# My renter deposited my week into his [BIL's] II account??



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 21, 2016)

Is this supposed to happen?  I rented my 2BR Surf Club unit to someone privately.  That person can no longer go, so he somehow contacted Marriott and was able to deposit that week (my week) into his brother-in-laws Interval account.  

He had called to tell me that he might not be able to go.  But he called me 17 days prior to checkin, which is now only 9 days away.  He asked if he could deposit that week into his brother-in-laws account and I told him that I didn't think that was even possible.  He said he would get back to me.  Later that night, I received an email from Marriott Vacations saying that my week had been deposited to II.  I checked my II account and do not see the deposit.  I also no longer see the reservation through Marriott.

Huh??


----------



## PrairieGirl (Jul 21, 2016)

Interesting turn of events.  But to me, the biggest question is did you already receive your full rental price for the week?  If you did, this question is fortunately only academic!


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 21, 2016)

PrairieGirl said:


> Interesting turn of events.  But to me, the biggest question is did you already receive your full rental price for the week?  If you did, this question is fortunately only academic!



Oh yes.  I get paid up front when I rent.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 21, 2016)

Even though you got your money, this is a concern, because someone should not be able to deposit another owner's timeshare.  I would call Marriott and have a chat with them.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 21, 2016)

*My renter deposited my week into his II account??*

Unless your rental agreement permits the deposit of the week, I can't see any reason for you to agree to allow it. They paid you for a certain resort at a certain time, and if they can't go then they need to avail themselves of whatever cancellation policy you offered in the rental agreement. Just my $0.02.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## hangloose (Jul 21, 2016)

Very interesting.  At least you got the money for your rental.

However, I have to agree with others. This seems like a very odd situation.  I'm not sure I would like the fact that someone renting a week from me could take my MVC ownership reservation and deposit it into an II account that isn't mine...and not even the renter's either (but a family member).  Shouldn't II confirm the MVC reservation matches the II account name before taking it?


----------



## billymach4 (Jul 21, 2016)

This is nuts! 

Interval does not permit us to rent out exchanges. 

Interval should not permit renters to deposit to deposit a rented week. 

This must be a bug in their system


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 21, 2016)

If you were paid your asking price, why should you care what II does?


----------



## Mr. Vker (Jul 21, 2016)

A little scary. Are we seeing that the confirm number and name (in renter's name) were likely verified by II and that's how a third party got the deposit?


----------



## aka Julie (Jul 22, 2016)

How can someone deposit a week that doesn't show up in their account under My Units?  Doesn't make sense.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 22, 2016)

*My renter deposited my week into his II account??*



Passepartout said:


> If you were paid your asking price, why should you care what II does?





I assume that the rental agreement is for a particular resort at a particular time, and not for an II deposit week. If my assumption is correct, why would you suggest that the renter has the right to deposit it into an II account?


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 22, 2016)

And it even happened within the 60 day window which usually prevents an owner from doing anything with their week so something doesn't add up.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 22, 2016)

First, you've received payment in full and they're not requesting a refund. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it and I probably wouldn't rock the boat.

The only way I could see this happening is if a renter also owned a week at that resort and had that ownership listed on their I.I. account. For instance, let's say I wanted to rent an additional week at Grand Chateau in Vegas, a resort I own but, maybe I need the additional unit for someone traveling with me. I.I. knows I own there because it's listed in my account and I have a valid reservation number even though it's not my week. I would assume there's no filters to tell them which week is owned and which week is rented privately as this situation wouldn't come up very often (I know I hadn't heard of it). I'd assume depositing the unit wouldn't be an issue from the point of I.I. automated system.

Now if you report the instance I'm pretty certain I.I. would investigate and probably negate the transaction, which would likely cause you're renter to be rather ticked off, not to mention to poor guys account which could be suspended. I'd let it go this time.

The only way I'd be ticked is if I found out someone was renting for LESS than the MF's, accumulating weeks and then turning around and renting them for profit. It doesn't sound like this is the situation. It sounds to me as if you're renter didn't take out travel insurance and is attempting to salvage some value from his vacation. 

An unusual situation. A creative solution on the part of the renter. No real harm to you. I'd let it go.


----------



## jme (Jul 22, 2016)

....and maybe you'll get an additional bonus week (2-for-1, whatever) from Interval because of the trade. Might ask them.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 22, 2016)

Passepartout said:


> If you were paid your asking price, why should you care what II does?



Because they should not be able to do that. And so... if they can do it once this time then maybe they can do it again in the future _without _paying a rental fee. 

Also, even if the renter never does anything malicious, the account details may be screwed up in the II system and may take quite a bit of effort to fix now.


----------



## 1st Class (Jul 22, 2016)

Have you thought about contacting Mark, the dedicated II rep for TUG, and asking him to review your situation and share his thoughts?  I agree since you've received payment in full no harm/no foul, but at least you will know where II stands on the issue.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 22, 2016)

VegasBella said:


> Because they should not be able to do that. And so... if they can do it once this time then maybe they can do it again in the future _without _paying a rental fee.
> 
> Also, even if the renter never does anything malicious, the account details may be screwed up in the II system and may take quite a bit of effort to fix now.



This would be one of my concerns as well. I doubt this could have been done without the direct involvement of MVCI as it required being able to exercise 'ownership' related actions for a week the renter did not actually own. 

1. What was the process whereby MVCI agreed to allow the renter to do this?
2. Did MVCI contact the 'actual owner' of the week to verify this was okay with the owner before proceeding? It doesn't sound like it.
3. How did MVCI determine that the renter had in fact paid in full for the reservation they were asking MVCI to help them deposit (with or without the actual owner's consent) and not abetting someone's taking of a reservation that they do not 'own' and that has not been paid for? (At best this could be a violation of the rental agreement and/or II policies. At worst, it would be a form of theft - which is why I am astonished that MVCI would have even entertained this without at least contacting the owner first. There is potential liability for MVCI if they are a party to misappropriating an owner's week/reservation. In MVCI's defense, this assumes the renter was honest with them about the circumstances of the transaction, but simple due diligence in contacting the owner first - which doesn't appear to have happened - would be required.)

I find the entire situation described by the OP to be very disturbing as an owner (who sometimes rents out). 

As a renter, I can empathize with someone not being able to use a reservation they rented from an owner. However, no one should be able to do anything with a week that I own other than what I authorized in the rental agreement. Even if II allows what happened as a legitimate deposit, it should only have been possible if I (as the owner) agreed to the rented reservation being used this way.

This is not to say that I wouldn't have agreed to letting them do this if I were asked in advance to help the renter out, but that the renter (and MVCI) went around the owner (and the only reason the owner knew this had even happened is because the renter was kind enough to let them know what they had done after the fact) is completely unacceptable.

I would have words with II, MVCI, as well as the renter for presuming that this was okay for them to do without the owner's permission first. 

Lesson for me. I will be writing my rental agreements differently in the future.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 22, 2016)

Wow,  people really like to rock the boat and risk  screwing up a good thing. OP didn't tell them not to do it,  just that they didn't think it was possible,  and renter said they would get back to them(implying at least that they would try. ) Voila, it worked. Maybe it will get reversed,  who knows.  But OP got paid and renter got value for the week. 

I've seen this happen many times when people buy resale and can't use the week reserved  by the seller (myself included.) I've never seen opposition in those situations when described on these boards. Why all the angst and hand wringing here?  

How can they steal a reservation in the future unless you hand out your reservation #? All the doom and gloom oh no maybe they will hack my account  and empty my life savings and steal my deed and identity...it worked out and saved a poor renter who would have lost his money. Seems like a good outcome to me.

If I were OP, I wouldn't risk screwing anything up by inquring.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 22, 2016)

Owners should always have control of their own timeshares, and a renter should not be able to make changes in the reservation - period. 

If a renter was able to deposit a reservation *in their name*, into a II account in a *3rd name*, that is a problem that is much bigger than one rental.



> I've seen this happen many times when people *buy* resale and can't use the week reserved by the seller (myself included.) I've never seen opposition in those situations when described on these boards. Why all the angst and hand wringing here?



This is not the same thing at all.


----------



## Kapolei (Jul 22, 2016)

Interesting discussion.  One lesson here is to say "absolutely no" when someone is asking you about doing something you believe is outside the rules.  The other lesson is one of picking your battles.  The best outcome at this point may be allowing the transaction to stand with an acknowledgement that you did not approve it.


----------



## cory30 (Jul 22, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I've seen this happen many times when people buy resale and can't use the week reserved  by the seller (myself included.) I've never seen opposition in those situations when described on these boards. Why all the angst and hand wringing here?



I see these as two very different situations. In the case with the OP, per MVC regulations, the renter is strictly a "guest" and is provided check-in authority and the ability to utilize the resort facilities during their stay. The renter has no ownership authority over the week and as such should not have been allowed to do anything with the week other than stay during the designated reservation period.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 22, 2016)

davidvel said:


> Wow,  people really like to rock the boat and risk  screwing up a good thing. OP didn't tell them not to do it,  just that they didn't think it was possible,  and renter said they would get back to them(implying at least that they would try. ) Voila, it worked. Maybe it will get reversed,  who knows.  But OP got paid and renter got value for the week.



I agree it's not a big deal in the short term. But the problem is long term - if all of this happened *it indicates serious security problems *that could screw up many people's ownerships. 

See the threads about people with fixed week ownerships having trouble checking in to use their fixed weeks for examples of how messed up this can get. 



davidvel said:


> How can they steal a reservation in the future unless you hand out your reservation #?



We don't know how they did it. It's reasonable to assume that however they did it that it might be possible to do it again.


----------



## klpca (Jul 22, 2016)

davidvel said:


> Wow,  people really like to rock the boat and risk  screwing up a good thing. OP didn't tell them not to do it,  just that they didn't think it was possible,  and renter said they would get back to them(implying at least that they would try. ) Voila, it worked. Maybe it will get reversed,  who knows.  But OP got paid and renter got value for the week.
> 
> I've seen this happen many times when people buy resale and can't use the week reserved  by the seller (myself included.) I've never seen opposition in those situations when described on these boards. Why all the angst and hand wringing here?
> 
> ...



Personally I wouldn't have such a big issue with this if the owner had been involved in the transaction. At least there is some security in knowing and understanding what is happening. The fact that the owner was left out of the loop by Interval and Marriott troubles me. Consider the situation where you provide a copy of your reservation to a potential renter. They would then have the reservation number before full payment - and if Interval and Marriott allow this week to be deposited into some else's account without the knowledge of the owner, I think that abuse could happen.

My question is if Interval goes along with these shenanigans, then why can't _we_ rent out exchanged weeks?


----------



## Tahiya (Jul 22, 2016)

*surprised*

I'm surprised II and Marriott would allow the deposit; however, I wouldn't be worried about it.  If you have a contract, the renter is still on the hook for any damages, and the resort will take the credit card number from the person who stays there.  The renter won't have your info for future reservations.  Seems like the renter saved you the hassle of having to deny a refund.


