VC told me with high confidence that Cancel/Rebook will be eliminated in April..

[Roger830]

Wyndham does monitor these boards, don't kid yourself. How do you think they figure out how we are all gaming the system. LOL.

They probably didn't care if members were gaming the system for cancel/rebook and upgrades for their own use. It seems that their main concern is the salvaging of points with multiple use years or selling contracts stripped of points. It simply went to an extreme with multiple members renting units at very low prices, thus hurting contract sales and Wyndham rental business.

My first stay in a Wyndham resort was a January 2-bed week in Pompano purchased on ebay for $649. I had subsequent rentals from the same seller and the guest certificates all had different owner names booked at a 50% discount in points. I bought a fixed week in Pompano and some points because I knew that couldn't last.

 

[wjappraise]

Gaming the system, yes. But shouldn't the onus be on Wyndham to close the loophole (which it sounds like they are finally attempting to do)? Also, for how many years did salesmen coach victims errrr buyers into gaming the system?

EVERY trick I have used is one I have learned, not from TUG, but from sales people. From booking a single bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit and waiting for the 60 day window to not just cancel/rebook, but to cancel/rebook/upgrade, to purchasing alternate use year contracts to push points forward, to phoning in to have a VC do the cancel/rebook has been showed to me by a sales person. So, I am not sure that "gaming the system" is the most accurate moniker. Perhaps, "using the sales-taught tricks." I know it does not roll of the tongue well, but you get my point.

 

[CO skier]

Gaming the system, yes. But shouldn't the onus be on Wyndham to close the loophole (which it sounds like they are finally attempting to do)? Also, for how many years did salesmen coach victims errrr buyers into gaming the system?

It was exactly the same thing with the loophole in WorldMark, but the loophole was closed.


Everyone knows the cliché about timeshare salespeople and their moving lips. Yet when they tell us something we want to hear, they are held to some standard of truthfulness and accountability.

The attorneys in the Sirmon case tried (literally, as in court case) the "But the salesman sold me …" argument. The court was not impressed (extract below) as it relates to breach of contract. Decades of experience and litigation have made for some ironclad merger clauses.


"When the parole evidence rule applies, oral representations must be excluded when considering a claim for breach of contract.

Here, the parties not only reduced their agreements to writing, they also explicitly agreed that the writings would be the complete agreement and that oral representations would not have any contractual effect. The following provision is exemplary of the type of merger clauses included throughout the contract documents:

This agreement supersedes any and all understandings and agreements between You and Us, and You and We mutually agree that this Agreement represents the entire Agreement between You and Us, and any representation or inducement which is not set forth in this Agreement shall be of no force and/or effect. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by an instrument in writing between the parties.

(Doc. 132-7 at 50 ¶ 17.)

This and other similar provisions clearly provide that oral representations will not be honored. These merger clauses trigger application of the parole evidence rule to preclude oral representations from being considered in a claim for breach of contract. See Envtl. Sys., Inc. v. Rexham Corp., 624 So. 2d 1379 (Ala. 1993) (noting that while merger clauses may not be exercised to exclude evidence relating to a fraud claim, they may be used to invoke the parole evidence rule for contract claims). Thus, the Court will be restricted to the written agreements when evaluating Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.


Because the oral representations are excluded by the parole evidence rule, Plaintiffs must identify a written contract term that has been violated."

 

[wjappraise]

Everyone knows the cliché about timeshare salespeople and their moving lips. Yet when they tell us something we want to hear, they are held to some standard of truthfulness and accountability.
Because the oral representations are excluded by the parole evidence rule, Plaintiffs must identify a written contract term that has been violated."

Good points. And, as always, Wyndham is free to do what they want with their product. That does not change the fact that Wyndham sales is not operating in a void, and certainly management is aware of the promises/tactics used and has given at least tacit approval of such. I believe the term is "institutional control."

 

[raygo123]

I noticed your new tone here, kinda sounds like a wannabe sales weasel.

