Here's a post dated November 15, 2025 in the Official UVC FB group asking essentially the same question about the Playa properties that I did in July 2025. This complaint got approved and a response from the moderators. There have been other posts from members asking this question, and if the moderators approve and respond, the question is just dismissed with the same cut and paste response they've used for months. The response is, "We're working on it, and in the meantime, you don't have anything less today than what you had yesterday."
It's a response, but it's not an answer.
1. The original post asked: Why is UVC denying members something they are contractually obligated to give them? The response avoids addressing that question at all.
2. It doesn't promise that UVC members will ever get access to the former Playa properties. The moderators' phrasing that they're not available "at this time" suggests they're coming, but the moderators don't say that, and I suspect there's a reason for not saying that.
There are eight Ziva and Zilara properties that Hyatt announced are included in the Inclusive Collection in May 2022. Today, almost four years later, UVC members still don't have access to those. When a UVC member asks, in the Official UVC FB group, about the status of those eight original Zivas and Zilaras, they get stonewalling similar to what UVC gives members on the rebranded Playa properties. Here's an example of a Ziva/Zilara question posted in the Official UVC FB group in June 2025. The moderators give another response that's not an answer.
The fact that UVC is working to give us the rebranded Playa properties isn't cause for hopefulness when you consider what they've done (or haven't done) for members with the Zivas and Zilaras.
3. It does tell us that our "benefits remain unchanged at participating resorts." The original post didn't ask if members still have the same benefits. It asked why we don't have access to the Playa properties. That's the what the original poster wants to know. That's the question the moderators won't answer.
4. It gives us no explanation for why these properties aren't already in the UVC portfolio, what the issues are that are keeping them out of the UVC portfolio or what UVC's schedule is for getting them into the UVC portfolio if that's truly their objective. Those would be answers that are useful to members and that address the member's question. In general, members don't get useful answers in the Official UVC FB group. Essentially, UVC is telling members with the non-answer they give is: "We don't care what the contract says. We're going to do what we're going to do, and members are just going to have to live with that."
5. It completely ignores the original complaint which is UVC's refusal to honor its contractual obligation to give members club privileges at "all AMResorts brands." Our contracts don't say UVC members get access to AMResorts branded properties when it's convenient for UVC to give that to us, or when Hyatt gets its ducks in a row, or whenever they get around to it. If a resort is operating under an AMResorts flag, UVC is contractually obligated to give its UVC members access to that resort. Currently, Hyatt's UVC is refusing to honor members' contracted rights at these five former Playa properties and another three Alua properties.
The Official UVC FB group's response is not an answer. It's dismissive of members' legitimate interests, and it's another example of the contempt UVC has for its members.
I was surprised at the other UVC members who commented on the November 15, 2025 post with suggestions that the absence of the AMResorts properties from the UVC inventory was just part of the process. I wonder if those same members think the absence of Ziva and Zilara from the UVC inventory despite four years of suggestions that they're coming is also part of the process. How long does the process take?
Other members urged the original poster to be patient. I wonder how patient UVC would be with me if the shoe was on the other foot. If I missed sending payment for my annual membership when it was due, I don't think Hyatt would show me any patience. I bet I'd be locked out of my account the next day.
If there are legitimate reasons for UVC's denial of access to these properties, UVC hasn't told members what they are. Unless they've seen something they're not sharing with the rest of the membership, those UVC members urging the original poster to be patient are just assuming there will be a positive outcome for UVC members. Other than the dismissive response you read above, there's been no communication between Hyatt and UVC members on the Playa properties (or Alua, Ziva or Zilara for that matter). Until I conclude there are legitimate reasons, I'm not going to give UVC the benefit of any doubt, and I can't make that conclusion if UVC won't give me any insight into what's going on.
If UVC has to violate 150,000 (+/-) member contracts to achieve their management objectives for the rebranded Playa properties, the very least they should be doing for those 150,000 members is giving them a basic explanation of what they have to do, why they have to do it and what the schedule is for completing it. They don't. They just show us contempt.
I added my own comment to this post. My comment was directed more at the UVC members urging patience:
"I have a business relationship with UVC, not a personal one. I bought a contract and paid my money; UVC has obligations to me because of that. Those obligations are spelled out in my contract. There is nothing in my contract that requires my patience to obtain club benefits. UVC has committed, in my contract, to allow me to book reservations at all AMResorts properties. They're not doing that. Why should I, or any member, be patient with a club that's in obvious violation of my contract?
I'd be more willing to extend some grace to UVC if I heard an honest answer to the question (Member 1) asked. But for months, the admins of this group have been providing the same vague and evasive non-answer to everyone who's asked this question. I'm not going to be gracious to a business partner who treats me with contempt."
Apparently, the moderators didn't like my comment. They deleted it. The next time I visited the Official UVC FB group I got a pop-up reminding me of the group rules.
Here are the rules:
So what rule did I violate? The moderators didn't tell me. UVC isn't good at communicating with members. I'm left to guess. There were no bad words and no hate speech. The Disclaimer and Important "rules" aren't rules for group members as much as they're notes on how the moderators will be running the group. That leaves only, "Be Kind and Courteous". Really? UVC thinks they should be able to violate my contract with impunity and simultaneously sit in judgment of how kind I am at expressing my displeasure with that behavior? Sometimes the facts aren't kind, but they're still the facts.
It seems to me the Official UVC group admins are using a convenient interpretation of their own rules to keep members from exposing a reality about UVC's behavior that they're not comfortable defending.
It's a crazy world we live in. I'll bet this is how Arlo Guthrie felt when he was sitting on the Group W bench.