----------



## ronparise (Jul 22, 2016)

davidvel said:


> Wow,  people really like to rock the boat and risk  screwing up a good thing. OP didn't tell them not to do it,  just that they didn't think it was possible,  and renter said they would get back to them(implying at least that they would try. ) Voila, it worked. Maybe it will get reversed,  who knows.  But OP got paid and renter got value for the week.
> 
> I've seen this happen many times when people buy resale and can't use the week reserved  by the seller (myself included.) I've never seen opposition in those situations when described on these boards. Why all the angst and hand wringing here?
> 
> ...



What he said


----------



## GreenTea (Jul 22, 2016)

VegasBella said:


> I agree it's not a big deal in the short term. But the problem is long term - if all of this happened *it indicates serious security problems *that could screw up many people's ownerships.
> 
> See the threads about people with fixed week ownerships having trouble checking in to use their fixed weeks for examples of how messed up this can get.
> 
> ...


I think it sounds like a serous security issue as well.   Could they use the owner information and deposit the next year week?  How much information about the owner was made visible to the renter?  It sounds very hinky to me.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 22, 2016)

Kapolei said:


> Interesting discussion.  One lesson here is to say "absolutely no" when someone is asking you about doing something you believe is outside the rules.  The other lesson is one of picking your battles.  The best outcome at this point may be allowing the transaction to stand with an acknowledgement that you did not approve it.



Agree. If OP didn't want Renter to try and do this OP should have said so.  Since OP didn't he/she more or less condoned it and now complains.  Fault is with OP.  I would just roll with the punches and store what happened in my memory bank.

George


----------



## PamMo (Jul 22, 2016)

klpca said:


> ...Consider the situation where you provide a copy of your reservation to a potential renter. They would then have the reservation number before full payment - and if Interval and Marriott allow this week to be deposited into some else's account without the knowledge of the owner, I think that abuse could happen...



^^^^^^^ Exactly. ^^^^^^^

I'd love to believe everyone is honest, but there are scammers who cause a lot of headaches. I think it would be great if a renter could deposit a week in II/RCI if they can't use the rented week, but ONLY if they had the owner's permission.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 22, 2016)

I think there are still many questions out there for any owner who rents out.

1. What part did MVCI play in this?
2. If they were directly involved, was this a one-off that somehow 'slipped' through MVCI's system or is this something MVCI will do for any renter on request from now on?
3. Shouldn't/Why didn't MVCI contact the owner before they allowed this?
4. What was MVCI and/or II told when the renter contacted them to deposit the owner's reservation?
5. If the OP had a rental agreement, how did it address 'refunds/cancellations/assignments/etc.'?
6. Using a reservation confirmation number, what information can a renter access through MVCI about an owner?
7. Are there other things a non-owner can potentially do/access through MVCI with a rented reservation confirmation number? Can they cancel and/or make new reservations with MVCI for other dates as the owner would?
8. Is there now a previously unknown risk to providing confirmation numbers to renters before the reservation is paid in full since renters may now be able to exercise more control over a reservation than once thought?  

Only the OP and MVCI can answer these questions. 

Unless this was an exception where an II and/or MVCI employee did something they shouldn't there appears to be an aspect of II/MVCI's operations not previously explored regarding rental reservations.

Maybe as another poster explained the renter may have 'gotten one over' on II because they owned at the resort they were renting at and II didn't realize they were depositing a reservation for a week they didn't actually own. I don't know. 

Regardless, this isn't about 'rocking any boats'. It's about understanding how MVCI and II treat rental reservations and how they view the 'ownership' of a rental reservation between the owner of that reservation and a renter. I think any owner who offers rental reservations has a vested interest in gaining a better understanding of just what is going on here.

For owners amenable to doing so, this may be a new way to help future renters out by agreeing to let them deposit the rented reservation with II. If II is willing (and has all the correct facts). 

Whether you are amenable to allowing this or not, it may not matter as it appears renters can deposit your reservations without your knowledge or consent - which is the main sticking point for me. 

(Yes, as someone else posted while it appears the renter never said 'this is what I am going to do' regarding calling MVCI and/or II to have the owner's reservation deposited to their/family member's II account, the OP may have had sufficient information that if they were opposed to this happening they could have said 'no' directly to the renter and/or called to prevent it. However, is that a burden that belongs on the owner or should MVCI not be involved in these activities without first getting the owner's consent? I am not comfortable with the idea that 'silence implies consent' in this type of situation.)

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jul 22, 2016)

Tahiya said:


> I'm surprised II and Marriott would allow the deposit; however, I wouldn't be worried about it.  If you have a contract, the renter is still on the hook for any damages, and the resort will take the credit card number from the person who stays there.  The renter won't have your info for future reservations.  Seems like the renter saved you the hassle of having to deny a refund.


My thoughts too.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 22, 2016)

Is it possible that the unit/week isn't even confirmed yet? Someone can go to the II website or even call and input or give the reservation details, but it can take a few days for Marriott to actually confirm the deposit. It is still possible for Marriott to report back to II that the week isn't confirmed and the person still has an un-deposited week.

If confirmed, I do find this to be a very odd situation. Not sure I would rock the boat, but I would be concerned what someone could do with just a reservation number and a name.


----------



## Quadmaniac (Jul 23, 2016)

dougp26364 said:


> First, you've received payment in full and they're not requesting a refund. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it and I probably wouldn't rock the boat.
> 
> The only way I could see this happening is if a renter also owned a week at that resort and had that ownership listed on their I.I. account. For instance, let's say I wanted to rent an additional week at Grand Chateau in Vegas, a resort I own but, maybe I need the additional unit for someone traveling with me. I.I. knows I own there because it's listed in my account and I have a valid reservation number even though it's not my week. I would assume there's no filters to tell them which week is owned and which week is rented privately as this situation wouldn't come up very often (I know I hadn't heard of it). I'd assume depositing the unit wouldn't be an issue from the point of I.I. automated system.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly. They paid for it and are not asking for a refund so I would be good with it. If they can't use it but found another way to make use of it later, then good on them. I wouldn't want it to go to waste so no harm done. As long as it doesn't affect my ownership or my II accounts, I'm not going to be bent out of shape.

Its unusual II allowed it but its up to them. The renter is responsible for the unit and any charges that go with it, so nothing for me to worry about.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Is it possible that the unit/week isn't even confirmed yet? Someone can go to the II website or even call and input or give the reservation details, but it can take a few days for Marriott to actually confirm the deposit. It is still possible for Marriott to report back to II that the week isn't confirmed and the person still has an un-deposited week.
> 
> If confirmed, I do find this to be a very odd situation. Not sure I would rock the boat, but I would be concerned what someone could do with just a reservation number and a name.



That's also my thinking, that perhaps the transaction hasn't been completed on II's end yet and we'll learn that the deposit is rejected.  I hope that's the case, anyway, because giving this much authority to a renter/guest for an existing reservation appears to me to be completely out of line with the terms stated in the governing docs.

I don't understand why people think that a contract between the owner and his renter is sufficient protection for the owner, regardless of whether it's in this instance or another.  The governing docs make it perfectly clear that MVW bears no responsibility to uphold contracts between owners and their renters/guests.  The docs also make clear that MVW has the right to suspend an owner's usage if fees related to damages, etc are unpaid.  While it's true that a credit card is taken from everyone who checks in, what do you think would happen if a renter/guest cancels the card immediately after checking out or challenges a fee after the stay?  MVW has the right to go after owners and although it's a minimal risk it's still a risk all the same, after which any reimbursement actions related to the owner/renter contract would have to be undertaken by the owner with no support from MVW.

But what really gets me is how many folks here are apparently okay with a non-owner having this much control over an owner's reservation.  I agree with the suggestions in this thread to use TUG's connection with II (Interval provides direct email for TUG member support) and to contact MVW Customer Care (Contact Us / Marriott Vacations Worldwide,) to get to the bottom of what has actually happened and how.


----------



## sue1947 (Jul 23, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't understand why people think that a contract between the owner and his renter is sufficient protection for the owner, regardless of whether it's in this instance or another.  The governing docs make it perfectly clear that MVW bears no responsibility to uphold contracts between owners and their renters/guests.  The docs also make clear that MVW has the right to suspend an owner's usage if fees related to damages, etc are unpaid.  While it's true that a credit card is taken from everyone who checks in, what do you think would happen if a renter/guest cancels the card immediately after checking out or challenges a fee after the stay?  MVW has the right to go after owners and although it's a minimal risk it's still a risk all the same, after which any reimbursement actions related to the owner/renter contract would have to be undertaken by the owner with no support from MVW.
> 
> But what really gets me is how many folks here are apparently okay with a non-owner having this much control over an owner's reservation.  I agree with the suggestions in this thread to use TUG's connection with II (Interval provides direct email for TUG member support) and to contact MVW Customer Care (Contact Us / Marriott Vacations Worldwide,) to get to the bottom of what has actually happened and how.



An additional concern is who will actually use that week.  The OP vetted the original renter, but the week was deposited into the brother's account. The brother and his relatives are an unknown entity.   Who knows who will actually end up in the unit?  What if the brother lets his teenage kids have an adult free weekend in the unit?   Once it's in the brother's account, the OP has lost all control or say in who is using their week.  
I also share the concern of future use.  The renter had enough information to deposit it this year, what keeps them from doing the same thing in the future without paying?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 23, 2016)

sue1947 said:


> An additional concern is who will actually use that week.  The OP vetted the original renter, but the week was deposited into the brother's account. The brother and his relatives are an unknown entity.   Who knows who will actually end up in the unit?  What if the brother lets his teenage kids have an adult free weekend in the unit?   Once it's in the brother's account, the OP has lost all control or say in who is using their week.
> I also share the concern of future use.  The renter had enough information to deposit it this year, what keeps them from doing the same thing in the future without paying?



Once the week is deposited in to II, the original owner is actually off the hook. I would expect that Marriott actually changed the confirmation number or cancelled and re-booked using one of the confirmation numbers they use for II deposits. When you book a reservation for timeshare, you get a different confirmation number if you book as an II Exchange Owner Deposit vs Occupy. So I suspect that the original owner in this case has nothing to worry about with regard to who actually uses the unit. The week now belongs to II and they have complete control over it.

The difference between this year and next year is that the renter won't have a confirmation number for the reservation next year.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 23, 2016)

I'm amazed at some of the responses, though perhaps I shouldn't be. To me this is a very simple business transaction. 

The renter paid for a week at a specific resort for a specific week. When the renter couldn't use it, the renter should have used whatever recourse is available in the rental agreement, if there is one. It's unlikely that would include the ability to deposit the week in an exchange company.

