RCI Class Action

[Carolinian]

Don't you see that as a possibility anyway, lawsuit or not, and if that happens, then the Weeks holdouts would be transferred over to Points without exorbitant conversion fees or all the game-playing marketing surrounding Points conversion?

Would that not be a good thing for the Weeks advocates?

You ask that to a Points person. What do you expect him to say?

Points is such a crappy system, I would not take it if they PAID me to take it.
Between the totally corrupt system of setting the rigged and frozen numbers and the lack of flexibility to exchange 11 months out to coordinate with ff miles, it is not something I would ever want to use.

Where the Weeks members would transfer to primarily is other exchange companies that still worked on a weeks-based system.

 

[Carolinian]

The word ''rental'' was quietly slipped into that multi-page fine print a few years ago with nothing at all to call it to members attention. Do you call that an honest way to do business? Do you think it will pass the smell test of the ''unfair or deceptive'' standard of consumer protection law? I wouldn't bet on it!

Further that whole agreement fits the classic definition of a contract of adhesion. Courts generally do not enforce the terms of something determined to be a contract of adhesion. You clearly do not know what a contract of adhesion is from your post. You might want to refer to some past issues of Street Talk to learn more about contracts of adhesion.

You also do not seem to understand that the test is NOT whether something violates rules set by RCI. RCI does not make the rules in a consumer protestion case, the government does. The government's standard is ''unfair OR deceptive''. Contrasting that fine print with RCI's more public materials like the ones they provide to the developers to aid in sales will go a LONGGG way to show violation of that standard IMHO.

Companies in a monopolistic position tend to get a lot closer scrutiny in these matters, and timesharers at many resorts are not effectively given any option other than RCI for exchanging, creating just such a monopolisitic situation.

Points people know that Weeks will always be the dominant system unless it is artificially destroyed by means like diverting inventory to rentals or to the Points system itself through the fraudulent generic crossover grids, which then degrades the system. I suppose that is why some of them are jumping up and down supporting RCI's scamming its Weeks system in this manner. Weeks is not the ''old'' system in timesharing. The inferior points system came first, and weeks was an improvement upon it.

Alan - And if you help out in some class action lawsuits you'll have just about the same chance of achieving any of those - the best examples are forcing the return of the Oldsmobile or Studebaker - as the current case with RCI has of reviving the "old" weeks system. Things change and brands and products/services come and go. You can't force or legislate a company to sell/produce a product they don't want to deal with. That went away with the regulated utility companies.

Tigerdog - No one is being bamboozled. Read the agreement - especially these sections:

5.5 A member relinquishes all rights to the use of
his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited.

23. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS By Depositing
Vacation Ownership with RCI, each Member
relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Ownership
and agrees that such Deposited Vacation Ownership
may be used by RCI to satisfy Exchange Requests, for
inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale, marketing and
for other purposes at RCI’s discretion, including use in
other exchange or accommodation programs.

(Bold text is from the original).

Now just how are they hiding that? And how are they violating the rules you agree too? (And I've heard enough about the "contract of adhesion". That applies if you are forced into an agreement - a Microsoft type you pay if you want it or not deal not a voluntary action like using RCI for exchange. If you don't agree you aren't an RCI member and take your week elsewhere. You can't disagree with the membership rules AND give RCI your week).

Trying to tell people there is winnable case here is the only bamboozling going on. And it has been hashed, rehashed and over-hashed enough now. The only meaningful post regarding this topic will be when the case is thrown out, settled or someone wins/loses. Until then nothing we say here is going to impact a thing and is really just a waste of effort.

 

[Carolinian]

If we each get a check in the mail for a dollar or two we'll be lucky.

Again, the key is not the dollar amount class members receive. I don't care if that is zero. The important thing is how the injunctive relief to stop the improper activities (i.e. rentals) in the future is worded.

 

[Carolinian]

Isn't this just a strongarm tactic to force resorts into Points? It would be better if resorts could just tell RCI, ''NO points, period!'' and not allow points people to come inbound.

