Marriott’s Response to My Letter on Our Cancelled Exchange & How They View Exchanges

[BocaBoy]

Not sure how you are reading that;

II Exchange Cancellation Policy — Other than Club Interval Points–Based Exchange Confirmations (a) The only circumstances under which a Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use and occupancy of the Home Resort accommodations or relinquished points (including Preferred Points) without being provided Host Accommodations are if a Member: (i) using the Deposit First method of exchange fails to submit a valid exchange request within the time periods specified; (ii) using the Deposit First method of exchange requests accommodations that are not available and fails to accept any alternate locations and/or time periods offered; (iii) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (iv) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (v) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (vi) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations that was previously issued to the Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (vii) where the use of the Home Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control.

In the case of vii, if II loses the use of the home resort accommodation, it seems they could pull your deposit? I would suspect that if you have already stayed in the Host Accommodation, II is out of luck. In either case, these are usually CYA type of situations for the company.

If I deposit a unit that II can't use, I would suspect II to not allow me to use another week in exchange.

If your reading is correct, how can Vistana be telling owners they can deposit an uninhabitable week in to II?

 

[dioxide45]

If your reading is correct, how can Vistana be telling owners they can deposit an uninhabitable week in to II?

As I said, the terms are more of a CYA. They don't have to ever enforce to the letter of the T&C. I have never heard of a situation of them pulling someones deposit because the resort became uninhabitable, but that doesn't mean they can't. From Vistana's standpoint with WSJ, they don't want a revolt from owners, and since Vistana is owned by WSJ, they figure it is a way to keep the peace. They have enough breakage to keep everything whole. But I suspect that exchanging may be a little tougher the next couple years both in II and in VSN.

 

[windje2000]

As I said, the terms are more of a CYA. They don't have to ever enforce to the letter of the T&C. I have never heard of a situation of them pulling someones deposit because the resort became uninhabitable, but that doesn't mean they can't. From Vistana's standpoint with WSJ, they don't want a revolt from owners, and since Vistana is owned by WSJ, they figure it is a way to keep the peace. They have enough breakage to keep everything whole. But I suspect that exchanging may be a little tougher the next couple years both in II and in VSN.

The way II likely addresses that issue is by 'adjusting' the trading power of the deposited week.

 

[Superchief]

Does anyone know whether II receives any compensation from MVC for all of their cancelled reservations (some of which were done to accommodate Encore packages)?

 

[urfriend]

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.

 

[bazzap]

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.

So at least there could be one positive outcome if MVW acquires ILG!

 

[Superchief]

However, since II is utilizing owner deposit weeks, there has to be some agreement regarding how much inventory II should have access to in any given week. When I deposit my MVC week, my exchange isn't confirmed until an MVC owner has reserved and deposited my desired week. In any given period, a percentage of the inventory is based on owner deposited weeks. II isn't the one cancelling access to reserved inventory. MVC is cancelling these reservations and informing II to contact the owners.

By doing this, MVC deflects the blame to II who has no control over the cancellations. This is another reason why I would never want another acquisition because any transparency regarding how inventory is being allocated would be lost. MVC is already making decisions at the corporate level for each resort which removes accountability and owner influence from the equation.

 

[Fasttr]

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.

Sorry if this sounds harsh...but from my perspective, in addition to disliking MVC (your employer) as you have posted elsewhere, it also appears that you don't have a lot of empathy for owners utilizing the MVC program. There are reasons why MVC does not like folks like you posting on forums like this in a pseudo MVC representative fashion. Perhaps if you are as unhappy of an employee as your posts make you sound, you should ponder seeking a different employer/position/profession.

 

[SueDonJ]

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.

You don't appear to understand the situation or the questions posed by MVW's handling of it. Many of us understand why reservations booked via MVW are afforded a higher priority during a mass-cancellation event than those booked via II. We also understand - even if we see why MVW doesn't agree with - the perspective of owners who think that if a Marriott ownership was exchanged via II, then those II reservations should be considered as quasi-MVW reservations during these events. What's at question here, though, is whether or not MVW ordered II to cancel all incoming exchange reservations at Grande Ocean, Ocean Pointe and wherever else, in order to open up availability for MVW Preview/Encore/DC guests and MI cash/Marriott Rewards redemption guests being displaced from closed resorts. Your post doesn't answer those questions which speak directly to whether intra-/inter-resort inventory was properly managed during this event.