In the event the renter has to cancel, then regardless of whatever cancelation policy the renter and owner agreed to, the owner then has full rights to their unit week. They could deposit it in II, use it themselves, give it away to others, etc. 

Any use case of the week outside of the specific resort and week rented according to the rental agreement needs to be agreed upon by all parties. I don't agree that just because the owner was paid for the week that's it's okay for the renter to deposit the week for the various reasons already posted along with others. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## billymach4 (Jul 23, 2016)

Ken555 said:


> I'm amazed at some of the responses, though perhaps I shouldn't be. To me this is a very simple business transaction.
> 
> The renter paid for a week at a specific resort for a specific week. When the renter couldn't use it, the renter should have used whatever recourse is available in the rental agreement, if there is one. It's unlikely that would include the ability to deposit the week in an exchange company.
> 
> ...



Well said. The owner in my opinion should have the last recourse in use of week if the renter can't utilize the week. 

It is synonymous with exchange company's policy against renting out a week obtain via an exchange. However this appears to be a grey area of the rules, and the checks and balances of II and Marriott.


----------



## billymach4 (Jul 23, 2016)

*Have you contacted Marriott regarding this?*



LUVourMarriotts said:


> Is this supposed to happen?  I rented my 2BR Surf Club unit to someone privately.  That person can no longer go, so he somehow contacted Marriott and was able to deposit that week (my week) into his brother-in-laws Interval account.
> 
> He had called to tell me that he might not be able to go.  But he called me 17 days prior to checkin, which is now only 9 days away.  He asked if he could deposit that week into his brother-in-laws account and I told him that I didn't think that was even possible.  He said he would get back to me.  Later that night, I received an email from Marriott Vacations saying that my week had been deposited to II.  I checked my II account and do not see the deposit.  I also no longer see the reservation through Marriott.
> 
> Huh??




Not sure if you are OK with this since you have been  paid for the rental. But this does not sit well with me. As the owner I would want last say and usage of and unused week. Personally it is the renters loss. I would rather have deposited the week and usage of an exchange. This may sound selfish, but I don't want a renter taking my property and Marriott permitting a deposit into someone else's account. There should be a stop gap on this. To me it really looks like a data security gap/risk. After all your week has a $$ value. The owner should give the OK to deposit.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 23, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> But what really gets me is how many folks here are apparently okay with a non-owner having this much control over an owner's reservation.



Renter asked Owner if he could deposit Week in his (maybe Brother's Account).  Owner said "I don't think it will work".  Renter basically said "Ill give it a shot and get back to you".  If Owner wasn't OK with Renter trying to deposit Week, Owner should have said "No way.  Not with my Week".  Owner didn't, now bitches.  No sympathy here.

George


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 23, 2016)

Some of you are missing the big picture, here - the owner has _lost control of their reservation_.  That simply is not acceptable.

It really doesn't matter what the owner said to the renter - the point is that, apparently, II and Marriott deposited the owner's reservation in a 3rd party's II account *without getting the owner's permission.*

That opens a big can of worms.


----------



## klpca (Jul 23, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> But what really gets me is how many folks here are apparently okay with a non-owner having this much control over an owner's reservation.  I agree with the suggestions in this thread to use TUG's connection with II (Interval provides direct email for TUG member support) and to contact MVW Customer Care (Contact Us / Marriott Vacations Worldwide,) to get to the bottom of what has actually happened and how.



Exactly. If this is what happened (and with the middle man being a non-owner/non member of Interval, things may have gotten lost in translation), we should all be troubled by the actions of each non-owner in this transaction. It wasn't their week to use.


----------



## ilene13 (Jul 23, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Some of you are missing the big picture, here - the owner has _lost control of their reservation_.  That simply is not acceptable.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what the owner said to the renter - the point is that, apparently, II and Marriott deposited the owner's reservation in a 3rd party's II account *without getting the owner's permission.*
> 
> That opens a big can of worms.



You are absolutely correct


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 23, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Some of you are missing the big picture, here - the owner has _lost control of their reservation_.  That simply is not acceptable.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what the owner said to the renter - the point is that, apparently, II and Marriott deposited the owner's reservation in a 3rd party's II account *without getting the owner's permission.*
> 
> That opens a big can of worms.





Yes, that's absolutely part of this, but it all derives from the owners control of their week as part of their rental agreement and the expectations that the renter has for use of the week.


----------



## flybefree (Jul 23, 2016)

Before I bought my own timeshare, I rented a week at a Marriott in Orlando from a friend of a friend. Then I had to have surgery for a broken tailbone, and we had to ask about using the week the following year (I did have travel insurance, but we still wanted to take the kids!). We were not initially allowed to talk to anyone at II. The owner handled depositing the week, and I asked for the ability to talk to II myself to reschedule, especially since we were only allowed to do that within 60 days of traveling and I didn't want to go back and forth and miss out on a week or property that would work for us. I believe I had to pay for a guest certificate and then was allowed to book it myself -- but I had to go through hoops to be able to do so. 

So I'm surprised this happened. The renter could likely trade up to a more expensive property, or he might be limited to the same location or property. I believe we were still limited to Orlando, but that was where we intended to go, so I didn't think about it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2016)

What the OP said happened is one more (incorrect, I believe) step further than what I'm asking, but is it even possible for an owner to deposit an owned Week into someone else's II account?  I didn't think so but I'm no II expert, that's for sure.


----------



## Fasttr (Jul 23, 2016)

bogey21 said:


> Renter asked Owner if he could deposit Week in his (maybe Brother's Account).  Owner said "I don't think it will work".  Renter basically said "Ill give it a shot and get back to you".  If Owner wasn't OK with Renter trying to deposit Week, Owner should have said "No way.  Not with my Week".  *Owner didn't, now bitches.  No sympathy here.*
> 
> George



You might want to re-read the OP's post.  Where was he/she bitching?  I take the post as in inquiry, and perhaps even more so as a heads up to fellow TUGgers as to what occurred, so that others can be aware of a potential loophole in "the system" that may allow this.  

Why are you so judgmental against the OP?


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 23, 2016)

My initial question, "should this have happened?" seems to have created some negativity towards me.  I'm sorry I asked such a rude question.  

Anyway, I have been a little busy lately, so just getting back to the thread now.  My II account does not show anything associated to this Surf Club reservation.  My MVC account shows that I have Completed a deposit to II for this reservation, and includes the original res#.  This appears in my history view. I cannot pull up that reservation number on marriott.com using my name or my renters name, but that's probably because it is no longer a reservation, since it is in II now.  Neither II or MVC are available at this hour, but I do plan to call and ask some questions.  

As some have played out my phone conversation with the renter in their own head, I'll give a little more info.  When he said he would get back to me, that was because I told him he really needed to figure out if he was going or not and then get back to me.  At that point, he still wasn't sure.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 23, 2016)

billymach4 said:


> Well said. The owner in my opinion should have the last recourse in use of week if the renter can't utilize the week.





billymach4 said:


> As the owner I would want last say and usage of and unused week. Personally it is the renters loss. I would rather have deposited the week and usage of an exchange. *This may sound selfish, but I don't want a renter taking my property and Marriott permitting a deposit into someone else's account*. There should be a stop gap on this. To me it really looks like a data security gap/risk. *After all your week has a $$ value.*





Ken555 said:


> I'm amazed at some of the responses, though perhaps I shouldn't be. To me this is a very simple business transaction.
> 
> The renter paid for a week at a specific resort for a specific week. When the renter couldn't use it, the renter should have used whatever recourse is available in the rental agreement, if there is one. It's unlikely that would include the ability to deposit the week in an exchange company.
> 
> ...



I'm amazed at some of the responses as well. Putting aside the issue of how mechanically this occurred (and the renter's ability to transfer to II without Owner's involvement), why would/should the owner get the week back (THAT WAS PAID IN FULL BY THE RENTER), and the renter gets crap in return? 

So renter pays in full for the week, but owner gets the week because the renter was kind enough to let the owner know they won't be occupying? Do you people really think this is fair/equitable/reasonable? I think its an absurd suggestion. 

If the owner were to tell the renter, "If you can't use it (sorry about your medical condition, injury, your mom/child died,  whatever the reason), but:
- "it is [your] loss";
- "_ have the last recourse";
- [I have full rights to [my] unit week. [I may] deposit it in II, use it [myself], give it away to others".

what do you think would happen? The renter would say, OK, well then I'll use it, and then would just never show up. 

An owner would take advantage of the renter's misfortune and try to recapture the week? Selfish is a bit of a nice way to describe this._


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I'm amazed at some of the responses as well. Putting aside the issue of how mechanically this occurred (and the renter's ability to transfer to II without Owner's involvement), why would/should the owner get the week back (THAT WAS PAID IN FULL BY THE RENTER), and the renter gets crap in return?



I don't think most of us are arguing that there should be no recourse for the renter. 

Personally, if I were a "landlord" and I had late cancellations I would keep a deposit but not the total amount. Then I would try to rent it out to someone else or exchange it to recoup my losses. 

And personally if I were in this situation and someone had deposited my week into their brother in law's II account I would probably not rock the boat for business reasons. I wouldn't want to risk angering the renter and getting a bad review or some sort of revenge.

But I would be confused about how they did it and I would be worried that this indicated security problems with II and/or MVW. I might also change the way I share information with renters about their reservation.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I'm amazed at some of the responses as well. Putting aside the issue of how mechanically this occurred (and the renter's ability to transfer to II without Owner's involvement), why would/should the owner get the week back (THAT WAS PAID IN FULL BY THE RENTER), and the renter gets crap in return?
> 
> So renter pays in full for the week, but owner gets the week because the renter was kind enough to let the owner know they won't be occupying? Do you people really think this is fair/equitable/reasonable? I think its an absurd suggestion.
> 
> ...


_

So it sounds like you'd be more generous than most of the savvy owners on this forum who use rental contracts that have "no changes/no cancellation" clauses in them.  That's great but it's beside the point.  The problem here isn't whether or not the owner used a similar contract; it's that somehow, if things happened the way it's been said they did, a renter was able to circumvent the rules (of both MVW and II) in order to make changes to a reservation that should have been completely in the owner's control.

Any owner should be concerned about this, whether or not they'd choose to help a renter who's unexpectedly unable to use a rented reservation.  According to certain terms stated in both MVW and II governing docs, an owner is supposed to be protected from anyone else accessing or making changes within the owner's accounts.  IMO this is a pretty serious breach (again, if it happened the way it's been reported.)_


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I'm amazed at some of the responses as well. Putting aside the issue of how mechanically this occurred (and the renter's ability to transfer to II without Owner's involvement), why would/should the owner get the week back (THAT WAS PAID IN FULL BY THE RENTER), and the renter gets crap in return?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_



Short answer: the owner of the week has full use of their week just like a hotel. If you cancel a prepaid hotel, you know you have limited recourse (typically none). Most timeshare rentals are similarly restrictive. That's why I've posted several times now in this thread that I assume there was a rental agreement which clearly stipulates the understanding between the parties. Why would you think that a timeshare should be any different? 