As to the wacky grids, part of the method to RCI's madness is to artificially create ''excess'' to feed RCI's rental empire. Adjust to meet real supply and demand? Heck that would upset the system of feeding in the rentals.

The lack of a 45-day window within Points is a serious flaw. Points resorts now sell offseason Points weeks almost entirely on the basis of doing crossover trades into the Weeks 45-day window. Kill that as they are now in the process of doing by overloading it, and you kill what carries the offseason exchange weeks in both systems. Points is far more vulnerable because a fair amount of the Weeks offseason owners are not exchangers, but the Points system by its nature of exchange focused.

Last minure inventory is distressed inventory in the leisure travel market. By not doing a 45-day window in Points, RCI is again creating another artificial ''excess'' to feed the rental empire.

The solution to this problem already exists. As more resorts join Points, their weeks cannot be "pilfered" regardless of how many members actually join points. As soon as one member joins points, that is a points resort, and the crossover grids don't apply.

If resorts are awarded too many points, people won't want to exchange into them, and RCI will be forced to lower the points values. The reverse applies to resorts rated too low (it will be in RCI's best interest to increase the point values).

Note that in the 45 day window, owners of lousy trading weeks can still get excellent trades. Points owners can only get 9000 point trades (clearance price) into resorts that have not converted yet. If a resort has converted over to points, those weeks still cost "full retail" for points members. The more resorts convert, the fewer resorts available for such bargains.

Also, for any resort that converts to points, the points members can't reserve anything 2 years out, but must stick to the points windows, from what I understand. I could be mistaken in that, but they certainly can't search for such weeks online, so are at the mercy of a VC to even find out if they might be available - and I don't think they can do an ongoing search for any of those resorts either.

 

[timeos2]

Points = 3rd party exchange

Isn't this just a strongarm tactic to force resorts into Points? It would be better if resorts could just tell RCI, ''NO points, period!'' and not allow points people to come inbound.

If the resorts could say that they could also say "No SFX, No DAE" etc. What system/company an owner wants to use for trade is up to them - not the resorts. That isn't just for week for week trades but any system I as an owner care to use. That type of restriction is exactly what you complain about when II/RCI tries to be "exclusive" at a resorts. What system RCI wants to use to facilitate the exchange of use time doesn't matter to the resorts. Of course they don't have to allow day by day use if the documents they were sold under don't allow that but they have no say over the inner workings of the various exchange systems.

 

[Carolinian]

There is a big difference. DAE allows the owners to deposit into that system. If the resort is on SFX's list, they can deposit there, too. Resorts should NOT attempt to stop their members from depositing into a system that accepts their deposits.

Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in? Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points. If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it. The key thing is that we need to pluck the mooching Points leech off of the back of Weeks.

If the resorts could say that they could also say "No SFX, No DAE" etc. What system/company an owner wants to use for trade is up to them - not the resorts. That isn't just for week for week trades but any system I as an owner care to use. That type of restriction is exactly what you complain about when II/RCI tries to be "exclusive" at a resorts. What system RCI wants to use to facilitate the exchange of use time doesn't matter to the resorts. Of course they don't have to allow day by day use if the documents they were sold under don't allow that but they have no say over the inner workings of the various exchange systems.

 

[timeos2]

Weeks owners can get into points

Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in? Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points. If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it. The key thing is that we need to pluck the mooching Points leech off of the back of Weeks.

You didn't know of Points for Deposit? Thats weeks into points - one of the best features of RCI Points. (I'm asking somewhat tongue in cheek as I'm sure you've heard of PFD. That seriously is a way to get shortsighted or otherwise restricted weeks only resorts into RCI Points. So weeks owners can certainly get their time into points and, by the way, claim time using the same charts in both directions.)

 

["Roger"]

Carolinian,

You are at your best when you argue that resorts ought to dual affiliate. Let owners decide which exchange system that they want to use. The more options (RCI, II, DAE, SFX, etc. and Points) an owner has the better. (For those who are unaware, if a resort were to join the Points system, no owner at the resort would have to join. It would be an individual perogative.)