Eeewwww!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Why not, your mother wears army Boots

 

[Sandy VDH]

I call it gaming, why, because to me it is all a game we are playing. Some of use just play better, some of us take advantage of rules or a combination of rules, but it is a game with a cost and a reward. TUGgers as a whole like their rewards with less cost involved. Who cares what moniker "I" use, it is just IMHO anyway.

 

[Sandy VDH]

EVERY trick I have used is one I have learned, not from TUG, but from sales people.

since I don't go to sales presentations I guess I get my tricks second hand.

 

[ecwinch]

not true, Ive met the person assigned the task of monitoring the Worldmark forums, Im not sure if any one person at Club Wyndham is assigned to follow the forums but and several folks at Wyndham from VCs to vice presidents have commented to me on my posts here. I have used TUG to communicate with Wyndham for the 6 years ive owned Wyndham

Ditto. I've attended a WM BoD meeting and had my Facebook posts acknowledged by the same.

 

[lcml11]

At the last annual meeting Geoff Richards promised that Voyager would be up and running by the next meeting... So April makes sense. At that last meeting I asked Geoff about a wait list... his answer was not this year. I wonder if the suspensions mess is speeding up their plan.

Heres what I learned in my interviews with Wyndham (around my suspension)
1) they are serious about enforcing the "Commercial" use prohibition
2) they are serious about enforcing the "no unfair advantage" rule
3) they know that cancel/rebook/upgrade gives an unfair advantage to the owners that do it
4) they know that Commercial renters, (or megarenters if you prefer) use the cancel/rebook /upgrade to capture discounts and they know that the discounts are necessary to make a reasonable profit


So whether its this year or next or a wait list or something else Im confident that Wyndham will make some changes to reduce rental activity. I think introducing a wait list is genius. Instead of introducing new rules, they introduce a new benefit. You can still cancel a reservation, and you can still book available inventory at a discount, But if you cancel something decent there is no doubt the wait list will pick it up

Is the suspension situations working themselves out?

 

[wjappraise]

Is the suspension situations working themselves out?

Nope. Still waiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lcml11]

Nope. Still waiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks

 

[ronparise]

I have an agreement and I can say "the parties have satisfactorly resolved their differences" but the execution of that resolution is not yet complete

 

[lcml11]

I have an agreement and I can say "the parties have satisfactorly resolved their differences" but the execution of that resolution is not yet complete

Thanks for the update

 

[ilya]

Today a VC told me that with the rollout of Voyager for which she is receiving training in March for a planned April rollout, that the Cancel Rebook will be eliminated via a waiting list. I've heard many guesses from VC's over the years, but she sounded certain and specific. She stated it as fact, not speculation. Has any one else heard this?

Has anyone had any problems with cancel and rebook either from calling in or cancel and rebook online? Just trying to see if this statement became reality.

 

[tschwa2]

I have heard a month or two delay. The rumor going around is that the oldest eligible platinum reservation would get an automatic upgrade to the cancelled unit. If no eligible platinum than oldest gold. It may not effect the smaller units so much but it would also put those that rebooked with a discount at the back of the line to receive an upgrade into the larger units.

 

[OutSkiing]

EVERY trick I have used is one I have learned, not from TUG, but from sales people. From booking a single bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit and waiting for the 60 day window to not just cancel/rebook, but to cancel/rebook/upgrade, ... to phoning in to have a VC do the cancel/rebook has been showed to me by a sales person. So, I am not sure that "gaming the system" is the most accurate moniker.

I even think a lot of things are planned out to benefit VIP members doing cancel/rebook/upgrade. Notice that after a cancel/rebook your new reservation number is not available yet but lo and behold your upgrade button sure is! And some 'point pricey' resorts seem custom made for this .. how many reservations are really booked and kept at full point value at Shearwater in Kuai? Don't forget (as a salesman once told me) that non VIP members benefit from getting the canceled rooms last minute after a VIP member cancels their double booked rooms. I think the best strategy would be for Wyndham to curtail 'mega renting' through enforcement of existing non-rental clauses in agreements. (I'm assuming such a clause exists based on other threads) If they can do this, everything would be perfectly fine as it is.

