Just Got The Royal Screw From Rci

[Beefnot]

Originally Posted by e.bram

i agree with Caro. Walmart is a dumb analogy. You don't go into Walmart, give them your money(deposit TS unit) and see waht they will give you in exchange. With II at least you can look first before you deposit your TS.

With RCI, you know before you deposit what TPUs you will be given. It is not a blind deposit.

[ampaholic]

Originally Posted by Carolinian

Do you even understand the issue here? There is nothing at all wrong with reducing the trading value at a later time when supply and demand factors have changed. I have always supported that, for years, on these boards. Supply and demand are constantly changing.

Giving a different value AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME to the very same week, depending on whether it is a deposit or taken for exchange is the issue.

You also do not seem to understand consumer protection laws, which exist in most states with very similar language. As an example, North Carolina's provides that ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerce are unlawful''. Get that? unfair = illegal. RCI is NOT exempt from consumer protection laws. In fact, it was the New Jersey consumer protection law that they were sued under in the class action (the one where the lawyers took a million dollar payout for themselves to stab their clients in the back). What matters of course, is what the court determines to be fair or unfair.

Walmart is a retail business not an exchange company, which is not at all applicable to this situation.

Pomposity does not make it so .... if RCI wants to offer differing exchange amounts (TPU's) it matters NOT AT ALL if they do it before YOU exchange or after YOU exchange or at the same time YOU exchange.

And do you really think "unfair" is a legal term? Next you will be trying to defend the legal term "bogus" or that great and widespread bastion of legal jargon ... "spurious"

Sheesh, give me a break - if you have no argument please at least don't start your lame reply with "you don't understand ... "

[ampaholic]

"Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves."

You will notice the "unfair" practices are SPECIFIED ... it is not the "unfair" that makes something illegal it is the "specified".

And Carolinian does not get to do the specifying - simple really.

[Carolinian]

Originally Posted by Beefnot

With RCI, you know before you deposit what TPUs you will be given. It is not a blind deposit.

. . . but it is blind as heck as to what you will get in return if you use a search, and the best weeks usually require searchs. You only look at one side of the equation.

[Beefnot]

Originally Posted by Carolinian

. . . but it is blind as heck as to what you will get in return if you use a search, and the best weeks usually require searchs. You only look at one side of the equation.

That is no different than with any other exchange company.

[Carolinian]

Don't know where you pulled this quote from, as you don't reference it. Probably somewhere inherently unreliable like Wikipedia. Whoever wrote it sound like they have never pulled down a statute book and actually read one of these laws.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes. Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices. They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad. That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does. Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''. And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.

As to one of RCI's major transgressions, its rentals to the general public, I think amendment of some other state statutes would be in order. The laws on exchange company disclosures that have to be signed by those who purchase from developers were written in the era when exchange companies only provided exchanges. Rewriting these laws to require exchange companies to make very detailed disclosure of their rental to the public activities would probably sink lots of developer sales and send developers either to jerk RCI's chain very very hard to stop this practice, or to jump to II.
Full disclosure would shine a light somewhere that buyers need to take a look at and would help break up the exchange company malpractice of renting exchange deposits to the general public.

Originally Posted by ampaholic

"Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves."

You will notice the "unfair" practices are SPECIFIED ... it is not the "unfair" that makes something illegal it is the "specified".

And Carolinian does not get to do the specifying - simple really.

[Beefnot]

I believe you are correct about unfair practices not needing to have been previously specified. I also edited your quote for completeness.

Originally Posted by Carolinian

I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes. Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices. They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad. That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does. Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''. And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad or the relentlessly crazed RCI haters like myself, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''

[ronparise]

Back to our original post

The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three

Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)

Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit

The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op

I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...

One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing

[bnoble]

You just have to be flexible enough and ready to change strategies when necessary.

This, exactly. It's also a good reason to take a portfolio approach to your ownerships. That's hard to do unless you can commit to a non-trivial amount of vacation each year, but if you can, it can be very useful.