As Mel points out, for those resorts that join Points, crossover trades into that resort would no longer be an option. Points owners would have to trade in accordance with whatever Point values are established for that resort. That would end your complaints that these crossover trades are the only thing that fuels Points. (I don't think that complaint is well founded, but let that pass.)

This suggestion has been brought up before and you proclaimed that it would not be a popular option at your resort. So what? Give those few, even if it be those very, very few, the choice. It should not be up to us whether an individual owner should use Weeks or Points. Let the owners decide for themselves what works best for them. (Doesn't "supply and demand" depend upon free choice?)

 

[Aldo]

Carolinian,



Let the owners decide for themselves what works best for them. (Doesn't "supply and demand" depend upon free choice?)

That's the whole point of this entire issue, isn't it?

Weeks owners deciding what works best for them. Supply and Demand, BUT WITHOUT THE SUPPLY BEING LOOTED and DEMAND going unsatisified as a result.

 

[Carolinian]

Due to RCI's standard practice of overaveraging on points charts, which is more severe on the crossover grid but also bad on Points resorts grids, the crossover girds do overpoint weaker and poor location resorts and pink as opposed to prime red (all red weeks of a given size and award status in a region is pure fraud - many get hosed while a few do make out like bandits, one of the typical and inherent flaws of a points system limited to publication by paper and ink, as all presently are).

One has to be a member of RCI Points to do points for deposit, and from my experience at a Weeks resort, there are darn few Weeks owners who have any use for being a member of RCI Points, so this impacts relatively few people.

You didn't know of Points for Deposit? Thats weeks into points - one of the best features of RCI Points. (I'm asking somewhat tongue in cheek as I'm sure you've heard of PFD. That seriously is a way to get shortsighted or otherwise restricted weeks only resorts into RCI Points. So weeks owners can certainly get their time into points and, by the way, claim time using the same charts in both directions.)

 

[Carolinian]

Given the rank favoritism that RCI Points shows to certain types of resorts - developers in sales, overbuilt areas, etc., it would be nothing short of foolish for any other resort to take the reduced numbers RCI would give them. The term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI Points. Those resorts should run, not walk, away from RCI Points.

The danger for an owner of a resort switching is that too many of them (BIS on the OBX, for example) then bring in the strong arm boys to try to pressure owners to switch for big conversion fees. This is NOT serving the interests of owners.

Also it is not serving the interests of owners to create a situation where there are enough resorts in RCI Points that RCI gets encouraged to try to force everyone to switch to their profoundly flawed points system.

Carolinian,

You are at your best when you argue that resorts ought to dual affiliate. Let owners decide which exchange system that they want to use. The more options (RCI, II, DAE, SFX, etc. and Points) an owner has the better. (For those who are unaware, if a resort were to join the Points system, no owner at the resort would have to join. It would be an individual perogative.)

As Mel points out, for those resorts that join Points, crossover trades into that resort would no longer be an option. Points owners would have to trade in accordance with whatever Point values are established for that resort. That would end your complaints that these crossover trades are the only thing that fuels Points. (I don't think that complaint is well founded, but let that pass.)

This suggestion has been brought up before and you proclaimed that it would not be a popular option at your resort. So what? Give those few, even if it be those very, very few, the choice. It should not be up to us whether an individual owner should use Weeks or Points. Let the owners decide for themselves what works best for them. (Doesn't "supply and demand" depend upon free choice?)

 

[Carolinian]

Why is ''Points vs Weeks'' always injected into ''Rentals'' debates?

It seems every time the rental issue is debated on these boards the supporters of the rentals, who are mostly also strong Points advocates, immediately try to shift the discussion to Weeks vs. Points. The reason is simple. They know that if rentals is blown out of the water, then Points gets seriously wounded. The two programs are joined at the hip.

 

["Roger"]

Given the rank favoritism that RCI Points shows to certain types of resorts - developers in sales, overbuilt areas, etc., it would be nothing short of foolish for any other resort to take the reduced numbers RCI would give them....

Mel already responded to this. If RCI gives too many points to the owners of some resorts and not enough to others, supply and demand will fall completely out of whack. If RCI wants to make money, they will have to readjust the numbers. (That is how supply and demand works.)

