posted 08-14-2002 13:41            

Look, you make a deal with RCI. You give them your week in exchange for the right to request something from their inventory. The agreement very clearly says that they can do anything they want with it. I just don't understand why you have such a problem with that. Seems like if the system worked the way you're arguing for the ones getting screwed would be those who own at good resorts. In your world, RCI would have to accept deposits at crummy resorts and if they can't exchange them because no one wants them, tough. Doesn't that seem unfair?

Look, running an exchange company is an incredibly complex business. It's not a democracy. Personally, I have few complaints with the way RCI is treating me. I want them to make money by renting out weeks at all those crappy resorts, because if they can do that instead of getting stuck with them, then they'll have an incentive to keep costs down. And you know what? If RCI ever fails to satisfy me as a customer, I can use my other options. I can USE my weeks. I can rent them out. I can exchange directly with other owners. I can go to other exchange companies.

But I reject the basic principle that if RCI rents weeks, they're screwing owners. That's nonsense.

posted 08-14-2002 13:44            

It's one thing to attempt to interpret the circumstances under which a landlord may enter your apartment in an "emergency" and quite another to interpret the plain and unambiguous language of the terms of RCI's stated policy. By it's very nature, the leasehold agreement that you speak of leaves as undefined the meaning of an "emergency". This is like comparing apples and oranges. Forget about getting to the discovery stage of any lawsuit, the trick is going to be to survive a summary judgment motion dismissing any such lawsuit as being baseless and without merit given the plainly stated terms of the agreement. As you may already know, Courts are loathe to undermine contracts that on their face appear to be unambiguous. If they did, who would bother to enter into them in the first place? The fact that you or I may have cut ourselves a bad deal is not a good reason to rescind a contract or change it's terms.

I agree with you however about one thing...ultimately, if RCI pisses off enough people, they will not be able to compete in the market. That's on them. Let the market decide. The problem however is that I believe that despite their warts and glitches, for the money, most people are probably satisfied enough with RCI right now that RCI is far from being in danger of losing most of their customer base. This is not to say that this will always be true, but right now..I would say that it is. South African weeks are one of the best examples of why RCI will likely continue to be a major player in the game. Where else can you get the type of vacations that some of our grass huts have provided Let's face it, we may not love this part about RCI, but many others are loving a whole lot else about RCI!!!

By the way, are you under the impression that RCI is the only exchange company to give the mis-impression that red equals red? I believe that there are many players on each and every side of the industry that contribute to this little untruth.

posted 08-14-2002 14:16         

Trevor - your paranoia is showing, I wish I WAS a paid staff member of RCI.

JP and Trevor - I call 'em as I see 'em. Follow RCI's Terms and Conditions or cancel. Belonging to an exchange company is NOT mandatory to owning a timeshare, it's a service that you can CHOOSE to join or not. We are not victims. We chose, by our own free will, to join on THEIR terms.

posted 08-14-2002 14:29         

GIN-GIN...A few months back, I tried to cancel 6 years worth of RCI membership and to get my money back, as they supposedly guarantee. I made 4 phone calls to VCs over a month or so, they all *said* they were submitting my request to accounting, but I never got my dues payments credited, either into my RCI online account or back on to a credit card. You can imagine by the fourth call I was pretty irate and trying to be tactful, but my voice told the gal I was pretty p.o.'ed that I had to spend so much time on the phone, on hold, repeat phone calls, etc. Still, I never got the cancellation with money back, and I gave up trying. Moral of story: They lie.

posted 08-14-2002 15:13            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol C:
ED...Just because you don't travel in October and don't place much value on Oct 2002 weeks in Orlando, it isn't the same for everyone else. I only like to go to Orlando in October because I've gone to Halloween Horror Nights at Universal for 3 out of the last 4 years. RCI has charged RCI members a lot for vacation escapes lately, and at the same time I don't want to give up an exchange spacebanked week with what I pay in maint fees (only last month did I buy an SA week with cheap maint fee.) So...the $234 or $249 AFVC rate is *very* attractive to me, but I am not allowed to have it, even though I pay annual dues to RCI. RCI simply has never served me with my trips to Orlando in October.

---

Did you actually look before writing this, Carol?

From RCI Bonus Vacations:

1613 Bryan's Spanish Cove
Orlando,FL USA
Two Bedroom 06/06 Full 10/05/2002 Saturday $299.99 Bonus Vacations
Not available at all on AFVC, and a pretty nice place, I hear.

