[2016] Account review email [Accts. suspended]

[Jan M.]

The room is only so big. So there are practical limits on attendence. I may be wrong about the number; I was responding to the post that talked about needing a lot of busses for a million owners.i do know they cut off registrations at some number and that the number is less than a million.

But your point is well taken. Wyndham did cut off registrations; Worldmark didn't and I'm sure you are right Worldmark owners would freak

I think the reason they can get away with an "everybody is welcome" policy at Worldmark is that almost nobody cares

Ron, I'm sure you've been to many more of the annual owners meetings than I have and can clarify this for us. Am I remembering correctly that for the past few years it is Peter Hernandez who reads the financial statement? He always begins by apologizing for boring pretty much everyone and says we have to do this. I know there are a lot of laws/regulations in Florida governing timeshares. From his remark it seemed that reading the financial statement was a requirement or maybe it is just that you can't call it an owners meeting if the financial statement isn't reviewed?

 

[ronparise]

Yes Peter Hernandez is the guy

The trust was organized under Arkansas law not Florida law. Read the trust agreement to learn how the trust is organized and the requirements. By the way the trust agreement, at least the last amendment I have, calls for the annual meeting to be held on the 3rd Monday in May



​

 

[lcml11]

View attachment 3290 View attachment 3291


Yes Peter Hernandez is the guy

The trust was organized under Arkansas law not Florida law. Read the trust agreement to learn how the trust is organized and the requirements. By the way the trust agreement, at least the last amendment I have, calls for the annual meeting to be held on the 3rd Monday in May
​

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1361658/000095012308005337/y57618exv10w1.htm

 

[ronparise]

I posted earlier in this thread that my accounts showed "extra" points , at least in part, because of the way I used the credit pool. The pool was intended, I said, to use points you can't use this year, sometime in the future. I used the pool to "borrow" future years points and enjoying vacations today with only the promise to pay the maintenance fees sometime in the future. The risk to the club, of course, is that I might not pay those fees

this morning I pulled out the Trust Agreement for another purpose and found this clause regarding the pool

11.06 The Points Credit Pool. The Trustee has established a “Points Credit Pool” for the deposit of certain qualified Points that will not be used by a Member. The rules, regulations, guidelines and restrictions for the Points Credit Pool are set forth in the Directory.

So it seems to me that my use of the pool should not have been allowed. But it was. And when Wyndham looked at my accounts the saw the end result which was 90 million points in a 10 million point account. There was more to it than just the credit pool but without using the credit pool the way I did, the accounts would not have triggered the suspension

I can only guess that something will be done to restrict the pool to its intended purpose

 

[lcml11]

I posted earlier in this thread that my accounts showed "extra" points , at least in part, because of the way I used the credit pool. The pool was intended, I said, to use points you can't use this year, sometime in the future. I used the pool to "borrow" future years points and enjoying vacations today with only the promise to pay the maintenance fees sometime in the future. The risk to the club, of course, is that I might not pay those fees

this morning I pulled out the Trust Agreement for another purpose and found this clause regarding the pool

11.06 The Points Credit Pool. The Trustee has established a “Points Credit Pool” for the deposit of certain qualified Points that will not be used by a Member. The rules, regulations, guidelines and restrictions for the Points Credit Pool are set forth in the Directory.

So it seems to me that my use of the pool should not have been allowed. But it was. And when Wyndham looked at my accounts the saw the end result which was 90 million points in a 10 million point account. There was more to it than just the credit pool but without using the credit pool the way I did, the accounts would not have triggered the suspension

I can only guess that something will be done to restrict the pool to its intended purpose

Check out page 341 of the members directory. It talks of using regular use year points for the credit pool. It does not talk of the current use year regular points directly. Therefore, I assume current regular year use points are not the only ones that can be credit pooled under members directory. The credit pool is a useful feature for some and was basically re-ratified when the cancelled points went away (See supplement to the Member Directory). I just tested the use of future regular year to the credit pool worked as designed under the preview website.

https://myclubwyndham.com/ffrweb/pdfs/0194_2015_CW_Directory_Supplement.pdf

"Borrowed Points" is a different provision of the Member's Directory with different rules. See page 339 of the Member's Directory. It appears to talk of "Borrowed Points" appling to use the next year's regular points.

If a way was found to use a regular year point for both the credit pool and the borrowed points feature, that could cause a double count.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/wyndham/plus_membersdirectory1415/#/356

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/wyndham/plus_membersdirectory1415/#/354

 

[ronparise]

Robert I know how it works now. And like you I didn't see anything wrong with it

It's not that I borrowed a few points.and it's not "double" use

What Wyndham sees is that I "borrowed" the points, made reservations and never paid for them

You can refer back to previous posts of mine to see the possible abuse.

I'm saying is that Wyndham could prevent that behavior by restricting the pool to the use anticipated by the trust agreement

 

[Bigrob]

Amen.