Aside from that I would like to know if your post is an official statement from an official representative designated by MVW to respond to our concerns, or if you're just another TUGger offering an opinion?

 

[Superchief]

I find it interesting that MVC has been selling II exchanges as an important benefit to MVC ownership. Has anyone ever attended a sales presentation when they weren't shown how many resorts they could access via II exchanges? There is a direct link to II on their website and membership and exchanges are covered by our annual fees. Now they are throwing II and owner exchangers under the bus and acting like II is the enemy. II isn't making the decision to cancel these reservations. MVC management is making this decision. Additionally, MVC doesn't own these resorts and therefore doesn't have the right to decide who gets denied inventory access. I still haven't seen any explanation regarding how II gets compensated for the cancellations of confirmed reservations for weeks they turned over inventory for.

II has been much better than MVC in communicating with members during this whole process. However, they will suffer the most since many of us will be afraid to use our weeks for exchanges in the future.

 

[windje2000]

This is how it works...Once you deposit your week with Interval any agreements with Marriott regarding your week deposit is void. It's a FINAL TRANSACTION & now you follow whatever rules Interval has because it's a separate company. Marriott & Interval are 2 separate companies owned by completely separate entities. It makes perfect sense that weeks owners would have precedence, DP, Encore, paid rate, II deposits, RCI ...etc. For whatever reason you went through II to get what you wanted. That's the price you pay when you use an "exchange" company.​

In other words, when you exchange MVW occupancy using II, Marriott’s chosen exchange company, your MVW reservation becomes conditional, subject to a Marriott right or option to take your reservation at will. If you don’t like it – rules.

I challenge you to show me where my contract with II states that when I obtain MVW occupancy from II in an exchange, it is conditional and subject to a MVW option.

That’s the price I pay for using an exchange company? I don’t think so.

Same thing applies to Marriott Rewards Platinum, they think they can just request an upgrade at a Marriott Timeshare because of their Platinum status... well your Platinum status doesn't mean anything in the Vacation Club side. You get what you booked, you don't get upgraded like you can at a hotel. It makes people irate because it's Marriott and they have stayed in hotels for years & it shouldn't matter because Marriott owns them all. Marriott & Marriott Vacation Club are not owned by the same entities and you don't get the same benefits as you do at a hotel.​

This is completely irrelevant to the question at bar.

When doing a request at another Marriott Vacation Club, because you are a Marriott owner you get priority over, for example, an owner who deposited an RCI week. There is no mini-exchange going on behind the scenes. It's a Hurricane, everyone is upset because their vacation got canceled. Think of the thousands of people who have no home to live in still. Everything can't always work in your favor every single time. A tragedy happened, again.​

The hurricane is not the issue; and never was.

The issue is whether or not the process by which reduced occupancy was rationed among interested parties is equitable or represents a simple taking of ownership rights transferred through an intermediary for the benefit of MVW.

Sure looks like that is exactly what happened.

If you are in fact an employee of MVW and speak for it, your response is telling.

 

[Dean]

I find it interesting that MVC has been selling II exchanges as an important benefit to MVC ownership. Has anyone ever attended a sales presentation when they weren't shown how many resorts they could access via II exchanges? There is a direct link to II on their website and membership and exchanges are covered by our annual fees. Now they are throwing II and owner exchangers under the bus and acting like II is the enemy. II isn't making the decision to cancel these reservations. MVC management is making this decision. Additionally, MVC doesn't own these resorts and therefore doesn't have the right to decide who gets denied inventory access. I still haven't seen any explanation regarding how II gets compensated for the cancellations of confirmed reservations for weeks they turned over inventory for.

II has been much better than MVC in communicating with members during this whole process. However, they will suffer the most since many of us will be afraid to use our weeks for exchanges in the future.

I think sales speak is irrelevant, just like it is in all other situations if it's not contractual. I doubt II gets compensation directly, I suspect they may get some additional developer controlled inventory as a replacement but it likely won't be HH during the summer. Does anyone know if Marriott has any direct cost for the corporate account members in DC/Trust points? Using Bluegreen and RCI as a discussion starter, I know that in the past BG paid RCI about $50 a year for each corporate member then a few years ago the model changed. The change was that BG no longer paid RCI directly but compensated them in kind in terms of volume and developer deposits. I wonder the setup for the corporate II/MVCI arrangement in this regard.