1750 Club Orlando Vacation Resort
Orlando,FL USA
One Bedroom 04/04 Full 10/06/2002 Sunday $229.99 Bonus Vacations
(That's $20 less than through AFVC.)

The selection is not the same, but there are low-cost trips to Orlando available. In some cases, AFVC is cheaper, in other cases RCI is cheaper. But you're certainly not locked out.

posted 08-14-2002 15:14            

Someone suggested a class action lawsuit. For individuals, that is difficult because RCI also buries language in that agreement that requires any lawsuit be brought on their turf in Indiana and requires that if you sue and lose, you have to pay RCI's legal fees.

Of course, there is a way to get around the legal fee part. Form a corporate shell which then buys a cheap blue week. Have that corporation be the plaintiff. If you lose, the only one RCI can go against for its legal fees is a shell corporation with
its only asset a blue timeshare week. Let the RCI their legal fees!!!!!!!!!

Someone asked what grounds RCI can be sued on. I guess civil fraud might be the most obvious. A better grounds might be statutes like North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The key to such acts is their provisions for enforcement by the state Attorney General, usually through its Consumer Protection Division. I suspect a state AG suing under such a statute could keep the case in his own courts rather than Indiana.

State AG's are notorious publicity hounds because most of them have ambitions for higher office (Bill Clinton was once state AG in Arkansas, for example), so this type of case should be right up their street. Defending local citizen timeshare owners against a big, bad out-of-state corporation would make great press. To get their attention, one needs either to have the right political connections to talk to the right people in the AG's office (unfortunately, I am of the wrong political party for that in my state) or have a large enough number of timeshare owners write the Consumer Protection Division making complaints.

As to the contract provision cited letting RCI do as it wishes,
there is a legal argument that this can be struck down as a contract of adhesion, at least in resorts that are not dual-affiliated.

For those who keep demanding reams of evidence to even think the great and wonderful RCI might be doing even the slightest thing wrong, a lawsuit through its depositions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories should certainly supply more than enough evidence.

posted 08-14-2002 15:25            

I respect your opinion about the lease comparison but please look at the facts. There are 10 major categories in the rules of membership. The one we are looking at is called "DEPOSITING VACATION OWNERSHIP AND REQUESTING AN EXCHANGE". Under that there are 10 sub points highlighting items such as you must be a member of RCI in good standing, you must have paid your m/fs to the resort, RCI will not guarantee exchanges, there is a fee for exchanges, exchanges are only valid if done by RCI and the guest policy for exchanges. It is clearly all about exchanges.

The issue in dispute is point C):By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

Now my understanding of this is that without the first part of this condition, I could arrive at my requested resort and find teh original owner staying there saying he had changed his mind. Because of course, he owns that week, he has a deed. So RCI include a reasonable condition that if you are wanting to exchange, you must accept all of the nine subpoints plus this condition.

My reading is that they have added a caveat which says they may use the week for various and sundry items such as at the discretion of RCI. If the intention was to have the purpose be for the ability to use your week for any rental program RCI which to use it for then this wording that exists, which you say is plain and unambiguous would state that, would it not. I do not believe that it is proper contract procedure to include the fact that here RCI are referring throughout to the process of exchanging and then the language is made ambigous enough to be dealing with something quite different from exchanging. In order for this to be plain and unambigous, it should have held its own sub point, not under exchanging, but under item 10 which is GENERAL. Here, RCI could have states, in clear and plain language - RCI reserves the right to use this week for the purpose of renting it out at the discretion of RCI. For even further clarification, it is understood that RCI reserves the right to not offer this unit at any time under the above conditions to any of the RCI Weeks owners.

posted 08-14-2002 15:34         

That's what lawyers are for, to uncover the FACTS. Anyone can file a lawsuit, so go ahead.

posted 08-14-2002 16:30            

One person can make a difference on his/her own, but a large group/mob usually gets more attention much faster. I don't see an out-of-state AG taking on this issue for just one person, but I do think he/she might go after the publicity (and maybe because they even think it's a just cause) if they thought it represented many thousands of their constituents.

The Customer Service and Entertainment industries are well aware that one letter of complaint does not represent the views of just one person, but rather an exponential amount. It’s a statistical fact that when we are unhappy we tell 9 people about our experience but when we are happy we only tell 3.