[As an aside here, Carolinian has always been putting forth claims that would entail that RCI is subsudizing developers at the cost of their own profits -- odd behavior that is at odds with the interest of the stockholders.]

Finally, you, of all people, should be happy if the numbers were out of kilter. That would mean that no one at these resorts would join Points. At the same time, since they are now Points resorts, no one would be able to do a cross over trade into the resort. Your real fear should be that RCI would give these resorts point values that would entice people to join.

...The danger for an owner of a resort switching is that too many of them (BIS on the OBX, for example) then bring in the strong arm boys to try to pressure owners to switch for big conversion fees. This is NOT serving the interests of owners.....

I guess we have hit a fundamental bottom line difference between you and myself here. I don't think I should decide for others that something is a bad deal and go out of my way to try to protect them. I think consummers should be able to decide for themselves what is a good buy and what is not. The more choices that they offered, the better.

 

[JLB]

This discussion and the many before just like it, is almost exactly like our neighbors' rebuilding of the community dock.

A couple of them were so hellbent on their idea being the only one, that they did not allow others to contribute ideas at all. They just rammed their plan down everyone's throat, alienating a neighbor whose support they needed, or at least would have made the project easier.

Compromise, negotiation, objectivity . . . not things they even considered. To them there simply could be no other way to accomplish their goal.

Yeah, they got what they wanted, but lost a neighbor. And, they failed to realize that other community docks were rebuilding using a plan that made their docks free, a plan that would have worked perfectly for this one.

Instead they spent $80000 of their's and their neighbors' money.

The neighbor that stood their ground now has a private dock of their own down the bank.

So often it seems to be the method, not the end result, that is objectionable. I know it happens, because I have seen it, but I will never understand why some folks insist on having their own way, even if it means alienating others who are sympathetic to their cause.

 

[Mel]

Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in? Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points. If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it.

So, weeks resorts should be able to tell owners where they can and cannot deposit their weeks? RCI has Points for Deposit, Fairfield has PIC, and other resort groups have similar programs for owners of weeks outside their systems. If you start telling them their deposit to RCI Points or any other exchange program won't be honored, you then must also allow the resort to deny access to exchanges through SFX, DAE and any other smaller exchange company.

Further, given the way some of the smaller exchange companies work, they trade weeks from within their own systems with other excahnge companies. You also seem to want to stop that - because that is what RCI is doing between Weeks and Points. Unless someone can show proof that the exchanges between the two systems are not equitable, they are not doing anything different than the other smaller exchange companies.

The simplest remedy is for unhappy members to leave RCI. If you don't like the way RCI values their week, don't give it to RCI. Use it yourself, rent it out, or trade it directly with someone else. Since when should the rest of us take the responsibility for those who made a poor purchase decision? Personal responsibility means when we purchase something that doesn't work the way we expected, we either return it or learn to use it the way is does in fact work.

If RCI has a high value week, do we expect them to give it to the first person who requests it, or wait for someone with something similar to exchange? What happens if it isn't requested by someone with a similar request? What happens when I deposit a different high-value week that has a pending request, but I want to use my week to exchange for flights?

RCI can rent my week out for cash, the week they have sits in the spacebank and might not be used, and the person that wants my week goes without.

Or RCI can give my week to the pending request, and in exchange take the weeks that's already there out and rent it to recover the cost of my tickets.

In which case does RCI satisfy more customers?

 

[Carolinian]

You forget that RCI now seems to stand for ''Rental Condominiums International''. To feed their rental inventory with contrived ''excess'', the last thing they want is a system with supply and demand in sync, as that produces no ''excess'' to rent out. There is a method to the madness in their numbers.

Mel already responded to this. If RCI gives too many points to the owners of some resorts and not enough to others, supply and demand will fall completely out of whack. If RCI wants to make money, they will have to readjust the numbers. (That is how supply and demand works.)

[As an aside here, Carolinian has always been putting forth claims that would entail that RCI is subsudizing developers at the cost of their own profits -- odd behavior that is at odds with the interest of the stockholders.]