 

[urfriend]

Sorry if this sounds harsh...but from my perspective, in addition to disliking MVC (your employer) as you have posted elsewhere, it also appears that you don't have a lot of empathy for owners utilizing the MVC program. There are reasons why MVC does not like folks like you posting on forums like this in a pseudo MVC representative fashion. Perhaps if you are as unhappy of an employee as your posts make you sound, you should ponder seeking a different employer/position/profession.

I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.

 

[Superchief]

I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.

Unfortunately for owners who trusted MVC, these hard rules are being made by MVC management and were never in place previously. Many of us also don't believe that MVC has the legal right to determine how inventory provided by owners is allocated.

 

[Fasttr]

I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.

If there are rules as you say...they must be written somewhere. Please post the rules that govern the specific instance discussed in this thread. You speak as if you know...but in reality, its more likely that you do not. MVC made these decisions on the fly in the wake of the hurricane. We are merely challenging their decisions, how and why they made them... and thus far, they do not seem to want to explain themselves, and your attempt was way off topic.

 

[SueDonJ]

I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.

You know, I like the Marriott timeshare company. I usually am able to understand, even when it doesn't benefit us, how and why they operate in certain ways. It's not my norm to charge them with activity that may actually be in violation of inventory management rules and mandates. And I can honestly say that the only distasteful encounters I've had with MVW reps have happened here on TUG. What is it about this site that makes any of you think that you can be as condescendingly dismissive as you please, and not expect it to reflect poorly on you as a TUG poster AND on the company? It doesn't matter that you're as anonymous as the rest of us - you still don't get to say, unchallenged, on the one hand that you're an MVW rep and then on the other generate owner/customer service that's basically useless. In fact it's worse than useless, it's harmful to the company.

If you really want to "offer assistance" that's meaningful then you should re-direct our concerns up the ladder to someone who's empowered to speak officially for the company as to whether or not the II mass-cancellations that occurred due to the two recent hurricanes were done in order to free up accommodations for guests who were displaced from other impacted resorts. And if so, what exact inventory management machinations came into play, and, where in the governing docs can we find the language that supports MVW's handling of these events?

You're correct in one way - the hard truth is what it is. And if we ever get it officially from MVW, we'll be sure to educate you on it.

 

[windje2000]

I have empathy for owners for sure, but there are rules and I am just letting you know what they are. Why else would I be on here offering my assistance!? Sometimes the hard truth is what it is.

This is the second post of urfriend that asserts the existence of "rules" which justify and/or legally entitle MVC to engage in the behavior being discussed in this thread that he/she is unwilling to share or reference.

What "rules" are he/she referring to? Got me to thinking about a post I made in connection with a class action suit alleging DClub negatively affected the trading ability of non-DClub enrolled owners.

The link to the first post of that thread is here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/class-action-suit-desantis-v-marriott.211157/

The post I am quoting can be found here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...esantis-v-marriott.211157/page-2#post-1629019

QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.

We are members of DClub. That's where we pay our membership dues.

Sure, we have 'access' to an II 'corporate account, but we're not members of II, and we are not covered by its rules.

IIRC, the DClub rules give Marriott broad powers to manage exchange activities. When I first read the DC docs, I never thought about whether or not those broad powers would apply to the corporate II account.

I am starting to wonder if it does, and if that is contributing to the slowness in II trading.

There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.[/QUOTE]​

I am starting to wonder if the observation I made in that old post is exactly how MVC is justifying its behavior.

In other words,

1. DClub members are not members of II but rather members of DClub.

2. MVC has broad powers to manage DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory.

3. These broad powers provide MVC with the ability to consider the HHI resorts as a portfolio.

4. These broad powers allow MVC to manage DClub exchange reservations (including II reservations) between and among the various HHI resorts virtually any way they want to.​

 

[kds4]

This is the second post of urfriend that asserts the existence of "rules" which justify and/or legally entitle MVC to engage in the behavior being discussed in this thread that he/she is unwilling to share or reference.

What "rules" are he/she referring to? Got me to thinking about a post I made in connection with a class action suit alleging DClub negatively affected the trading ability of non-DClub enrolled owners.