Think about this: how did TUG come up with some of it's core values like never pay an upfront fee and never pay for an appraisal? Didn't these ideas start because someone who was frustrated with the level of service (or lack thereof), or tired of the misinformation or annoyed that their contract was fraught with fraud, voiced their concerns here and elsewhere? Wasn’t one of the reasons TUG was created to level the playing field and make sure the truth was told to take the "shame" out of being a timeshare owner?

I happened to join RCI because it came with my first TS purchase (and they waived the $200 processing fee to join ). I stay with RCI (vs. the Independents) for the moment despite my frustration because 6 out of 7 of my weeks are only affiliated with RCI and because I'm too lazy to go and learn another exchange system, particularly one that seems to have it's own set of similar problems.

If I were an attorney, I can guarantee you I would follow the advice about forming that corporation and then having the corporation file suit against RCI -- once I'd confirmed that it was sound advice -- that RCI couldn't come after any of my other assets if I lost the case. Sometimes companies get to big for their britches and forget who it was that grew them and what their stated purpose/mission is/was.

RCI started out trying to help people get more bang and variety for their buck by letting people swap their timeshare weeks. Somewhere along the way, they seem to have forgotten that they exist to serve us and not the other way around.

The nice part was that you didn't have to swap true 'like for like'. I mean there's all that stated criteria about like size and season/color. However, lots of people seem to be able to trade blue weeks for red and studios for 2 or even 3 bedrooms. Buying a GC unit was supposed to have it's advantages as only other GC owners could exchange into them, but we all know that's just hogwash, right?

Exchanging doesn’t even consider other inequitable things like Maintenance Fees. I can understand why people think it's a real coup when they can change their week with the $100 maintenance fee into a resort with an $800 maintenance fee. Can you imagine if RCI started only allowing you to exchange into resorts within a certain $ amount of your maintenance fees? Those with the cheapest/lowest maintenance fees would be SOL on trying to get those Royals and Marriott’s with the SA weeks.

So yes, I do get annoyed when a blue week can get a red week but another red week can’t get the same red week. I understand that some red is barely pink and other red is flaming, but from what I've learned in the past, blue and white are never shades of red! And yes, I also get extremely annoyed when I can't get an exchange because of supposedly lack of trade value and then RCI has the nerve to call unclaimed weeks surplus inventory and rents it out to non members. IMHO it's only surplus when no member wants it. It's not surplus just because you tell me I don't have the exchange power to pull it. I could even live with this if I had the ability to somehow effect change to increase the tradeability of my spacebank week(s), but I can't because RCI won't reveal their secrets. It's just not a fair game when only one side knows the rules and the objectives.

posted 08-14-2002 16:49         

As I've reiterated time and time again, RCI is an exchange SERVICE, they are not a mandatory service like electricity (mandatory if you want lights in your home).

RCI is a timeshare exchange service provider. As with any service provider (telephone, internet, long distance, insurance, television cable, etc.) if you are dissatisfied with that service then you have the option to cancel and find a more suitable service. Go with II (if your resort is dual affiliated), use independent exchange companies, direct exchanges with other Tug members or you can use your unit yourself.

That is my point. Do NOT stay with ANY service you are dissatisfied with.

Being members of Tug means that we can discuss and debate and even disagree on hot issues openly. We can discuss things we are peeved about and things we are pleased about. The good and the bad.

If you don't like it, please discontinue your participation in this thread instead of telling those that don't agree with you to be quiet. Haven't you already said a few posts ago that it would be your last? Keep your word and rise above us.

posted 08-14-2002 17:14         

I have as much right to express my opinion as you do per Tug rules and regulations.

If you have a problem with this, take it to the administrators.

EDIT: I have told no one to be quiet, perhaps you need new reading glasses.

posted 08-14-2002 17:20         

Also, what does happy have to do with these discussions? All I did was suggest hiring an attorney and starting a lawsuit. What's wrong with that? I have read the same posts time and time again against RCI, nothing ever changes. Just the same ole rhetoric, but nothing is ever done. Maybe it's time someone did something.