For example, just within RCI, I can use "regular Weeks", or the Wyndham portal. Regular Weeks provides better value for some exchanges, the Wyndham portal better value for others. But, by working both sides, I can have the best of both worlds and obtain vacations I want at a great price.

It's very much like diversifying your investments.

[Tia]

Originally Posted by ronparise

Back to our original post

The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three

Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)

Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit

The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op

I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...

One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing

What if the week just won't work d/t schedules so you deposit, no trash there.
Haven't I read that RCI may give you 26 TPU's for a deposit in resort A, but then requires that 47 to trade back into your same season at resort A?

There used to supposedly be a home resort preference right?

[bnoble]

What if the week just won't work d/t schedules

Then you have to decide which of many options provides you the best value for your owned time. Depositing with RCI is only one of them; a smart consumer will ask whether any of others---renting out, depositing with an independent, or private exchange---would be better.

[ampaholic]

Originally Posted by ronparise

Back to our original post

The op deposited a week with RCI and received 26 tpu for that week. Presumably sometime later he will use those tpu to resereve a week or two or three

Presumably he has taken a look at what weeks are available and what 26 tpu would buy and went forward with that deposit either because of what he can get for it (or in spite of it)

Thats the ops transaction with RCI, I dont see anything else he needs to be concerned with. He decided it was in his best interest to go forward with the deposit

The fact that RCI is requiring 47 tpu of someone else, to reserve that deposited week is of no concern to the op...Thats another transaction that he has no part in. If anyone is getting screwed by RCI its the guy that pays 47 tpu, not the op

I think we need to remember that the weeks we deposit to RCI are weeks we dont want or cant use ie trash...That we get anything for them seems to be a plus to me...

One mans trash, is another mans treasure. and RCI brings the two together...I think thats a good thing

Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.

That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish.

[Tia]

I just asked as have been either using ours or renting it out. I dropped RCI years ago as saw it as a waste of $ personally.

Originally Posted by bnoble

Then you have to decide which of many options provides you the best value for your owned time. Depositing with RCI is only one of them; a smart consumer will ask whether any of others---renting out, depositing with an independent, or private exchange---would be better.

[ampaholic]

Originally Posted by Carolinian

Don't know where you pulled this quote from, as you don't reference it. Probably somewhere inherently unreliable like Wikipedia. Whoever wrote it sound like they have never pulled down a statute book and actually read one of these laws.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading the actual statutes. Most, possibly all do NOT ''specify'' unfair practices. They just use the word ''unfair'' which is very broad. That's what the New Jersey law, that RCI was sued under, does, and that is what the North Carolina law does. Fraud has specific elements that have to be proven, but the statutes give the court broad discretion to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''. And as I have said before, it is up to the court, not RCI or RCI's cheerleading squad, to determine what is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.

As to one of RCI's major transgressions, its rentals to the general public, I think amendment of some other state statutes would be in order. The laws on exchange company disclosures that have to be signed by those who purchase from developers were written in the era when exchange companies only provided exchanges. Rewriting these laws to require exchange companies to make very detailed disclosure of their rental to the public activities would probably sink lots of developer sales and send developers either to jerk RCI's chain very very hard to stop this practice, or to jump to II.
Full disclosure would shine a light somewhere that buyers need to take a look at and would help break up the exchange company malpractice of renting exchange deposits to the general public.

More pomposity ... suggesting I educate myself, well if it makes me as smart and pompous as you - no thanks.

Shame on you, trying to attach you own opinion about your missing TPU inheritance to the coat-tails of consumer protection laws.

You are correct in that only a court can decide if an action violates a consumer protection law - just as only a court can decide what is "murder" and what is "justifiable homicide".

You are wrong to coat-tail onto that your argument that when RCI does something you don't like it is a violation of consumer protection laws - since you are most certainly not a court.

This constant speaking for the court on your part makes me wonder just what your job is?

[Beefnot]

Originally Posted by ampaholic

Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.

That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish.

Oh snap, pulled out Occam's razor, nice.

[ronparise]

Originally Posted by Tia

What if the week just won't work d/t schedules so you deposit, no trash there.
Haven't I read that RCI may give you 26 TPU's for a deposit in resort A, but then requires that 47 to trade back into your same season at resort A?