Finally, you, of all people, should be happy if the numbers were out of kilter. That would mean that no one at these resorts would join Points. At the same time, since they are now Points resorts, no one would be able to do a cross over trade into the resort. Your real fear should be that RCI would give these resorts point values that would entice people to join.


I guess we have hit a fundamental bottom line difference between you and myself here. I don't think I should decide for others that something is a bad deal and go out of my way to try to protect them. I think consummers should be able to decide for themselves what is a good buy and what is not. The more choices that they offered, the better.

 

[Carolinian]

Arms length transactions among the independent exchange companies is a far different thing that the incest in the one way crossover exchanges between RCI Points and RCI Weeks. The fact that the latter is NOT a two way street is the reason resorts should be able to put their foot down and refuse to participate.

If you think RCI's incestuous dealings in swapping inventory between Weeks and Points, go read RCI employee Anon's posts on the subject at Timeshare Talk. I think that will open your eyes. Even going back to the early days of RCI Points, in Sing Li's front page article on the then soon to be rolled out RCI Global Points Network in Timesharing Today, Li warned that unfair swapping between the systems or ''magic balancing'' as he termed it, would be one of the problems with RCI's points system. He was right.

Thinking one individual can solve the problem by just leaving RCI is burying one's head in the sand. RCI's machinations change the dynamics of resort economics that they should be of concern to all timesharers, even to own-to-use folks (who are a solid majority of owners at many resorts). When they start kicking the financial props out from under the ownership/exchange model of timesharing, as they are, it is a threat to our resorts. Now, if you really want to be proactive, get involved to see that your resort 1) dual affiliates with RCI and II, and 2) educates its members about using the independent exchange companies. Only by growing the competition in exchanging for all of our resort owners, can be defend our resorts from the impact of RCI's machinations.

Polluting the timeshare exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services is what gives RCI cover for their rental empire. The solution is to get rid of this fluff. Putting things like this into the mix only degrade the main purpose of the system - exchanging one timeshare for another. The first time I read about GPN, Points Partners was one of the big objections I had to the program.

So, weeks resorts should be able to tell owners where they can and cannot deposit their weeks? RCI has Points for Deposit, Fairfield has PIC, and other resort groups have similar programs for owners of weeks outside their systems. If you start telling them their deposit to RCI Points or any other exchange program won't be honored, you then must also allow the resort to deny access to exchanges through SFX, DAE and any other smaller exchange company.

Further, given the way some of the smaller exchange companies work, they trade weeks from within their own systems with other excahnge companies. You also seem to want to stop that - because that is what RCI is doing between Weeks and Points. Unless someone can show proof that the exchanges between the two systems are not equitable, they are not doing anything different than the other smaller exchange companies.

The simplest remedy is for unhappy members to leave RCI. If you don't like the way RCI values their week, don't give it to RCI. Use it yourself, rent it out, or trade it directly with someone else. Since when should the rest of us take the responsibility for those who made a poor purchase decision? Personal responsibility means when we purchase something that doesn't work the way we expected, we either return it or learn to use it the way is does in fact work.

If RCI has a high value week, do we expect them to give it to the first person who requests it, or wait for someone with something similar to exchange? What happens if it isn't requested by someone with a similar request? What happens when I deposit a different high-value week that has a pending request, but I want to use my week to exchange for flights?

RCI can rent my week out for cash, the week they have sits in the spacebank and might not be used, and the person that wants my week goes without.

Or RCI can give my week to the pending request, and in exchange take the weeks that's already there out and rent it to recover the cost of my tickets.

In which case does RCI satisfy more customers?

 

[AwayWeGo]

Are We Having Fun Yet ?