FWIW, you sound like someone who purchases travel insurance. Do you purchase a policy for every timeshare rental you've bought from other independent owners? If not, why not? Did you assume the owner would simply allow you to use the week in a non-agreed manner? 

I'm really surprised that there is so much confusion over the limitations of a timeshare rental. The real confusion is that II somehow permitted the renter to deposit the week. I believe II will cancel the deposit and transfer it to the owner upon request, since they had zero right to deposit it (and I suspect it violates their terms of use and standard policies)._


----------



## davidvel (Jul 24, 2016)

VegasBella said:


> I don't think most of us are arguing that there should be no recourse for the renter.
> 
> Personally, if I were a "landlord" and I had late cancellations I would keep a deposit but not the total amount. Then I would try to rent it out to someone else or exchange it to recoup my losses.
> 
> ...


I see your point, but as I understand the situation the owner/landlord was *paid in full*.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> So it sounds like you'd be more generous than most of the savvy owners on this forum who use rental contracts that have "no changes/no cancellation" clauses in them.  That's great but it's beside the point.  The problem here isn't whether or not the owner used a similar contract; it's that somehow, if things happened the way it's been said they did, a renter was able to circumvent the rules (of both MVW and II) in order to make changes to a reservation that should have been completely in the owner's control.
> 
> Any owner should be concerned about this, whether or not they'd choose to help a renter who's unexpectedly unable to use a rented reservation.  According to certain terms stated in both MVW and II governing docs, an owner is supposed to be protected from anyone else accessing or making changes within the owner's accounts.  IMO this is a pretty serious breach (again, if it happened the way it's been reported.)


As I stated, I commented on the recourse situation, not the transfer to II issue, which I acknowledge is a problem.
I guess if "being generous" means I wouldn't take my renter's full payment, then find some contract language to keep their money and recoup full use of the week as opposed to finding a way to give them value for what I rented to them (ie., deposit to II in my account or theirs, etc. and give them usage of the week with payment for expenses, etc.) when they notify me that they can't use the week, then yes I'm "generous", and anyone who would recoup the week and use it after being paid, is a cretin in my opinion.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 24, 2016)

Ken555 said:


> Short answer: the owner of the week has full use of their week just like a hotel. If you cancel a prepaid hotel, you know you have limited recourse (typically none). Most timeshare rentals are similarly restrictive. That's why I've posted several times now in this thread that I assume there was a rental agreement which clearly stipulates the understanding between the parties. Why would you think that a timeshare should be any different?
> 
> FWIW, you sound like someone who purchases travel insurance. Do you purchase a policy for every timeshare rental you've bought from other independent owners? If not, why not? Did you assume the owner would simply allow you to use the week in a non-agreed manner?
> 
> I'm really surprised that there is so much confusion over the limitations of a timeshare rental. The real confusion is that II somehow permitted the renter to deposit the week. I believe II will cancel the deposit and transfer it to the owner upon request, since they had zero right to deposit it (and I suspect it violates their terms of use and standard policies).


I've never purchased rental car insurance, or travel insurance, but not sure how this is relevant. 

My point wasn't that the Owner owed anything to the renter but that the renter who graciously notifies the owner that they cant use the week lookig for a way to salvage their payment, should lose the rental and their money, and somehow cede the usage back the owner with nothing in return. Absurd.

If any owner was such a jerk to you, I'm sure you'd tell them you would be occupying and never show up. Which is fair.


----------



## klpca (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> As I stated, I commented on the recourse situation, not the transfer to II issue, which I acknowledge is a problem.
> I guess if "being generous" means I wouldn't take my renter's full payment, then find some contract language to keep their money and recoup full use of the week as opposed to finding a way to give them value for what I rented to them (ie., deposit to II in my account or theirs, etc. and give them usage of the week with payment for expenses, etc.) when they notify me that they can't use the week, then yes I'm "generous", and anyone who would recoup the week and use it after being paid, is a cretin in my opinion.



At this late stage it's not like the person renting is made whole either, even if they get their week back. If the renter says so sorry, can't go, the best the owner can do is deposit the late week and get back a super restricted week in Interval (unless you can miraculously re-rent it at that late date). It sucks big time for the renter, which is why most people who rent their units (and private condo owners as well - I've definitely seen it on VRBO rentals) suggest getting travel insurance. 

If it were me I would try everything in my power to re-rent the unit to make things work out for everyone, but if not, then the renter is the one to bear the brunt of not being able to use the week. If, as a renter, you want complete flexibility then you need to rent directly from Marriott at double the price.

Edited to add: Actually, I just looked up the info on Interval. At this point (9 days out) Interval won't even accept a deposit.(So how did the renter make all of this happen so quickly? Amazing, honestly, considering the facts - especially the part about not owning the week) So if the renter backs out with less than 14 days, the owner can't do anything except re-rent it - and good luck with that when you are less than two weeks out. The owner is unlikely to be able to get any value out of the week. From the Interval FAQ's: _ "Additionally, you can make a Flex Deposit if you need to deposit your week 59 to 14 days prior to the check-in date (no deposits are accepted less than 14 days before your week). You´ll then use the Flexchange service to confirm an exchange._


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I've never purchased rental car insurance, or travel insurance, but not sure how this is relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You think I'm a jerk? Really.

I mentioned travel insurance since that's the acceptable way to ensure a renter has recourse in the event they have to cancel. It's not the responsibility of the owner to find a solution, including allowing the week to be deposited in an exchange company, if the renter must cancel.

Have you read the dozens of threads on renting timeshares on TUG over the years? If you had, you would know that it's very typical for there to not be a full refund for a cancelation. I don't recall ever reading any renter even trying to deposit a week instead of using it. I'm not sure why you, and apparently others, believe that the renter should have the right to use the week in any possible method regardless of the intended use. 

The secondary concern you mention that the week remain empty because the renter does not have a full cancelation capability in order to spite the owner, which is essentially your point, is irrelevant.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 24, 2016)

My take is if the OP could somehow confirm they have 0% liability with this week now then it's a win-win-win, where OP has full rent and 0% risk, renter can get some value out of their payment and even II wins because I'm sure they charged a fee to the renter for the week that was deposited.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 24, 2016)

Fasttr said:


> Why are you so judgmental against the OP?



Because I think she is wrong.  She rented her Week and has her money.  IMO she should be happy that Renter was able to mitigate his inability to use the Week and didn't attempt to pressure her for a refund.

George


----------



## 1st Class (Jul 24, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> My initial question, "should this have happened?" seems to have created some negativity towards me.  I'm sorry I asked such a rude question.
> 
> Anyway, I have been a little busy lately, so just getting back to the thread now.  My II account does not show anything associated to this Surf Club reservation.  My MVC account shows that I have Completed a deposit to II for this reservation, and includes the original res#.  This appears in my history view. I cannot pull up that reservation number on marriott.com using my name or my renters name, but that's probably because it is no longer a reservation, since it is in II now.  *Neither II or MVC are available at this hour, but I do plan to call and ask some questions.*
> 
> As some have played out my phone conversation with the renter in their own head, I'll give a little more info.  When he said he would get back to me, that was because I told him he really needed to figure out if he was going or not and then get back to me.  At that point, he still wasn't sure.



I really wouldn't risk speaking with a random phone rep.  Mark DelCampo is the II rep for TUG members and has helped TUG members numerous times, and I have taken advantage of this valuable service myself.  Mark is great to deal with and I wouldn't hesitate to discuss any II concerns with him.  Frankly, I'm surprised no one else has suggested this.

Here is the link and contact information from the Sticky in the Exchanging Forum posted by Brian Rogers:  

"Interval provides direct email for TUG member support.

I have received notification today that Interval has created a special email address specifically for TUG members who need direct assistance with II questions/concerns/issues.


tugmembers@intervalintl.com 

Feel free to use this email for appropriate situations where perhaps the regular website or phone number is not getting you the information you need."

To answer your initial question, no, I don't believe this should have happened.  That's why I'm encouraging you to discuss this with Mark.  I wish you luck in sorting it out.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I see your point, but as I understand the situation the owner/landlord was *paid in full*.


and your point is?

None of this is even about whether the renter should or should not have alternative recourse if they can't use their rented week. This is ALL purely about whether or not it's acceptable for someone who is not the owner of a week to deposit a week into someone else's exchange account. This is about how they did it and why it was allowed.


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 24, 2016)

bogey21 said:


> she should be happy that Renter was able to mitigate his inability to use the Week and didn't attempt to pressure her for a refund.



Where did she say the renter didn't pressure her for a refund???
Why make that assumption if she didn't say it?


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 24, 2016)

Folks, I'm a guy, so please refer to me as he/his, not she/her. 

As many have said, this is all about II and Marriott. The rental fee is not in question, as the renter knew it was non-refundable, and even called that out in our phone conversation. He called me 17 days before check-in, so 3 days before final possible deposit date. I did tell him that we could discuss me depositing into my II account if he finalized his decision not to go. From the sound of his explanation it was just that the family decided they didn't want to go at that time anymore. He had previously pressured me to make that reservation at a lower rental fee than I wanted. After a week of conversation, we met in the middle and I got his date. 

I will reach out to the TUG II rep. 

I'm not trying to screw the renter over.  I'm trying to cover my ass from any downstream effects. I didn't feel like Marriott & II followed SOP on this one.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2016)

bogey21 said:


> Because I think she is wrong.  She rented her Week and has her money.  IMO she should be happy that Renter was able to mitigate his inability to use the Week and didn't attempt to pressure her for a refund.
> 
> George



That is not the point AT ALL - the point is HOW did they circumvent the II and Marriott *rules* to do this?

The rules are in place to protect owners.  If anyone can come along and deposit another owner's timeshare into an exchange company without authorization, that is a serious problem.


----------



## GreenTea (Jul 24, 2016)

If the renter could deposit this year's use, what is stop them from using the same numbers and loophole to deposit other year's weeks.  I think it sounds like a serious security hole.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 24, 2016)

VegasBella said:


> Where did she say the renter didn't pressure her for a refund???
> Why make that assumption if she didn't say it?



Assumptions are part of life.  I assumed that if she didn't say he pressured her, he didn't.  Maybe I am wrong.  We won't know unless OP clarifies.

George


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I've never purchased rental car insurance, or *travel insurance*, but not sure how this is relevant.
> 
> My point wasn't that the Owner owed anything to the renter but that the renter who graciously notifies the owner that they cant use the week lookig for a way to salvage their payment, should lose the rental and their money, and somehow cede the usage back the owner with nothing in return. Absurd.
> 
> If any owner was such a *jerk* to you, I'm sure you'd tell them you would be occupying and never show up. Which is fair.