The link to the first post of that thread is here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/class-action-suit-desantis-v-marriott.211157/

The post I am quoting can be found here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...esantis-v-marriott.211157/page-2#post-1629019

QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.

We are members of DClub. That's where we pay our membership dues.

Sure, we have 'access' to an II 'corporate account, but we're not members of II, and we are not covered by its rules.

IIRC, the DClub rules give Marriott broad powers to manage exchange activities. When I first read the DC docs, I never thought about whether or not those broad powers would apply to the corporate II account.

I am starting to wonder if it does, and if that is contributing to the slowness in II trading.

There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.=END QUOTE
​

I am starting to wonder if the observation I made in that old post is exactly how MVC is justifying its behavior.

In other words,

1. DClub members are not members of II but rather members of DClub.

2. MVC has broad powers to manage DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory.

3. These broad powers provide MVC with the ability to consider the HHI resorts as a portfolio.

4. These broad powers allow MVC to manage DClub exchange reservations (including II reservations) between and among the various HHI resorts virtually any way they want to.​

Your logic seems reasonable to me. However, it would only provide 'cover' for MVC to take action over the DClub inventory you describe if it was exchanged using the corporate account. I don't think it would address manipulating exchanges from deposited weeks or of points reservation exchanges made by DClub members through their personal II account (instead of the DClub provided account) if they still maintain one (as I do)? In the OP's example at the start of the original thread for this discussion, do we know the source/method of Jim's deposit/exchange?

 

[JIMinNC]

Your logic seems reasonable to me. However, it would only provide 'cover' for MVC to take action over the DClub inventory you describe if it was exchanged using the corporate account. I don't think it would address manipulating exchanges from deposited weeks or of points reservation exchanges made by DClub members through their personal II account (instead of the DClub provided account) if they still maintain one (as I do)? In the OP's example at the start of the original thread for this discussion, do we know the source/method of Jim's deposit/exchange?

To answer your question, I used our enrolled Barony week as the deposit to II, so it was using the DClub II account. I don't think that mattered in this case in that both Marriott and II told me Marriott cancelled all II exchanges last month at Grande Ocean, so I assume that any exchanges from a personal II account would have been cancelled as well.

 

[Superchief]

I would really like to know how the whole agreement with MVC and II works. An owner can deposit their week with II, and then can only confirm an exchange into a resort if an owner at that resort deposits a week for the dates they want. Therefore, there is available inventory only for weeks that are deposited by an owner at that resort. II inventory at that resort for any given week is clearly defined by the number of exchanges. I still don't understand how MVC can cancel all II exchanges saying that inventory is not in their control. It shouldn't be in their control because owners at that resort have decided to go outside of MVC to use the week that they paid MF's for. II doesn't really own that inventory, the resort owners who deposited that week 'own' the inventory.

By cancelling all II reservations, MVC is breaching their agreement to allocate inventory based on 'ownership' of that time period. At resorts like Ocean Pointe and Grand Ocean, I doubt that MVC has much inventory available for Encore, MR, or cash stays because that would have to come from inventory not owned by resort legacy weeks (including those who convert to VC points) or the trust. That leaves only a small amount of inventory primarily from those renting their weeks through MVC or converting to MR points, both of which represent low value to owners. Cancelling only II exchanges for several weeks at any resort would result in MVC owing II a lot of inventory in order to maintain the appropriate proportions.

It gets down to MVC making rules that do not meet their contractual commitments for inventory allocation. Somebody will likely need to sue in order to get access to what is going on in MVC's inventory control black box.

 

[urfriend]

You know, I like the Marriott timeshare company. I usually am able to understand, even when it doesn't benefit us, how and why they operate in certain ways. It's not my norm to charge them with activity that may actually be in violation of inventory management rules and mandates. And I can honestly say that the only distasteful encounters I've had with MVW reps have happened here on TUG. What is it about this site that makes any of you think that you can be as condescendingly dismissive as you please, and not expect it to reflect poorly on you as a TUG poster AND on the company? It doesn't matter that you're as anonymous as the rest of us - you still don't get to say, unchallenged, on the one hand that you're an MVW rep and then on the other generate owner/customer service that's basically useless. In fact it's worse than useless, it's harmful to the company.