The error should be pretty easy to detect if they are actually doing an audit. The cancellation is returning points to the current use year in addition to the credit pool that the pts were originally drawn from. I hope reading this helps them.

I am operating on the basis that they will detect this and clawback the pts like they did last year. And I am fine with that, and if the don't, I will let them expire again.

The sad part is that we need to maintain our own accounting.

I think I missed this post when you originally made it. Unfortunately it means there are multiple errors, as the scenario you describe (returning points from cancelled reservations to both a credit pool and regular use year) is not the only issue. I believe I noted elsewhere that another error is a reservation showing as using a different number of points than should actually have been required/used.

If both scenarios occur on the same transaction the result would be magnified... for example, just using a theoretical example, a reservation made during the VIP discount window might have used 66,500 points to book something worth 287,000 points at full value. The system may show the reservation at 143,500 points (i.e., the platinum discount but without the upgrade showing). If that reservation is cancelled and returns 143,500 to two different places, over 200,000 additional points have been "created" on a 66,500 point reservation - well over 3X the value of the reservation itself - and this is on a single reservation.

Now fast forward to a recent transaction. I had a reservation for a 3BR Presidential at Grand Desert. Apparently they are doing some renovation work at Grand Desert and they needed to relocate some reservations, including mine. They moved me to a 3BR Presidential at Desert Blue. The reservation shows the number of points that would have been required to book that unit, rather than the number of points used to make the original reservation.

If I were to cancel that reservation (I'm not, but just using for example); what number of points would be returned to the account? I'm presuming it would be what is showing the reservation took. What I have NOT confirmed is that they didn't actually take more points from my account to make that new reservation. I'm almost afraid to ask them to confirm given all the other issues.

 

[scootr5]

Robert I know how it works now. And like you I didn't see anything wrong with it

It's not that I borrowed a few points.and it's not "double" use

Are there posts in this thread getting deleted? Is our buddy RR back?

 

[wjappraise]

I think I missed this post when you originally made it. Unfortunately it means there are multiple errors, as the scenario you describe (returning points from cancelled reservations to both a credit pool and regular use year) is not the only issue. I believe I noted elsewhere that another error is a reservation showing as using a different number of points than should actually have been required/used.

If both scenarios occur on the same transaction the result would be magnified... for example, just using a theoretical example, a reservation made during the VIP discount window might have used 66,500 points to book something worth 287,000 points at full value. The system may show the reservation at 143,500 points (i.e., the platinum discount but without the upgrade showing). If that reservation is cancelled and returns 143,500 to two different places, over 200,000 additional points have been "created" on a 66,500 point reservation - well over 3X the value of the reservation itself - and this is on a single reservation.

Now fast forward to a recent transaction. I had a reservation for a 3BR Presidential at Grand Desert. Apparently they are doing some renovation work at Grand Desert and they needed to relocate some reservations, including mine. They moved me to a 3BR Presidential at Desert Blue. The reservation shows the number of points that would have been required to book that unit, rather than the number of points used to make the original reservation.

If I were to cancel that reservation (I'm not, but just using for example); what number of points would be returned to the account? I'm presuming it would be what is showing the reservation took. What I have NOT confirmed is that they didn't actually take more points from my account to make that new reservation. I'm almost afraid to ask them to confirm given all the other issues.

I second that. I hate to call in for anything now because I feel like "dead man walking." I don't want any trouble. And all my alerting Wyndham to THEIR problem did was get my account suspended. My confidence in their ability and desire to do the right thing is at an all time low ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lcml11]

Robert I know how it works now. And like you I didn't see anything wrong with it

It's not that I borrowed a few points.and it's not "double" use

What Wyndham sees is that I "borrowed" the points, made reservations and never paid for them

You can refer back to previous posts of mine to see the possible abuse.

I'm saying is that Wyndham could prevent that behavior by restricting the pool to the use anticipated by the trust agreement

If Credit Pool points were used, the right to use them, I would think would have been paid for. It is my understanding that to use X amount of regular year points, in the credit pool, under the rules of the credit pool, costs X dollars per go. The maintenance fees on the X points would be paid when normally due.

Borrowed points rights would be derived from maintenance fee payment pursuant the Trust Agreement and/or Membership Directory.

 

[lcml11]

Are there posts in this thread getting deleted? Is our buddy RR back?

Nasty implication, I do not have the ability to delete posts, you might want to refer this issue to what I have seen referred to as the TUG Mafia.

If you do not like what I say, if TUG still has the ignore feature, just put me on Ignore.

 

[ronparise]

If Credit Pool points were used, the right to use them, I would think would have been paid for. It is my understanding that to use X amount of regular year points, in the credit pool, under the rules of the credit pool, costs X dollars per go. The maintenance fees on the X points would be paid when normally due.