Timeshare rentals are business transactions - not charity.  The transaction is governed by the rental terms - not what is "fair" or "not fair."  If the renter does not agree with the rental terms - they should not rent the timeshare.

Travel insurance is available to protect travelers against unexpected emergencies.  If a renter has an _emergency_, the travel insurance will cover their pre-paid travel expenses - _including their timeshare rental_.

But, if the renter _simply decides they don't want to go_ (which happened in this situation) why in the world should the owner feel obligated to finance their change of plans?

BTW - using the words "jerk" and "cretin" in this discussion is not courteous.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> Folks, I'm a guy, so please refer to me as he/his, not she/her.



OK - but how are we supposed to know that?  An easy way to make that clear is to sign your first name to your posts - or add it to your signature lines.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 24, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> Folks, I'm a guy, so please refer to me as he/his, not she/her.



I was long thought to be a woman by SueDonJ. In the world of Internet anonymity, there is no way to tell from a BB handle someone's gender.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 24, 2016)

bogey21 said:


> Assumptions are part of life.  I assumed that if she didn't say he pressured her, he didn't.  Maybe I am wrong.  We won't know unless OP clarifies.
> 
> George



Clarification already provided above. Since you missed it, I'll also repeat that I am a guy. (I get that it's hard to tell, just another assumption)


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> Folks, I'm a guy, so please refer to me as he/his, not she/her.
> 
> As many have said, this is all about II and Marriott. The rental fee is not in question, as the renter knew it was non-refundable, and even called that out in our phone conversation. He called me 17 days before check-in, so 3 days before final possible deposit date. I did tell him that we could discuss me depositing into my II account if he finalized his decision not to go. From the sound of his explanation it was just that the family decided they didn't want to go at that time anymore. He had previously pressured me to make that reservation at a lower rental fee than I wanted. After a week of conversation, we met in the middle and I got his date.
> 
> ...



You're exactly right about what's bolded.  What appears to have been done with your Week shouldn't have been done, not according to II rules or MVW's rules.  They enforce the rules that protect them; it is completely within reason to expect that they'll also enforce the rules that protect us.  I would escalate this all the way to the Exec levels of both companies if your initial queries to Mark DelCampo (II) and Customer Care (MVW) don't return a satisfactory response.  

After that you can choose whether or not you'd like to work further with your renter but for now, IMO your attention is where it should be on what appears to be a serious breach.

The only explanation I can remotely envision is that your renter complained enough to II and/or MVW that they gave him a replacement Week in his brother's account just to pacify him, but that still doesn't explain why you were left out of the loop or why your account is not adequately showing you what's happened to your Week.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they've caved to a complainer but (with three days remaining on the time you would have had to make a flex deposit of the Week your renter decided not to use) it should not have been done at your expense.  No way, no how.

Good luck, and I hope you'll let us know how the companies explain and resolve this, or at least that you're satisfied with a resolution.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> I was long thought to be a woman by SueDonJ. In the world of Internet anonymity, there is no way to tell from a BB handle someone's gender.



Years.  I thought it for years!  Doh!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

MOXJO7282 said:


> My take is if the OP could somehow confirm they have 0% liability with this week now then it's a win-win-win, where OP has full rent and 0% risk, renter can get some value out of their payment and even II wins because I'm sure they charged a fee to the renter for the week that was deposited.



It might be a win-win-win in your mind but it's a complete and total loss for all of us.  MVW and II make it explicitly clear that it is their obligation to protect our accounts from activity performed by others, and MVW makes it explicitly clear that they bear no responsibility for, will not become involved with, and will not protect the owners in any private rental deals involving our ownerships.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.

In this case it appears that both companies have violated their own rules in favor of a non-MVW Owner/non-II Member _and to the total detriment of an MVW Owner/II Member. _

Any Owner/Member who thinks this is okay simply because the Owner was paid for a rental of his Week is not seeing the big picture.  None of us should be satisfied with what's happened here, especially not any of us who are active in the private rental market.  What's to say that your rental activity will not be the next in which MVW and/or II choose to interfere?


----------



## bazzap (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> It might be a win-win-win in your mind but it's a complete and total loss for all of us.  MVW and II make it explicitly clear that it is their obligation to protect our accounts from activity performed by others, and MVW makes it explicitly clear that they bear no responsibility for, will not become involved with, and will not protect the owners in any private rental deals involving our ownerships.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.
> 
> In this case it appears that both companies have violated their own rules in favor of a non-MVW Owner/non-II Member _and to the total detriment of an MVW Owner/II Member. _
> 
> Any Owner/Member who thinks this is okay simply because the Owner was paid for a rental of his Week is not seeing the big picture.  None of us should be satisfied with what's happened here, especially not any of us who are active in the private rental market.  What's to say that your rental activity will not be the next in which MVW and/or II choose to interfere?


Very well said.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> It might be a win-win-win in your mind but it's a complete and total loss for all of us.  MVW and II make it explicitly clear that it is their obligation to protect our accounts from activity performed by others, and MVW makes it explicitly clear that they bear no responsibility for, will not become involved with, and will not protect the owners in any private rental deals involving our ownerships.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.
> 
> In this case it appears that both companies have violated their own rules in favor of a non-MVW Owner/non-II Member _and to the total detriment of an MVW Owner/II Member. _
> 
> Any Owner/Member who thinks this is okay simply because the Owner was paid for a rental of his Week is not seeing the big picture.  None of us should be satisfied with what's happened here, especially not any of us who are active in the private rental market.  What's to say that your rental activity will not be the next in which MVW and/or II choose to interfere?



That is why I said if owner has no liability and it was a side deal with renter and II,  which it appears to be, it's good for all. The renter was given a way to get some value for his money.  Most likely a very limited deposit.

 How is that a bad thing? I'm not trying to be confrontational but honestly trying to understand how it is a "complete and total loss" and the real harm done if someone made a judgement call and gave someone an opportunity to not lose their whole value.

Is it because you think he will take a unit out of the system that someone else could've had? Or is it the principle that Marriott and II did something in the OPs acct? 

If anything II took the OP off the hook for any damage the renter could've done in the rented week because as you said MVC holds owner responsible where in this case II could never do so since they made the change without owners consent. 

I will always be in favor of having some person recoup money if it was for some legitimate reason.  This person went from renting a high end unit to now having i'm sure a low value limited deposit so it's not like he made a profit. He lost quite a bit I'd say.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 24, 2016)

The issue is that the owner lost control of the disposition of his timeshare - please read the other posts in this thread that explain why it's an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 24, 2016)

Having read through a lot of the posts on this thread, all I can say is I am SO glad I don't bother to rent out our timeshares unless it's to a close friend or relative......and even those instances are very rare.


----------



## klpca (Jul 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> The issue is that the owner lost control of the disposition of his timeshare - please read the other posts in this thread that explain why it's an issue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Agree. It's a very slippery slope. The owner should have been in the loop at all times.


----------



## flybefree (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I see your point, but as I understand the situation the owner/landlord was *paid in full*.



The owner was paid in full for a *specific week* at a *specific resort*. Not for carte blanche use at any other time or place, which is the end result of the week being deposited. 

The deposit into II without the owner's involvement simply shouldn't have happened.


----------



## flybefree (Jul 24, 2016)

And now that I've read the OP's clarification that the renter's family decided 17 days before they didn't feel like going? Honestly, tough luck! It's not the owner's problem if they change their minds at the last minute. 

I own two weeks at the same resort and plan to eventually rent one week out if I accumulate too many TPUs and points in RCI since I always deposit. You can be sure my rental agreement will cover this kind of situation. 

I'll be curious to hear what the OP finds out. (And if I rented a week and my family didn't feel like going, I'd ditch them and take some friends who'd appreciate it! Sheesh.)


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

MOXJO7282 said:


> That is why I said if owner has no liability and it was a side deal with renter and II,  which it appears to be, it's good for all. The renter was given a way to get some value for his money.  Most likely a very limited deposit.
> 
> How is that a bad thing? I'm not trying to be confrontational but honestly trying to understand how it is a "complete and total loss" and the real harm done if someone made a judgement call and gave someone an opportunity to not lose their whole value.
> 
> ...



For me this is all about MVW and/or II circumventing the rules in the governing docs that give specific protections to owners/members, without the owner's input or acknowledgement.  That's a serious breach of contract which should not be excused by any of us.  I don't know how many different ways to try to say it.  Whatever arrangement the OP may have been willing to make with the renter who wanted to back out of their contractual arrangement, doesn't matter.  Put simply, neither MVW nor II had any legal right in the first place involving themselves in this, just as they'd have no legal right to involve themselves into any of your rental activity.

Aside from that, I don't understand the thinking that it's all okay because the owner got his money and the renter got out of a Week he now doesn't want to use.  But the fact is that the OP's renter did enter into a contract that had a "no cancellation" clause in it, and if the OP wanted to enforce that contract when the renter wanted to back out it would have been perfectly legal - and correct according to the governing docs terms - for the OP to end up with the flex deposit.

But neither happened.  MVW and II didn't follow the terms of their governing docs and the OP wasn't able to enforce his rental contract as he saw fit (however he was willing.)  Instead it appears that somehow the renter got MVW/II to negate the terms of the private contract between the OP and him, resulting in a flex deposit being awarded to the renter without the owner of the Week being informed or involved.  How any owner can be okay with this is just beyond me, just not understandable at all.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

dougp26364 said:


> Having read through a lot of the posts on this thread, all I can say is I am SO glad I don't bother to rent out our timeshares unless it's to a close friend or relative......and even those instances are very rare.



I've just recently entered the rental market but with the help of a few trusted TUGgers and a recommendation to use the services of another trusted TUGger acting as a broker.  I am thrilled that I've been able to do something with Weeks/DC Points that have accumulated due to mine and Don's temporary not-vacationing status, and equally thrilled at not having to perform landlord duties!  But if something like this were to happen with my ownership?  I'd be furious and wouldn't hesitate to demand a thorough explanation and a satisfactory, generous resolution from both MVW and II.

The private timeshare rental market has its own risks (which can be and are minimized as much as possible by savvy players.)  Moves made by MVW and II that are counter to the governing docs and detrimental to the owners should not be one of those risks.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> For me this is all about MVW and/or II circumventing the rules in the governing docs that give specific protections to owners/members, without the owner's input or acknowledgement.  That's a serious breach of contract which should not be excused by any of us.  I don't know how many different ways to try to say it.  Whatever arrangement the OP may have been willing to make with the renter who wanted to back out of their contractual arrangement, doesn't matter.  Put simply, neither MVW nor II had any legal right in the first place involving themselves in this, just as they'd have no legal right to involve themselves into any of your rental activity.
> 
> Aside from that, I don't understand the thinking that it's all okay because the owner got his money and the renter got out of a Week he now doesn't want to use.  But the fact is that the OP's renter did enter into a contract that had a "no cancellation" clause in it, and if the OP wanted to enforce that contract when the renter wanted to back out it would have been perfectly legal - and correct according to the governing docs terms - for the OP to end up with the flex deposit.
> 
> But neither happened.  MVW and II didn't follow the terms of their governing docs and the OP wasn't able to enforce his rental contract as he saw fit (however he was willing.)  Instead it appears that somehow the renter got MVW/II to negate the terms of the private contract between the OP and him, resulting in a flex deposit being awarded to the renter without the owner of the Week being informed or involved.  How any owner can be okay with this is just beyond me, just not understandable at all.



i know technically there was a breach of the contract but who was harmed? And how much were they harmed? You talk about the governing docs but with any type of legal review the rulings would ultimately be based on who was harmed and by how much.