If you really want to "offer assistance" that's meaningful then you should re-direct our concerns up the ladder to someone who's empowered to speak officially for the company as to whether or not the II mass-cancellations that occurred due to the two recent hurricanes were done in order to free up accommodations for guests who were displaced from other impacted resorts. And if so, what exact inventory management machinations came into play, and, where in the governing docs can we find the language that supports MVW's handling of these events?

You're correct in one way - the hard truth is what it is. And if we ever get it officially from MVW, we'll be sure to educate you on it.

I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on. Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!

It's very obvious that you are all confused.

windje2000 - QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.
This is an incorrect statement. If you are enrolled into the Destinations Program you are a member of II. Why are you under the impression that you are no longer a member of II if you don't elect points? Your II account isn't through the Destinations Program it's still through II. Even if you never decide to use II, you still have an active paid account with Interval, that you could use if you wanted. There is no such thing as the....DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory. This doesn't exist. When owners 'Elect' their weeks for DP that is what frees up inventory for DP.

There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.[/QUOTE]
The only reason you get a new II account called a 'corporate account' is so you aren't charged the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. If you use your II account and you have deposits in your II account that are pre-destinations then those deposits are still charged the $139 exchange fee. Once those deposits are used, then your old II account is canceled and not active any more. That is the only reason for issuing a new II #.

The yearly club dues that you pay each year covers your Interval account. It is still an Interval account and it is no different than your Interval account that you had pre-destinations, you just get a new II number, and now you don't pay the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. You have access to exactly the same inventory that any other Owner has who uses II as their exchange company, regardless if it is a pre-destinations, or you pay for your own II account, or you aren't in the DP program...it's all the same Interval account.

Most likely... the reason in the slow process with II deposits is due to the date you are choosing to deposit with II. How many of you know how to look at the TDI on the resort you own on Intervalworld.com? Do you know how to decide what date to pick? Do you even know how to use II? Had an owner 2 days ago who has a Platinum GV and wants to go to Cypress Dec 8, 2017. I get a hold of II lock off his GV ask if he can get a 2BR at CY with his 1 BR... yes it is available and because it was within 59 days there was no upgrade fee. This owner got a 2 BR at Cypress Harbour with his 1 BR at GV.

You all want something official from MVW so call up and get it. Ask questions, but don't be angry with me because you don't like my responses. You can either take the information I am giving and put it to use, or go about your day and ignore it.

 

[bazzap]

urfriend

“I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me.”

“You obviously know everything and don't need my help.”

“It's very obvious that you are all confused.”

.....

You seem to have a very unique approach to offering “help” to many highly experienced owners, who also know and have regular dealings with both Owner Services and Customer Advocacy.

 

[Superchief]

Many of us have contacted MVC owner services regarding these issues and have received absolutely no explanation of their policies regarding how they are handling the inventory. None of my specific questions were answered. The only response we have seen is that II exchanges are all being cancelled because MVC doesn't control the inventory, and the communication is often at the last minute. While owners services are saying that 'owners come first', they are not cancelling Encore stays that have no ownership involvement, while all II exchanges required an owner deposit of a paid for week. Additionally, many people who purchased the Travelex insurance that MVC promoted are learning that their cancellations aren't covered if there stay is more than 30 days after the storm due to 'fine print' in the policy.

In contrast to MVC, II has been very helpful and will work with you regarding your best option given the circumstances.

 

[Dean]

I'm not on here to further aggravate owners, so please take it down a notch or 2 in your defensiveness & rudeness towards me. I'll be happy to clarify as much as I can.... but...Wow!!! You are a very angry person SueDonJ, you are the one who makes these "encounters" distasteful...You obviously know everything and don't need my help. Curious Sue why haven't you called the company and gotten the "official" down low, and posted your official response from MVW? You think I am condescending & dismissive? Why, because I am giving you answers you dislike! I in no way have been condescending & dismissive. Straight forward, yes! You owners have the ability to pick up the phone and call to get answers to your questions. If the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, ask to speak to someone who does know. Email - owner.services@vacationclub.com. Interval decided what they were going to cancel, it wasn't just an II mass cancellations that occurred. MVC had to make a decisions to keep owners safe, a HURRICANE was coming, they closed the resorts! Everyone got canceled. Did you know that weeks owners lost their week if they didn't have travel protection? II wouldn't take any deposits. Do you have any idea how many weeks owners who did NOT get ANY compensations? There was no secret behind the scene swapping going on. Everyone lost out and unfortunately it was horrible and sad to say the least!