Bob

 

[ronparise]

No there's is no non-rental clause. What there is is a "no commercial use" clause and a "no unfair advantage" clause

The problem enforcing these two clauses is that the terms "commercial" and "unfair advantage" are not defined

It is my opinion that Wyndham wants to control renting for two reasons 1) to manage complaints and 2) improve sales. There is nothing worse for a salesman than a prospect that is renting a 300000 point condo for under $1000a week. That's less than mf and he didn't have to pay $50000 to own the points. And then there's the guy that paid $50000 that meets my guest and learns he renting from someone like me at under a thousand a week)

The history of wyndhams anti renter activity has been to create some new rules that they hope will decrease rental activity for all renters and to put certain specific megarenters (the really big guys) out of business. Read the 70 page thread on the suspensions to see what's happening now

But through it all the smaller megarenters are left alone to do what they do

 

[wjappraise]

I even think a lot of things are planned out to benefit VIP members doing cancel/rebook/upgrade. Notice that after a cancel/rebook your new reservation number is not available yet but lo and behold your upgrade button sure is! And some 'point pricey' resorts seem custom made for this .. how many reservations are really booked and kept at full point value at Shearwater in Kuai? Don't forget (as a salesman once told me) that non VIP members benefit from getting the canceled rooms last minute after a VIP member cancels their double booked rooms. I think the best strategy would be for Wyndham to curtail 'mega renting' through enforcement of existing non-rental clauses in agreements. (I'm assuming such a clause exists based on other threads) If they can do this, everything would be perfectly fine as it is.

Bob

That is an interesting take Bob. The only problem is that for a decade or more Wyndham has actively marketed the rental aspect to current owners to get them to buy more. That's what they did with me and I progressively bought more and more until I reached PR VIP. The sales staff sniffed out my real estate background coupled with holding rental properties and applied that to Wyndham points. And for the most part it has worked for me. I mostly provide rooms for my family and friends (large family on both sides). I do offer some units on Redweek or here, but only a handful a year. So, it is a good situation for me and for Wyndham. Or it was until the issues of last years debacle with excess points got my account suspended and totally soured me on the lack of integrity and fairness from Wyndham.

But I digress. My point is that unilaterally ending rentals will usher in a whole new wave of legal problems for wyndham that will make the excess points fiasco look tame in comparison.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[am1]

Not possible for their computer system to upgrade the a plainum owners reservation automatically. For a few reasons but 1 IT could not program it, 2 not everyone would want an upgrade, 3 inside 45 days to check in gold and platinum have the same upgrade rights are just a few reasons why that would not work.

 

[OutSkiing]

My point is that unilaterally ending rentals will usher in a whole new wave of legal problems for wyndham that will make the excess points fiasco look tame in comparison.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree unilaterally ending rentals would be a problem .. there is benefit to both Wyndham and owners in some renting .. could see doing some myself after our big trip to Hawaii next year if we consistently end up with too many points. It may be a matter of quantity.

Maybe some limit to guest certificates .. limiting the number that can be changed after initial reservation is made.

Bob

 

[OutSkiing]

No there's is no non-rental clause. What there is is a "no commercial use" clause and a "no unfair advantage" clause

The problem enforcing these two clauses is that the terms "commercial" and "unfair advantage" are not defined

Read the 70 page thread on the suspensions to see what's happening now

Wyndham is willing to risk reputational and financial damage by being as arrogant as they have been during the suspention fiasco.

It seems like defining 'commertial use' could be done by limiting the number of guest certificates allowed to an arbitrary number.

Bob

 

[comicbookman]

Wyndham is willing to risk reputational and financial damage by being as arrogant as they have been during the suspention fiasco.

It seems like defining 'commertial use' could be done by limiting the number of guest certificates allowed to an arbitrary number.