So in this case who was harmed and by how much? I don't see the owner as being harmed in any way.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2016)

MOXJO7282 said:


> i know technically there was a breach of the contract but who was harmed? And how much were they harmed? You talk about the governing docs but with any type of legal review the rulings would ultimately be based on who was harmed and by how much.
> 
> So in this case who was harmed and by how much? I don't see the owner as being harmed in any way.



According to the terms of MVW ownership and II membership, the OP was rightfully entitled to the flex deposit that was awarded to the renter.  Whether or not the OP would have chosen to give the flex deposit to his renter is immaterial - MVW and/or II had no right to make that decision for the Week Owner.  At the very least he should have been queried as to whether or not he agreed with that resolution.

I am still holding out hope that the Week deposit will be rejected by II because that would be the correct enforcement of the II terms as they're stated.  In that case, though, I still would demand a thorough explanation of how this occurred.  Did the renter and his brother try to dupe II, simply processing the deposit online into the brother's account and hoping for the best?  Or were MVW/II aware that they were dealing with a private rental gone bad and they deliberately acted in ways that are counter to their docs terms and wrongly detrimental to the owner?  The details are too important to not follow up.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> According to the terms of MVW ownership and II membership, the OP was rightfully entitled to the flex deposit that was awarded to the renter.  Whether or not the OP would have chosen to give the flex deposit to his renter is immaterial - MVW and/or II had no right to make that decision for the Week Owner.  At the very least he should have been queried as to whether or not he agreed with that resolution.
> 
> I am still holding out hope that the Week deposit will be rejected by II because that would be the correct enforcement of the II terms as they're stated.  In that case, though, I still would demand a thorough explanation of how this occurred.  Did the renter and his brother try to dupe II, simply processing the deposit online into the brother's account and hoping for the best?  Or were MVW/II aware that they were dealing with a private rental gone bad and they deliberately acted in ways that are counter to their docs terms and wrongly detrimental to the owner?  The details are too important to not follow up.



I do understand what you're saying and certainly respect everyone's opinion on the matter and maybe should be more concerned given what I do with my weeks but I just hate to see someone out significant money when in this case owner really didn't suffer any damages. 

I also understand the perspective that if this happens then what is next but again bottom line for me is if I'm the owner and we're just talking about this being an isolated incident I just don't have a problem with the renter recouping some value as long as it's not at my expense or liability.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 24, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> According to the terms of MVW ownership and II membership,* the OP was rightfully entitled to the flex deposit that was awarded to the renter.*


I agree that there is a security and procedural issue that should not have allowed a renter/stranger to deposit an owned week into another's II account. *Putting that aside*, AGAIN, 

I was on the verge of retracting my choice words used previously but this entitlement theme keeps re-occurring and raising my ire. Sorry if I disagree with most of you.  But... there shouldn't have been a flex deposit/replacement week/ whatever deposit at all, but for the renter trying to minimize his losses and telling the owner the week couldn't be used/occupied. Had the renter never called the OP, the week would have gone unused. (Or does your rental agreement require the renter to tell you if they won't use it so you can"recoup" the week, and keep the rental payment...?) 

Are people really saying that after renting the week, and getting paid the agreed price, that if the renter called and said they weren't able to use the week, that the Owner should (would) have just rented to someone else, or deposit the week, with no recompense to the renter? What if the the renter then found a way to make the trip happen and already had plane tickets etc? Then what? "Too bad they shouldn't have said they couldn't use the week I rented them...?"

Still baffled by the morality of it all.


----------



## klpca (Jul 24, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I agree that there is a security and procedural issue that should not have allowed a renter/stranger to deposit an owned week into another's II account. *Putting that aside*, AGAIN,
> 
> I was on the verge of retracting my choice words used previously but this entitlement theme keeps re-occurring and raising my ire. Sorry if I disagree with most of you.  But... there shouldn't have been a flex deposit/replacement week/ whatever deposit at all, but for the renter trying to minimize his losses and telling the owner the week couldn't be used/occupied. Had the renter never called the OP, the week would have gone unused. (Or does your rental agreement require the renter to tell you if they won't use it so you can"recoup" the week, and keep the rental payment...?)
> 
> ...



I'm honestly trying to understand your pov as well. Are you saying that up until check in, the renter should be able to cancel and receive some sort of refund, even if the owner is unable to re-rent or otherwise use their week?  That's how hotels usually work (although I have seen some that won't refund without a 48 hour notice) but in the world of private timeshare rentals, it is usually a no-refunds policy. The flip side is that it is substantially cheaper in many cases then renting from Marriott.

One thing is for sure, this thread has taught me that everyone interprets the same facts differently. A written contract is the way to go. And if someone doesn't like the terms, they can always move on to a different deal.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 25, 2016)

It seems that the renter thought there was an implied agreement between them and the renter when they called and asked about depositing the week with their BIL II account. The renter didn't seem to object that I can tell from their posts, just that they didn't think it was possible. The renter then indicating that "we will get back to you" meant that if it worked, they would let them know. Which it seems that they did. If the renter didn't want the week deposited, they should have let it be known. Not just that they didn't think it would work, because apparently it can.

Given that the week is no longer available in the OPs Marriott.com account, and their MVC account shows that the week was deposited for exchange, it would lead me to now think that the deposit was confirmed. Realize that the deposit and verification process is all automated, likely just a checkin date, resort and confirmation number check is done. No validation again the name. Probably another good reason to not give out your confirmation number until payment in full for a rental is made.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

If a renter called me 16 days before check-in, and said, _"I changed my mind - we just don't want to go anymore,"_ - that would be their "choice."

I would send them a copy of the rental terms that clearly state:  NO refunds, No changes, No cancellations, and explain that if they choose not to go, there will not be a refund, because those are the rental terms that they agreed to.  

If they still don't go - that is their decision, and I have fulfilled my part of the agreement.

The unit would stand empty, because it is rented to them, and they are entitled to use it.

I would have zero remorse.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I agree that there is a security and procedural issue that should not have allowed a renter/stranger to deposit an owned week into another's II account. *Putting that aside*, AGAIN,
> 
> I was on the verge of retracting my choice words used previously but this entitlement theme keeps re-occurring and raising my ire. Sorry if I disagree with most of you.  But... there shouldn't have been a flex deposit/replacement week/ whatever deposit at all, but for the renter trying to minimize his losses and telling the owner the week couldn't be used/occupied. Had the renter never called the OP, the week would have gone unused. (Or does your rental agreement require the renter to tell you if they won't use it so you can"recoup" the week, and keep the rental payment...?)
> 
> ...



I'm baffled by morality being inserted into this when the OP introduced the topic as an issue of legality (asking, "is this supposed to happen?) and when it's legalities that rule our ownerships with MVW, our memberships with II, and any rental contracts we choose to offer or accept.

Yes, I'm really saying that after the OP got paid for his rental, he was entitled to enforce the "no cancellation" clause in the rental contract when his renter decided at the last minute that he didn't want to use the rented Week.  I'm really saying that at that point the owner had no obligations, legal or moral, to make his renter whole.

But what I'm really saying is that if MVW and II knowingly engaged with the renter to make him whole, in direct violation of the terms of the owner's ownership/membership and without involving the owner, this is a much bigger issue than any perceived morality in private timeshare rental dealings.

Honestly, I'm baffled.  I remember a thread where an owner reneged on an agreed-upon rental price, after accepting an offer from a renter and sending a contract for signature but before the renter had time to respond, and the owner posed the question to TUG whether his actions were "honorable" or not.  THAT was a question of morality yet still the few of us who thought his actions were wrong were lambasted because the owner's actions were perfectly legal.  THIS could be a clearcut case of legal wrongdoing yet those of us who are saying that are seen as wrong.  Sometimes I think I will never figure out TUGgers.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 25, 2016)

klpca said:


> I'm honestly trying to understand your pov as well. *Are you saying that up until check in, the renter should be able to cancel and receive some sort of refund, even if the owner is unable to re-rent or otherwise use their week?*  That's how hotels usually work (although I have seen some that won't refund without a 48 hour notice) but in the world of private timeshare rentals, it is usually a no-refunds policy. The flip side is that it is substantially cheaper in many cases then renting from Marriott.
> 
> One thing is for sure, this thread has taught me that everyone interprets the same facts differently. A written contract is the way to go. And if someone doesn't like the terms, they can always move on to a different deal.


Not at all. I've never suggested any refund (or any other _obligation_) due to the renter from the owner. Just some decency to the renter's situation, as opposed to the idea that when the renter called the owner had some superior right to then recoup the week, and keep the full payment.
 My post #48 lays out my position (if not too graphically).


----------



## davidvel (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> If a renter called me 16 days before check-in, and said, _"I changed my mind - we just don't want to go anymore,"_ - that would be their "choice."
> 
> I would send them a copy of the rental terms that clearly state:  NO refunds, No changes, No cancellations, and explain that if they choose not to go, there will not be a refund, because those are the rental terms that they agreed to.
> 
> ...


I never advocated any refund. Not sure where this is coming from. 

I agree 100%. Except for the remorse part. I would try to do whatever I could that didn't entail a lot of work on my part to help them out. But then, I've been labeled "generous".


----------



## davidvel (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm baffled by morality being inserted into this when the OP introduced the topic as an issue of legality (asking, "is this supposed to happen?) and when it's legalities that rule our ownerships with MVW, our memberships with II, and any rental contracts we choose to offer or accept.
> 
> Yes, I'm really saying that after the OP got paid for his rental, he was entitled to enforce the "no cancellation" clause in the rental contract when his renter decided at the last minute that he didn't want to use the rented Week.  I'm really saying that at that point the owner had no obligations, legal or moral, to make his renter whole.


The "morality" I refer to is  the quotes in my post #48, and others.

I've never advocated that the renter should get a refund, or could "cancel", etc. I agree the OP had no legal obligation, but as my posts reference above, I have distaste for the cold hard _too bad, you take your chances, you eat the losses_ (and I'll recoup the week and deposit in my II account or otherwise utilize the week I rented you and you can't use) mentality. Maybe others don't see it this way; that's OK I guess.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

davidvel said:


> I never advocated any refund. Not sure where this is coming from.
> 
> I agree 100%. Except for the remorse part. I would try to do whatever I could that didn't entail a lot of work on my part to help them out. But then, I've been labeled "generous".