It's very obvious that you are all confused.

windje2000 - QUOTE=Those of us who are DC members who don't elect points should be aware of the fact that we are no longer members of II.
This is an incorrect statement. If you are enrolled into the Destinations Program you are a member of II. Why are you under the impression that you are no longer a member of II if you don't elect points? Your II account isn't through the Destinations Program it's still through II. Even if you never decide to use II, you still have an active paid account with Interval, that you could use if you wanted. There is no such thing as the....DClub Exchange inventory, including DClub II inventory. This doesn't exist. When owners 'Elect' their weeks for DP that is what frees up inventory for DP.

There's a reason for the existence of the 'corporate account' and the fact that all DC members had to change from their old accounts to new ones.[/QUOTE]
The only reason you get a new II account called a 'corporate account' is so you aren't charged the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. If you use your II account and you have deposits in your II account that are pre-destinations then those deposits are still charged the $139 exchange fee. Once those deposits are used, then your old II account is canceled and not active any more. That is the only reason for issuing a new II #.

The yearly club dues that you pay each year covers your Interval account. It is still an Interval account and it is no different than your Interval account that you had pre-destinations, you just get a new II number, and now you don't pay the $139 exchange fee if you go to another Marriott. You have access to exactly the same inventory that any other Owner has who uses II as their exchange company, regardless if it is a pre-destinations, or you pay for your own II account, or you aren't in the DP program...it's all the same Interval account.

Most likely... the reason in the slow process with II deposits is due to the date you are choosing to deposit with II. How many of you know how to look at the TDI on the resort you own on Intervalworld.com? Do you know how to decide what date to pick? Do you even know how to use II? Had an owner 2 days ago who has a Platinum GV and wants to go to Cypress Dec 8, 2017. I get a hold of II lock off his GV ask if he can get a 2BR at CY with his 1 BR... yes it is available and because it was within 59 days there was no upgrade fee. This owner got a 2 BR at Cypress Harbour with his 1 BR at GV.

You all want something official from MVW so call up and get it. Ask questions, but don't be angry with me because you don't like my responses. You can either take the information I am giving and put it to use, or go about your day and ignore it.

I tend to agree with much of what you've posted in terms of the steps from an II standpoint and owners choosing to use II. Like any major company, they (like Marriott) have slated things in their favor and if we chose to play in their sandbox, we assume more risks than they do on a given transaction. I believe that what you've posted is technically correct in terms of the exchange steps and risks and it's obviously been an unfortunate situation for all. However, I believe there are some inaccuracies in your post. One is that the II exchanges were not simply canceled because the resorts were closed. Many of the resorts were open and MVC decided to cancel all II exchanges and accommodate weeks owners, Trust/DC reservations and encore packages from other resorts. By all accounts MVC cancelled the exchanges even when the resorts were open in order to accommodate those listed from other resorts. While I'm in the minority here, I tend to feel that was a reasonable choice for Marriott though my first preference would have been to work resort by resort. The concern for those that are opposed to how Marriott did this is that some feel Marriott didn't have the right to do so contractually and that by the global process, they created a precedent that could further negatively affect owners in the future. I tend to disagree with both of those assertions but I understand the concerns. Many also feel that the fact that many of these were Marriott owners using Marriott deposits and that should have made a difference, I also don't completely agree with that assertion.

II is a separate company from Marriott. Obviously the actual contract between Marriott and II would have a core bearing on the process in question. I assume those contract are standard but wonder if they are resort by resort rather than II to Marriott with the resorts simply being listed. It seems the general consensus here is that Marriott said "jump" and II said "how high" irregardless of the contract, to me that doesn't matter who ultimately pushed the decision as long as it was within the contract parameters.