BTW, if you want happy discussions, go to the Disney boards where you would evidently be in a more comfortable and less controversial atmosphere. There are heated discussions on Tug everyday, several in this thread alone. Get a life!

posted 08-14-2002 17:54            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BDK:

If I were an attorney, I can guarantee you I would follow the advice about forming that corporation and then having the corporation file suit against RCI -- once I'd confirmed that it was sound advice -- that RCI couldn't come after any of my other assets if I lost the case. Sometimes companies get to big for their britches and forget who it was that grew them and what their stated purpose/mission is/was.

---

It's not sound advice. I was hoping that Carolinian was attempting to add some humor to these discussions by his comments. There is a doctrine of law called "Piercing the Corporate Veil" which does not allow for such a setup of a dummy corporation to avoid future liability. In fact, this doctrine allows a claimant to so-called "pierce the corporate veil" of a dummy corporation to reach the directors of what would be determined to be the legitimate corporation. That could be you. It's been years since I studied corporate law and this doctrine, so I can only go by what I remember. Let's just say however that I remember enough to know that the advice of legal counsel is highly recommended before even thinking about doing something like this!!!

I would think that if anyone really wanted to pursue this issue that the Attorney General's and/or United States Attorney's Office is the way to go.

posted 08-14-2002 18:22            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GinGin:Several people agree with me if you've bothered to read this entire thread.

---

GinGin. Just wondering whom your comment was directed at. I have read this entire thread. I would never comment on a volatile topic without doing so first. So, if it was directed at me, because it's posted right under my last comment, then I think you've taken personal offense where none was intended.

Please know that my last sentence wasn't directed at you at all, but rather was intended as an aside/reflection of me and my personality as I, too, often tend to stand alone in my opinions. If it was aimed at anyone, it was in subtle defense of Carolinian. It appears to me that many of the regular posters seem to respond in vehement opposition to anything he posts/says. I just don't have a problem with what he writes and sometimes am flabbergasted at the responses he gets because the attacks seems too personal. I really don't have any beefs against anyone who posts here, except one and I haven't seen him comment bitingly about anyone or anything lately (knock on wood).

posted 08-14-2002 18:37         

I also think Carolinian has a right to his opinion, as do we all, and I have stated that on Tug, but I guess I just get tired of reading all the negative remarks about RCI all the time. Why aren't these people contacting RCI at their complaint department?

Also, maybe I feel if these same people feel they've been wronged by RCI not honoring their Terms and Conditions, they should start a lawsuit.

That is the ONLY thing that will resolve these issues with RCI, one way or another.

posted 08-14-2002 18:56            

For the most part I have been satisfied with RCI, but since I've only traded twice, I don't have much history to base my decision on. Additionally, I haven't actually BEEN to the places I traded to as they are both still in the future. I also feel that my satisfaction had mostly to do with my lack of knowledge. Knowledge is power, they say. And since becoming a member of TUG, I have become much more knowledgable.

I too have seen the vacation rentals increase this summer, and I have been astounded at the prices. I'm trying to understand what this all means to me as member of RCI and how the impact of vacation rentals, points, etc. will have on RCI in the future, and if it will have an impact on my ability to trade. Quite frankly, I joined RCI for trading purposes only. I see the Vacation Escapes as a bonus, so to speak, and although it lessened the value of my membership, the main purpose of trading has not yet been impacted (for me anyway). Still there's my lack of knowledge, so I won't argue with anybody that says I'm wrong.

I do have one suggestion though. Why not write to Dateline or 20/20 and suggest they do an investigation into RCI. If enough people sent them an email, they just might decide it would be worth an invesitigative story, and maybe more of the truth would come out.

posted 08-14-2002 19:31            

Perhaps RCI ( & II ) should put an identifying mark to those weeks in the spacebank that did not come from members? Like a big D ( for developer ) where the unit # goes and Developer for on-line. Somewhat like they do for rentals.

------------------
Marina
Mexico Reviews

posted 08-14-2002 19:52            

Why does Carolinian keep advocating others sue RCI or report them to their state's A.G.?

posted 08-14-2002 20:01            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EdB:
It would make sense that there would be more rentals of non-spacebanked weeks during the summer, because that's when the maximum revenue opportunity is.

---

Ed,

My question was not whether the rentals appearing during summer months was a good business decision. From a business perspective, yes, it would be more equitable to rent out weeks at high prices during those months rather than off season.

My question was is the statement RCI made about using excess inventory to feed their rental programs true. I say NO! There are too many t/s owners competing for that inventory during the summer months.

Maybe your response was just a point of information?

Rita