Bob

It seems to me that the difference between personal rentals (those to just use up left over points) and Commercial rental would be the profit motive. So they could define commercial rental as any rental that nets more than X percent over the cost of the points used. Go with the assumption that all rentals are commercial unless the owner proves otherwise (submitting a some type of form). When requesting a GC, you would need to declare that it is not a rental, or if it is, file the additional form. That way anyone lying would be committing fraud. Problem solved for Wyndham.

 

[vacationhopeful]

Please ... renting is a commercial activity just by the nature that an entity paid someone monies in exchange for staying there. Whether it is once a year or 16 times a month, a thing of value was given up for something else. It is not about being the neighbor down the street or a person off Craigslist ... it is because a thing of value was given up for a consideration.

In an exchange, monies paid is for the use of the exchange system ... not for the week being used. And the agreements the exchange companies HOLD with the resorts' management, allow the exchange companies, for some intervals, to be rented. And the exchange companies would be paying taxes on that income.

If I give a week to my sister or my boyfriend's daughter, I am giving a gift ... which would require a GUEST CERTIFICATE or guest letter. If my neighbor asks me if they can use my week, I would expect some form of consideration (ie mowing and mulching my yard this summer) ... that might pass the resort's 'sniff' test as a non-commercial transaction ... but the IRS would/could claim it was not.

Yes, I know some families are LARGE ... I have 10 first cousins and 4 siblings. And at my age, my siblings have children out of college and are married ... forming their family units. I fear any day now, I will be a GREAT AUNT and am STILL not collecting Social Security ... but still working full time .

 

[ronparise]

It seems to me that the difference between personal rentals (those to just use up left over points) and Commercial rental would be the profit motive. So they could define commercial rental as any rental that nets more than X percent over the cost of the points used. Go with the assumption that all rentals are commercial unless the owner proves otherwise (submitting a some type of form). When requesting a GC, you would need to declare that it is not a rental, or if it is, file the additional form. That way anyone lying would be committing fraud. Problem solved for Wyndham.

when I started renting "commercially" I figured out real quick, that this was not a get rich quick scheme.. There arent enough special events weeks or weekends where you can really make a killing (2 or 3 x mf) and there is extreme competition for them. so the number any one owner can get is limited. And then wyndham introduced the 10 nightly limit rule to limit things even more. do the math, 10 mardi gras reservations, even if I can rent them for tripple my mf, still nets only about $1000 profit.. and $10000 dosent make all the work, worthwhile.

So to make a go of this commercial rental thing you have to make a ton of reservations at pretty slim margins. I had one mega renter advise me that her target was $200 per reservation

My point is that as long as Im allowed to make something over my cost, (as you put it "any rental that nets more than X percent over the cost of the points used") Ill be happy


Remember too, that the biggest mega renters dont own everything that they rent. They work for a lot of small owners that are just trying to get their fees paid... and Wyndham isnt messing with them. neither are they messing with the points managers

 

[comicbookman]

when I started renting "commercially" I figured out real quick, that this was not a get rich quick scheme.. There arent enough special events weeks or weekends where you can really make a killing (2 or 3 x mf) and there is extreme competition for them. so the number any one owner can get is limited. And then wyndham introduced the 10 nightly limit rule to limit things even more. do the math, 10 mardi gras reservations, even if I can rent them for tripple my mf, still nets only about $1000 profit.. and $10000 dosent make all the work, worthwhile.

So to make a go of this commercial rental thing you have to make a ton of reservations at pretty slim margins. I had one mega renter advise me that her target was $200 per reservation

My point is that as long as Im allowed to make something over my cost, (as you put it "any rental that nets more than X percent over the cost of the points used") Ill be happy


Remember too, that the biggest mega renters dont own everything that they rent. They work for a lot of small owners that are just trying to get their fees paid... and Wyndham isnt messing with them. neither are they messing with the points managers

I don't disagree with anything you said. I was just trying to define commercial. That is why I picked "X" instead of an actual number. I leave it up to experts to determine the most useful value for X. It could be as low as 1% or even 0.