If someone has a family emergency, or a genuine problem, I do try to help them out.

However, that is not the situation here AT ALL - this renter simply changed their mind...16 days before check-in.

That is simply unreasonable, and it's their problem - not mine.


----------



## klpca (Jul 25, 2016)

Well color me confused still - if not a refund then what do you think that the owner in this situation should do? (Not really a big deal to me one way or another because this is the internet and this discussion is trending towards the hypothetical). I don't see anyone advocating taking advantage of a renter, but when you get down to the last few days, an owner who is now in a difficult position because of a late cancellation is limited on what they can do to help the renter. And in my humble opinion, the renter who is cancelling at the last minute for no reason other than "just don't want to go" is not in a strong bargaining position.

And one thing for sure, (and for me this is the big issue) one of the choices should not be to have Interval and/or Marriott take the week and do anything without speaking to the owner first. (Which we all agree is a big no-no).

.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

davidvel said:


> The "morality" I refer to is  the quotes in my post #48, and others.
> 
> I've never advocated that the renter should get a refund, or could "cancel", etc. I agree the OP had no legal obligation, but as my posts reference above, I have distaste for the cold hard _too bad, you take your chances, you eat the losses_ (and I'll recoup the week and deposit in my II account or otherwise utilize the week I rented you and you can't use) mentality. Maybe others don't see it this way; that's OK I guess.



The only reason a flex deposit Week is in play is because MVW/II allowed someone other than the owner/member to authorize activity in his accounts.  I don't think anyone has said that the OP should have tried to get that flex deposit for himself and leave the renter high and dry.  What has been said is that according to the ownership/membership terms that flex Week should legally be the OP's Week to do with as he chooses (whether he offers it to his renter or does something else with it.)


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> If someone has a family emergency, or a genuine problem, I do try to help them out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I can't believe the way this thread has progressed. It's like there is no common sense at all with some people, even though they prefer labelling some of us with derogatory terms because we advocate rational expectations. 

Time is also valuable and has a direct cost to many of us. Some here seem to think that the owner should spend time finding an alternative solution when the renter can no longer use the week after they have already expended time in finding a renter for their property and arranging the agreement, etc. Some of you go the extra effort to try to help a renter when their circumstances prevent using a week by finding another who may pay for it, but even that seems to have gone unnoticed by others (and which is not an obligation by the owner by any means) - regardless, I applaud those of you who do so.

Glad I'm not renting any of my weeks, though I've rented/bought from a few of you over the years and I think those transactions went great. Thanks again to those of you who rented to me, and I'm just glad I didn't want to cancel at last minute...oh, wait...had I needed to cancel I know I wouldn't have asked you to do anything on my behalf, because I rented with full knowledge that the money I spent was non-refundable and the week would have no value in any other form to me as the renter. I knowingly took that risk when renting a timeshare, and was aware of the cancelation policy...just as in the instance which started this thread.

Anyway, it's clear we can't do enough for some people and those people will never be satisfied.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> The only reason a flex deposit Week is in play is because MVW/II allowed someone other than the owner/member to authorize activity in his accounts.  I don't think anyone has said that the OP should have tried to get that flex deposit for himself and leave the renter high and dry.  What has been said is that according to the ownership/membership terms that flex Week should legally be the OP's Week to do with as he chooses (whether he offers it to his renter or does something else with it.)



Sue - In my opinion, in this situation we are discussing, the owner would be  obligated to leave the reservation in the renter's name, so the unit is available, if the renter wants to use it.

If the owner cancels the reservation, or deposits it, or otherwise makes it unavailable to the renter, then owner is not fulfilling the contract, and that would not be ethical - or legal.

However, the owner's only obligation is to provide the unit, as agreed upon in the contract.

They have zero obligation to scramble around at the last minute to appease a fickle renter.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't think anyone has said that the OP should have tried to get that flex deposit for himself and leave the renter high and dry.


Well maybe not that exactly, but close:


billymach4 said:


> The owner in my opinion should have the last recourse in use of week if the renter can't utilize the week.





billymach4 said:


> As the owner I would want last say and usage of and unused week. _*Personally it is the renters loss*_. I would rather have deposited the week and usage of an exchange.





Ken555 said:


> *In the event the renter has to cancel,* then regardless of whatever cancelation policy the renter and owner agreed to, *the owner then has full rights to their unit week. They could deposit it in II, use it themselves, give it away to others, etc. *


----------



## davidvel (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Sue - In my opinion, in this situation we are discussing, the owner would be  obligated to leave the reservation in the renter's name, so the unit is available, if the renter wants to use it.
> 
> If the owner cancels the reservation, or deposits it, or otherwise makes it unavailable to the renter, then owner is not fulfilling the contract, and that would not be ethical - or legal.
> 
> ...


I agree (again).


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Sue - In my opinion, in this situation we are discussing, the owner would be  obligated to leave the reservation in the renter's name, so the unit is available, if the renter wants to use it.
> 
> If the owner cancels the reservation, or deposits it, or otherwise makes it unavailable to the renter, then owner is not fulfilling the contract, and that would not be ethical - or legal.
> 
> ...



I agree as to the rented reservation remaining available to the renter, and I don't see anything from the OP that says he doesn't also agree.  In his Post #62 he said that he and his renter, "could discuss me depositing into my II account if he finalized his decision not to go," which I took to mean that he'd work with the renter to arrange an alternate flex exchange (but of course I could be wrong in that assumption?)

But once the renter managed to convince MVW and II to issue a flex exchange (if in fact that's what has happened,) that exchange should have been issued in the owner's name and in the owner's account with his full knowledge and authorization. That's the sticking point for me. MVW and II had no right to perform these actions without his consent, regardless of whether he would have chosen to perform them on his renter's behalf.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree as to the unit remaining available to the renter, and I don't see anything from the OP that says he doesn't also agree.  In his Post #62 he said that he and his renter, "could discuss me depositing into my II account if he finalized his decision not to go," which I took to mean that he'd work with the renter to arrange an alternate flex exchange (but of course I could be wrong in that assumption?)
> 
> But once the renter managed to convince MVW and II to issue a flex exchange (if in fact that's what has happened,) that exchange should have been issued in the owner's name and in the owner's account with his full knowledge and authorization.  That's the sticking point for me.  MVW and II had no right to perform these actions without his consent, regardless of whether he would have chosen to perform them on his renter's behalf.



Yep, and Yep!


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> If a renter called me 16 days before check-in, and said, _"I changed my mind - we just don't want to go anymore,"_ - that would be their "choice."



Maybe OP later clarified this but the in the original post said "He had called me to tell me that he might not be able to go".  Isn't it possible that his reason for cancelling could be most anything, job related, death in the family, serious illness, etc.?  Something other than "I changed my mind".

George


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

The OP posted that the renter said that they just changed their mind.



> From the sound of his explanation it was just that *the family decided they didn't want to go at that time anymore.*


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> It seems that the renter thought there was an implied agreement between them and the renter when they called and asked about depositing the week with their BIL II account. The renter didn't seem to object that I can tell from their posts, just that they didn't think it was possible. The renter then indicating that "we will get back to you" meant that if it worked, they would let them know. Which it seems that they did. If the renter didn't want the week deposited, they should have let it be known. Not just that they didn't think it would work, because apparently it can.
> 
> Given that the week is no longer available in the OPs Marriott.com account, and their MVC account shows that the week was deposited for exchange, it would lead me to now think that the deposit was confirmed. Realize that the deposit and verification process is all automated, likely just a checkin date, resort and confirmation number check is done. No validation again the name. Probably another *good reason to not give out your confirmation number until payment in full for a rental is made*.



I agree that this may need to be a new norm to protect owners who rent weeks out. What I wonder is if not getting a reservation/confirmation number until full payment has been made will produce a 'chilling' effect with prospective renters (although they could certainly spend extra monies for an escrow service for added peace of mind in the absence of a confirmation number) ...


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm baffled by morality being inserted into this when the OP introduced the topic as an issue of legality (asking, "is this supposed to happen?) and when it's legalities that rule our ownerships with MVW, our memberships with II, and any rental contracts we choose to offer or accept.
> 
> Yes, I'm really saying that after the OP got paid for his rental, he was entitled to enforce the "no cancellation" clause in the rental contract when his renter decided at the last minute that he didn't want to use the rented Week.  I'm really saying that at that point the owner had no obligations, legal or moral, to make his renter whole.
> 
> ...



I remember that one. Great contrasting example.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> ... I agree with the suggestions in this thread to use TUG's connection with II (Interval provides direct email for TUG member support) and to contact MVW Customer Care (Contact Us / Marriott Vacations Worldwide,) to get to the bottom of what has actually happened and how.



With a lack of known facts there's been a lot of supposition and conjecture in this thread (which abstract discussions many of us enjoy immensely and aren't IMO a bad thing!) but I think it's important *for the OP* to focus on the questions that can only be answered by MVW and II.  That's why after so many comments I'm choosing to once more drop the links for the OP to directly contact the correct people at those companies who should be able to explain in detail the chain of events that appears to have resulted in his owned Week being deposited without his knowledge/consent into a third party's account, what this might mean for the future security of his accounts, and whatever parts the companies played in that chain.

*LUVourMarriotts*, I hope that this discussion has at least been able to help you articulate your concerns.  Experience has proven that both MVW and II are well aware of TUG and responsive to legitimate concerns raised here, so it may help you to direct them to this thread - >>http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244443<<

Good luck!


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm baffled by morality being inserted into this when the OP introduced the topic as an issue of legality (asking, "is this supposed to happen?) and when it's legalities that rule our ownerships with MVW, our memberships with II, and any rental contracts we choose to offer or accept.
> 
> Yes, I'm really saying that after the OP got paid for his rental, he was entitled to enforce the "no cancellation" clause in the rental contract when his renter decided at the last minute that he didn't want to use the rented Week.  I'm really saying that at that point the owner had no obligations, legal or moral, to make his renter whole.
> 
> ...



This makes me really chuckle. What's the statutes of limitation of referencing controversial issues? Not very relevant and definitely misrepresented but enough on that.


So let me ask the question to those that oppose the action MAR and II took.

If the renter had worked it out with MAR/II but requested owner approval before anything was done would you've accepted and allowed the renter to get some value or just allow the room to go empty?

If a renter who paid you good money says, my daughter can't go because of XX (you know how teenagers can be) you wouldn't lift a finger to do anything to help? Make a phone call? Accept a different approach where owner is whole but renter can get some value?  Why not? Because the contract says so? 

That is where I'm different.  I would try to help under any circumstances. For one he could become a repeat customer and two if the shoe were on the other foot I'd would like some consideration.