Borrowed points rights would be derived from maintenance fee payment pursuant the Trust Agreement and/or Membership Directory.

There were several things that caused some accounts to have "extra" points. The big thing kn my account was the aggressive use of the credit pool. Like you I saw no problem with what I did. After all the fees would get paid sooner or later But I couldn't convince Wyndham to see it the same way


If I use 2019 points in 2017 the maintenance fees won't be paid until 2019. Whyndham has a problem with that because of of the risk I might default

In addition to what I did with the credit pool there were other factors contributing to the number of "extra" points. And these other things generated points that came absolutely free of maintenance fees.

Whatever the source of extra points Wyndham has to do two things 1) get their points back and 2) make sure it dosent happen again. My suggestion regarding the credit pool was only that. A suggestion

It dosent matter to me what they do. As I said in a previous post. Regarding my situation the parties have resolved their differences

 

[ronparise]

Nasty implication, I do not have the ability to delete posts, you might want to refer this issue to what I have seen referred to as the TUG Mafia.

If you do not like what I say, if TUG still has the ignore feature, just put me on Ignore.

It's not that we don't like what you say Robert, we don't understand it.at least I don't And I don't think you understand what's behind the suspensions

And you absolutely do have the ability to delete your own posts

 

[bnoble]

Is our buddy RR back?

I believe RRLongwell and lcml11 are one and the same. It took me a while to recognize the writing style, but I had strong suspicions. Ron was the first to make the connection in public, IIRC.

 

[ronparise]

Perhaps first publicly but someone else tipped me off privately

 

[scootr5]

It's not that we don't like what you say Robert, we don't understand it.at least I don't And I don't think you understand what's behind the suspensions

And you absolutely do have the ability to delete your own posts

Yes, I got a notification that he quoted my post, and then it was not there when I went to look. It makes it seem like we are all talking to ourselves.

Edit - I've just found out that ignoring some users results in seeing the post with a note "You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content", while some other users don't display the post at all. It makes my post here seem pretty strange in context of the full thread.

 

[wjappraise]

I believe RRLongwell and lcml11 are one and the same. It took me a while to recognize the writing style, but I had strong suspicions. Ron was the first to make the connection in public, IIRC.

Is there a "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lcml11]

It's not that we don't like what you say Robert, we don't understand it.at least I don't And I don't think you understand what's behind the suspensions

And you absolutely do have the ability to delete your own posts

If anyone is going to the upcoming meeting of the Fairfield Trust and if some members of the Fairfield Trust are there, maybe someone could ask them what caused the suspensions.

 

[Ty1on]

If anyone is going to the upcoming meeting of the Fairfield Trust and if some members of the Fairfield Trust are there, maybe someone could ask them what caused the suspensions.

As evidenced multiple times over the last 60 pages, those members won't get a meaningful answer.

 

[wjappraise]

If anyone is going to the upcoming meeting of the Fairfield Trust and if some members of the Fairfield Trust are there, maybe someone could ask them what caused the suspensions.

We know what caused the suspensions: too many points in an account. We even know at least three things that caused this. What we don't know is when Wyndham will resolve this. Those of us impacted were told no more than two weeks. That was six months ago. And only one poster states he has been fully reconciled and restored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ecwinch]

Whatever the source of extra points Wyndham has to do two things 1) get their points back and 2) make sure it dosent happen again.

The problem is accentuated because that is exactly the order they are doing things in, and it should be the other way around. They should make finding and fixing the problem the priority, rather than focusing on the clawback of points.

It is absurd that this problem would have occurred on my acct in Jan 2016, and then again in Feb 2017. They have had a whole year and still have not addressed the integrity of their data?

ps. In the software dev world we have a saying.... "at a certain point, a bug becomes a feature..." we are really close to that point IMHO. They should just stop with the clawbacks, and treat it like giving us a lottery ticket with each cancellation.

 

[ronparise]

If anyone is going to the upcoming meeting of the Fairfield Trust and if some members of the Fairfield Trust are there, maybe someone could ask them what caused the suspensions.

Dude.... we already know why

What we need to know is when will it be fixed

 

[uscav8r]

This thread is like a fad. Stick around long enough and we'll revisit a part of the conversation from 10-20 pages ago!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BellaWyn]

This thread is like a fad. Stick around long enough and we'll revisit a part of the conversation from 10-20 pages ago!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, but checking it periodically is now habit hoping for new information on whether there has been resolution, which thus far, has not happened except for a single poster and Ron, who is more "settled" than " resolved."
That could be a semantics thing however.

Continues to be extremely disturbing it has gone on this long.

 

[Beefnot]

I believe RRLongwell and lcml11 are one and the same. It took me a while to recognize the writing style, but I had strong suspicions. Ron was the first to make the connection in public, IIRC.

That they were one and the same was known years ago, like 2011 I think, but I suppose folks forgot.