using their week so they choose the most desirable weeks in doing so.

jayjay states in part: >> The main problem with floating weeks is that 90% of owners want to reserve the most desirable weeks (summer, major holiday weeks, ski season etc.) not only for personal use but also to rent if they won't be using their week so they choose the most desirable weeks in doing so.<< ==================================================

Well and succinctly put. 90% of owners want to reserve the same 25% of available weeks. When you do the math, a lot of disappointment is simply inevitable.

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?

ken1193 wrote:

jayjay states in part: >> The main problem with floating weeks is that 90% of owners want to reserve the most desirable weeks (summer, major holiday weeks, ski season etc.) not only for personal use but also to rent if they won't be using their week so they choose the most desirable weeks in doing so.<< ==================================================

Well and succinctly put. 90% of owners want to reserve the same 25% of available weeks. When you do the math, a lot of disappointment is simply inevitable.

HOLD ON HERE: THERE ARE SOME DESIRABLE LOCATIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MARKETED WITH FIXED WEEKS. I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT ANY SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION WITH KNOW RULES AND FAIR ADMINISTRATION.

I AM ONLY ASKING FOR AN AUDIT PROCEDURE TO ENSURE FAIRNESS, AND I AGREE THAT MARKETING PRACTICES ARE WELL OVERDUE FOR FEDERAL REGULATION.

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...

I honestly feel paul's pain in not getting what he wants 13 months in advance (already reserved out for his desired dates) and, like Ken, I don't know what the answer is. I have heard of some resorts using a lottery system for the most sought after prime weeks. Perhaps you could bring that notion to the HOA or management of the resort. Can you reserve earlier than 13 months out or is it strictly set at that? I have to assume you're requesting a very sought after week.

On the large corporate side, and also for RCI, is there a conflict of interest and unfair use of power to run a reservation system while self-dealing for your own rental purposes?

paulg200 wrote:

On the large corporate side, and also for RCI, is there a conflict of interest and unfair use of power to run a reservation system while self-dealing for your own rental purposes?

You are not permitted to rent a week that you have gotten via an exchange from RCI, II or the independents, but you can rent any week you own or one you have chosen to reserve using points. In this case an exchange company is not involved.

jayjay wrote:

paulg200 wrote:

On the large corporate side, and also for RCI, is there a conflict of interest and unfair use of power to run a reservation system while self-dealing for your own rental purposes?

You are not permitted to rent a week that you have gotten via an exchange from RCI, II or the independents, but you can rent any week you own or one you have chosen to reserve using points. In this case an exchange company is not involved.

I don't think that the rental of owned or exchange acquired weeks was Paul's topic of inquiry at all. If I read his question correctly, he is asking about the propriety of a COMPANY being simultaneously engaged in BOTH the reservation process AND conducting direct rentals.

It's a good question; one to which I will not presume to have an answer. The outcome of Murillo vs. RCI might ultimately help to shed some light on the matter (assuming, of course, that the case ever actually ends).

KEN is correct. My concern is that the corporates warehouse weeks and also control the internal reservation system. Should there be no audit rights by owners, is it perhaps a self-dealing restraint of trade?

paulg200 wrote:

KEN is correct. My concern is that the corporates warehouse weeks and also control the internal reservation system. Should there be no audit rights by owners, is it perhaps a self-dealing restraint of trade?

My bad for misunderstanding the question :o).

In the case above, one should voice their grievances to the HOA or management company of that resort. That's about all that can be done to change the way things already are. If it's the policy of a chain (ie: Marriott, Hilton etc.) then I would voice my disatisfaction to the corporate office.