Some here, especially the OP, have contacted Marriott much higher than owner services and have not gotten an answer they consider reasonable. Personally I see the answer as very simple from Marriott's and II's standpoint both and know it won't make a lot of people here satisfied but if they'd just have said it and acted humble in the process, I think it'd have helped. To me the simple answer is that they had a tough situation, had to make tough choices and they felt the choices made were both the best ones overall and were within their obligations and rights considering the owners, exchangers and II itself. I think if they'd have just reached out to members and said that proactively and sympathetically, many would at least have felt Marriott was doing the best they could even if they disagreed with the final decision. They should study Equifax's handling of the recent breach for ways to smooth over a poor situation. Hopefully a more formal and punished process will come out of this so at least we all know more where we stand and what risks we are and are not taking.

Members still pay for the new II account and the "free" exchanges, it's just rolled in a different way and paid for more with smoke and mirrors. And many of us still pay for the old II account as well since we can't add non Marriott weeks to the corporate account. As for navigating the II system and determining the best deposits and ways to deposit & exchange; I'd venture that every poster on this thread is more knowledgeable than any Marriott salesperson on this subject who's not also a participant here on TUG. For example, why would you you not use the studio instead of the 1BR for the exchange to CH or better yet, they likely had an accommodation certificate in their account, why not use that and save their deposit completely.

Now if you can just tell me how I can get my 5 post 2010 resale purchases rolled into my DC points without buying a large retail trust package, I'd certainly be happier.

 

[Fasttr]

I tend to agree with much of what you've posted in terms of the steps from an II standpoint and owners choosing to use II. Like any major company, they (like Marriott) have slated things in their favor and if we chose to play in their sandbox, we assume more risks than they do on a given transaction. I believe that what you've posted is technically correct in terms of the exchange steps and risks and it's obviously been an unfortunate situation for all. However, I believe there are some inaccuracies in your post. One is that the II exchanges were not simply canceled because the resorts were closed. Many of the resorts were open and MVC decided to cancel all II exchanges and accommodate weeks owners, Trust/DC reservations and encore packages from other resorts. By all accounts MVC cancelled the exchanges even when the resorts were open in order to accommodate those listed from other resorts. While I'm in the minority here, I tend to feel that was a reasonable choice for Marriott though my first preference would have been to work resort by resort. The concern for those that are opposed to how Marriott did this is that some feel Marriott didn't have the right to do so contractually and that by the global process, they created a precedent that could further negatively affect owners in the future. I tend to disagree with both of those assertions but I understand the concerns. Many also feel that the fact that many of these were Marriott owners using Marriott deposits and that should have made a difference, I also don't completely agree with that assertion.

II is a separate company from Marriott. Obviously the actual contract between Marriott and II would have a core bearing on the process in question. I assume those contract are standard but wonder if they are resort by resort rather than II to Marriott with the resorts simply being listed. It seems the general consensus here is that Marriott said "jump" and II said "how high" irregardless of the contract, to me that doesn't matter who ultimately pushed the decision as long as it was within the contract parameters.

Some here, especially the OP, have contacted Marriott much higher than owner services and have not gotten an answer they consider reasonable. Personally I see the answer as very simple from Marriott's and II's standpoint both and know it won't make a lot of people here satisfied but if they'd just have said it and acted humble in the process, I think it'd have helped. To me the simple answer is that they had a tough situation, had to make tough choices and they felt the choices made were both the best ones overall and were within their obligations and rights considering the owners, exchangers and II itself. I think if they'd have just reached out to members and said that proactively and sympathetically, many would at least have felt Marriott was doing the best they could even if they disagreed with the final decision. They should study Equifax's handling of the recent breach for ways to smooth over a poor situation. Hopefully a more formal and punished process will come out of this so at least we all know more where we stand and what risks we are and are not taking.

Members still pay for the new II account and the "free" exchanges, it's just rolled in a different way and paid for more with smoke and mirrors. And many of us still pay for the old II account as well since we can't add non Marriott weeks to the corporate account. As for navigating the II system and determining the best deposits and ways to deposit & exchange; I'd venture that every poster on this thread is more knowledgeable than any Marriott salesperson on this subject who's not also a participant here on TUG. For example, why would you you not use the studio instead of the 1BR for the exchange to CH or better yet, they likely had an accommodation certificate in their account, why not use that and save their deposit completely.

Now if you can just tell me how I can get my 5 post 2010 resale purchases rolled into my DC points without buying a large retail trust package, I'd certainly be happier.

Dean....I don't always agree with your stances....but this was excellently written!!!