There used to supposedly be a home resort preference right?

It may not be trash, and perhaps I went overboard in characterizing it in that way...but it certainly is something you cant use. In my house for things other than timeshares, that means a trip to Goodwill and when I go to Goodwill I dont get anything in return. With timeshares and rci I at least get something back

I dont know about home resort priority but I dont think I get that with any of my timeshares. The resorts where I own fixed weeks have an in-house exchange program...no need to bother with rci at all

[ronparise]

Originally Posted by ampaholic

Wow Ron, you make it sound like RCI is just doing "business" (buy low - sell high) not some nefarious and spurious criminal activity aimed at cheating Carolinian out of his rightful inheritance of TPU's.

That's too simple of an explanation - it makes me feel all "Occam's razor" ish.

I learned my logic from the Jesuits (if a=b and if b=c than a=c) and I also learned to recognize a "non sequetor" when I see one, from them as well

but I learned what "Occam's razor" is from you

Thanks

[ronparise]

I gotta get back to work.....but this is so much fun

[e.bram]

A good analogy to RCI is Bernie Madoff. Some make out , some don't.

[MichaelColey]

I'm just surprised that Godwin's law hasn't come into play.

[Beefnot]

Originally Posted by MichaelColey

I'm just surprised that Godwin's law hasn't come into play.

I just learned a new law. A funny law, but you're right, I'm surprised too.

[ampaholic]

Well, hummm -- Carolinian does live in Europe, by his own admission hummm ....

[blueparrot]

WOW!!!! That simply does not pass the smell test. How much more of this is going on????

Originally Posted by gnipgnop

One week ago I deposited my Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3 BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) into RCI. I received 26 TPU's for this deposit. Today I went looking on line and saw my week, Waterside by Spinnaker in Hilton Head, SC, 3BR-3BA, Week 12 (spring break) available to members for 47 TPU's. I couldn't believe it! I called and was told by a Guide, Connie, that there was nothing that could be done to change TPU's because they were set according to supply and demand blah, blah blah.
then in the next breath she tells me that the demand is higher than the supply in HHI at that time of year. WHAT!!

So I asked, keeping my cool, to speak to a Supervisor. James (the supervisor) came on the line and told me basicly the same thing. I told him I felt this was so unfair, giving me 26 TPU's and RCI asking 47. That's a 21 TPU difference! I paid $$$ for the week, pay maintenance fees yearly, paid for membership into RCI since 1994,....isn't there something you can do for a loyal member?? He said distinctly "NO". So I told him that II was now accepting Spinnaker Resorts into their membership and maybe next year I will give the week to them. He told me and I quote: "if you feel that is something you want to do then do it." He also told me that people are leaving II and coming back to RCI because II has too many problems. I think he's full of crap. How can you treat customers like this?? He said there was no way they will change the TPU's once they are in your account. I asked him why couldn't the tech. dept. make the change if the order came from a supervisor. Got no where. I am so pissed at RCI right now I could "spit". Sorry to go on like this but I had to get it off my chest.

[vckempson]

Originally Posted by Beefnot

Oh snap, pulled out Occam's razor, nice.

Let's talk about Occam's razor for a minute in regard to the OP's situation. Her 26 TPU deposit is consistent with an "Averaged" calculation for the deposit. I checked the deposit calculator and for her resort, each week in March get's mid 20's. April continues a little higher, and May as well. It continues this way into the summer.

A resort can enter into an agreement with RCI to provide just such an averaged calculation. We know that because it's in the RCI user's agreement. Now mind you, that's not RCI's election, but the resort's. Given the wide disparity between the deposit and exchange cost, this is the simplest explanation of the difference. It does not require postulating about multiple unknown inputs; the very essence of Occam's Razor.

Interestingly, if that's true, then we are all blaming the wrong party for the disparity.

[bnoble]

Don't be silly, Cullen. Everyone knows that it's always RCI's fault, no matter what. Over-averaging, rentals to non-owners, the Greek debt crisis, and so on.