This afternoon, while foolishly oofing & heaving some heavy wooden debris over at my brother's place, dragging it from the back yard down to the street in time for trash pick-up tomorrow -- Large Item Pick-Up Is The Last Wednesday Of The Month -- I got to wondering:

Who do you spoze has more fun -- those thoughtful & deep thinking folks who are so groused off at RCI that they've gone to court in a class action case on the 1 hand, or on the other hand the more simple-minded, happy-go-lucky & carefree types who just deposit their weeks, make their reservations, show up, check in, & have a good time, oblivious to all the fuss & hubbub?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Carolinian]

This afternoon, while foolishly oofing & heaving some heavy wooden debris over at my brother's place, dragging it from the back yard down to the street in time for trash pick-up tomorrow -- Large Item Pick-Up Is The Last Wednesday Of The Month -- I got to wondering:

Who do you spoze has more fun -- those thoughtful & deep thinking folks who are so groused off at RCI that they've gone to court in a class action case on the 1 hand, or on the other hand the more simple-minded, happy-go-lucky & carefree types who just deposit their weeks, make their reservations, show up, check in, & have a good time, oblivious to all the fuss & hubbub?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

How about the ones who have already bailed out due to RCI's machinations to the exchange system, or those who are contemplating being in the next wave of bailouts?

 

[BocaBum99]

Timesharing is the best thing ever created for vacationing. That's true whether or not RCI even exists. I could easily timeshare away without them. So can anyone else. If you don't like them, do something else.
I still don't think that this Class Action suit is going anywhere.

I feel badly for weeks owners who turn a blind eye to points systems. They have no idea what they are missing.

 

[Aldo]

OK, OK.

RCI Points exists.

Some of you prefer that to RCI Weeks.

I follow you that far.

So, what's any of that got to do with RCI renting out weeks deposited into the Spacebank?

 

[CMF]

No lightweights.

I checked out the firms behind the suit. There are some heavy hitters there. It takes a ton of cash to bring a suit like this and the outlay comes out of the lawyers pocket. Yes, there will be a big payoff if there's a win. But there is also the possibility of big losses if it goes the other way. This leads me to think that the odds are much better that 50-50 that something will come of this, and that RCI week members will benefit.

There's much lawyer razzing coming from the side of those that think the suit is merit less. And, some have said that RCI members will ultimately pay the price. I don't think there will be much of a price impact since RCI needs to stay competitive with II. So what is the downside of the suit? If plaintiffs win all RCI members win. If they loose then the system stays the same. So what's the problem?

Charles

PS - I request that folks refrain from thrashing a profession as a whole. It's insulting.

 

[Carolinian]

OK, OK.

RCI Points exists.

Some of you prefer that to RCI Weeks.

I follow you that far.

So, what's any of that got to do with RCI renting out weeks deposited into the Spacebank?

Unfortuately a thread about the rentals on these boards always seems to go it that direction. The defense of RCI's suppporters for RCI's inexcusable rental policies seems to be ''points is great, weeks stinks, so who cares''. They do not want to address the principle issue here, which is the rentals themselves, and the lawsuit to put a stop to them. Many of RCI's defenders are strong Points advocates, so they apparently realize that if rentals are blown out of the water, points is seriously wounded since the two programs are joined at the hip.

I would hope that this thread would stay on topic - RENTALS - but from past experience, I doubt it.

 

[Dean]

OK, OK.

RCI Points exists.

Some of you prefer that to RCI Weeks.

I follow you that far.

So, what's any of that got to do with RCI renting out weeks deposited into the Spacebank?

It comes up because one of the legitimate methods RCI gets weeks to rent is through the points system but mostly because one person brings it up every time blaming points for many of the weeks side woes. That's OK, it is an integral part of the discussion as long as the two are linked.

 

[Carolinian]

We got through an entire page on this thread without getting into the Points vs. Weeks thing, and then on the second page one of the regular Points advocates brought it up (I hope this passes muster by not mentioning his name).

Further, it is NOT legitimate when RCI rents WEEKS inventory to pay for Points Partner reservations. Someone posted some material out of one of the RCI corporate filings where they stated that points they got for such things they spent like any member could spend points. Of course they get the best bang for the buck by raiding Weeks inventory with the unfair generic crossover grids they created, so it is a no brainer that RCI itself is certainly raiding Weeks with its own cache of points from the points partner reservations.

It comes up because one of the legitimate methods RCI gets weeks to rent is through the points system but mostly because one person brings it up every time blaming points for many of the weeks side woes. That's OK, it is an integral part of the discussion as long as the two are linked.