I've said my piece and certainly don't want to get into old issues so i'll respectfully move on from this thread.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

MOXJO7282 said:


> If the renter had worked it out with MAR/II but requested owner approval before anything was done would you've accepted and allowed the renter to get some value or just allow the room to go empty?



No - I would never agree to have my timeshare deposited in a 3rd party's account.  Remember - _it wasn't even deposited in the renter's Acct._ - it was his BIL's Acct. Or so they said.  Who knows where it went?  They may have given it to one of these people who solicit exchanges for rent.   The renter should have let the owner initiate the contact with MAR and II, and make the arrangements.  



> If a renter who paid you good money says, my daughter can't go because of XX (you know how teenagers can be) you wouldn't lift a finger to do anything to help? Make a phone call? Accept a different approach where owner is whole but renter can get some value?  Why not? Because the contract says so?



*16 days* before check-in?  *No.*  It's simply not reasonable to expect special consideration for a non-emergency, 16 days before check-in.  

_*The purpose of a rental contract is to protect owners from things like this.  If you are not going to follow your own contract - why have one?_



> That is where I'm different.  I would try to help under any circumstances. For one he could become a repeat customer and two if the shoe were on the other foot I'd would like some consideration.



I don't want this person as a repeat customer.  When I have a problem like this with a renter, I won't do business with them again.  

_*I actually had this experience with a family that wanted a refund so their teenage daughter could do something with friends instead, and they were really mad that I would not give them a refund.  However, there was a lot of time before the rental, so I was able to get something for them for a different date, but not the prime resort they rented - it simply was not available.  They were really mad that I could not snap my fingers and make it magically happen and they did not think that the contract should apply to them...

When they contacted me for a future rental, I did not respond to their email._


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2016)

> I don't want this person as a repeat customer. When I have a problem like this with a renter, I won't do business with them again.



This is me.  I wouldn't ever work with that person again--not ever. 

I find it ironic that when I wanted to add the kids' names for FREE to our II confirmations, I had to prove that every single contract had their names included.  This was to make sure I wasn't trying to pull something.  

I was glad Platinum membership came available, because it was EVERY TIME I wanted to add their names, II made me fax all of the ownerships we had that were independent companies, and they would call Starwood and Marriott and ask them as well.  

So how does the same company let a week, not belonging to this renter, into an account of his BIL, without proving BIL's name is deeded to that week.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

MOXJO7282 said:


> So let me ask the question to those that oppose the action MAR and II took.
> 
> If the renter had worked it out with MAR/II but requested owner approval before anything was done would you've accepted and allowed the renter to get some value or just allow the room to go empty?



By their own admissions it's not MVW/II's place to work out anything with any parties, owners or renters, to a private rental contract.  This OP gave some indication to his renter that he might be willing to explore a flex deposit when the renter made up his mind whether or not he'd be using the owned Week, but he didn't involve MVW or II and in no way gave them or the renter authorization to take actions with his Week.



MOXJO7282 said:


> If a renter who paid you good money says, my daughter can't go because of XX (you know how teenagers can be) you wouldn't lift a finger to do anything to help? Make a phone call? Accept a different approach where owner is whole but renter can get some value?  Why not? Because the contract says so?



I'd be okay with my rental broker attempting to work with a renter in any way that s/he sees fit, in accordance with his/her established rental business, but I would perform whatever functions are necessary in my accounts to enact his/her suggestions.  I would never give my broker, much less any renters, direct access to my accounts in order to exchange the reservation I've placed for rental.  There is nothing in the governing docs to suggest that anyone else including the companies involved should have that access, and in fact the companies strongly suggest that you use the password-protections in order to safeguard the security rights that they've explicitly given you. 



MOXJO7282 said:


> That is where I'm different.  I would try to help under any circumstances. For one he could become a repeat customer and two if the shoe were on the other foot I'd would like some consideration.



Yes, I'd try to help (as above) but not under any circumstances.  This renter in particular?  I'd run very far and very fast away from him and I'd want my broker to do the same.  No amount of rental income is worth having to deal with PIA repeat customers.

But to get back on track, the issue here isn't that people wouldn't be willing to help when reasonable renters are unable to use a rented reservation; obviously some would and they've made that perfectly clear throughout this thread.  It also isn't whether the terms of this OP's rental contract are fair to the renter; that's immaterial and certainly not in the realm of MVW/II's control.  The issue is whether or not MVW/II acted in accordance with the governing docs as to the OP's Week, and he is certainly justified in questioning them until he gets satisfactory answers.  Just because he got paid for his rental is no reason to let what appears to be a serious breach go unchallenged.


----------



## klpca (Jul 25, 2016)

rickandcindy23 said:


> So how does the same company let a week, not belonging to this renter, into an account of his BIL, without proving BIL's name is deeded to that week.



No kidding. Maybe Interval just took the week (rental inventory?) and gave the BIL an AC. The renter would never understand the difference.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 25, 2016)

klpca said:


> No kidding. Maybe Interval just took the week (rental inventory?) and gave the BIL an AC. The renter would never understand the difference.



Maybe just two new people at Marriott and II who don't know any better?


----------



## presley (Jul 25, 2016)

Guessing the BIL owns at the same resort and already has it in their account. The only other explanation I can imagine is that they are friends with someone who works at either place and did them a favor.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

I know dioxide's explanation to the contrary makes sense but I am STILL hoping that this turns out to be the renter and his BIL taking it upon themselves to do an online deposit in the BIL's account using the owner's reservation information, and that the deposit is rejected by II because the ownership information doesn't jibe.

Anything other than that?  I'd be collecting generous compensation from both MVW and II.  Nobody except an owner should be able to deposit owned Weeks into II, and Weeks deposits to third-party accounts should never happen.


----------



## Cmore (Jul 25, 2016)

Passepartout said:


> If you were paid your asking price, why should you care what II does?



I agree, I don't see how this affects the owner of the week who rented it out.  Seems to me it may be a cleaner deal for them now that it's an II deposit.  No renter damage to be concerned about on time that was attributable to the owner.  

What am I missing ?


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

Cmore said:


> I agree, I don't see how this affects the owner of the week who rented it out.  Seems to me it may be a cleaner deal for them now that it's an II deposit.  No renter damage to be concerned about on time that was attributable to the owner.
> 
> What am I missing ?



-The owner lost control of their timeshare reservation.

-The owner has no idea where the week was deposited - it wasn't even the renter's acct. - it was supposedly "their BIL's."  So it simply disappeared.

-The owner doesn't know what is going to be done with the exchange - for instance - was it sold to a company that rents exchanges?

BIG PICTURE - if this can really be done without the owner's consent, what is to keep scammers from stealing owner's reservations?

Scenario - 

Let's say I have my timeshare for rent and I find a potential renter who is very interested.

This is an astute renter, so they ask to see the original confirmation, to prove that the reservation really exists.

I send them a copy, but then they say they can't go that date, but thank you very much, blah, blah, blah.

A months later, you do find a renter, and when you go to request their confirmation, you discover that the reservation was deposited in II - without your consent or knowledge.​


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> ... Scenario - ...



Here's another.  Say you've rented your owned 1BR unit for a mid-demand resort/period for $1200.  Somehow your renter manages to deposit your rented interval into his/her or another II account and exchange it for a 2BR unit at a high-demand resort/period, having paid only the original rental fee and additional minimal up-charge to II for what could be a $3,000+ rental on the established market.

Effectively your renter has managed without your knowledge or consent to short-change anyone on the established rental market, including you, who owns the 2BR interval that the renter ultimately obtained.  And, the possibility exists that if your accounts are reviewed then II could conceivably suspend your account because you have been compensated by a renter for what is an II interval (and so is not permitted by II rules to be rented.)

There are all kinds of ramifications that people aren't looking at here.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 25, 2016)

After reading thru this morass, all I can say is I'm glad I don't rent out anything I own except thru the Steamboat Grand Hotel Management Company and personally use all the rest.

Cheers


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

x3 skier said:


> After reading thru this morass, all I can say is I'm glad I don't rent out anything I own except thru the Steamboat Grand Hotel Management Company and personally use all the rest.
> 
> Cheers



Based on the comments, I am guessing that a lot of the people in this thread have little experience with rentals, because they would be eaten alive on the rental market.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> -The owner lost control of their timeshare reservation.
> 
> -The owner has no idea where the week was deposited - it wasn't even the renter's acct. - it was supposedly "their BIL's."  So it simply disappeared.
> 
> ...



Meaning your week was stolen ...


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Based on the comments, I am guessing that a lot of the people in this thread have little experience with rentals, because they would be eaten alive on the rental market.



True.  But I'm surprised by the number of owners who are active in the rental market who don't see the problems here - they stand to lose the most if this turns out to be a loophole or something that isn't explained/corrected.  Makes no sense.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 25, 2016)

kds4 said:


> Meaning your week was stolen ...


Buy you have payment in full. 

Contract law
1. Offer / invitation to treat. 
Owner lists on a site. 
2. Acceptance. 
Contract is signed with renter 
3. Consideration 
Payment per the contract is made. 

Now if the named person on that week choses to deposit it, and interval accepts that deposit how is that theft. It's a new contract separate from the initial contract.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Buy you have payment in full.
> 
> Contract law
> 1. Offer / invitation to treat.
> ...



Go back and read the quote in post 120  - in my scenario the reservation was *stolen.*


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 25, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Go back and read the quote in post 120  - in my scenario the reservation was *stolen.*


But in your scenario their name was never on the reservation.  If they took it then, and without payment then yes, that is fraud and theft.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> But in your scenario their name was never on the reservation.  If they took it then, and without payment then yes, that is fraud and theft.



That is the point:  Numerous people keep asking why it is a problem that MAR/II made this deposit _without the owner's consent._

My scenario explains how this could allow a scammer to steal someone's reservation, IF MAR/II are actually allowing this to happen - which we don't know yet.

Remember, the confirmation is in the renter's name, but it was (allegedly) deposited in his BIL's acct. - the confirmation is not in the BIL's name - so how could it be deposited in the BIL's Acct???

The reservation belongs to party A.
The reservation was rented to party B and is in Party B's name.
The reservation was deposited in Party C's Acct. (his BIL's II Acct.)


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Buy you have payment in full.
> 
> Contract law
> 1. Offer / invitation to treat.
> ...





If the offer is specific to a particular resort and week, then any other use would violate the agreement.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 25, 2016)

Ken555 said:


> If the offer is specific to a particular resort and week, then any other use would violate the agreement.


Lawyer could have a field day but the renter used that particular week / resort as a deposit on a new contract with a different party. 

What they get in return is no party of the original contract. That contract was honored by both sides.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Lawyer could have a field day but the renter used that particular week / resort as a deposit on a new contract with a different party.
> 
> What they get in return is no party of the original contract. That contract was honored by both sides.



The MVW and II governing docs make it explicitly clear that no one but the owner has the right to perform actions in owner accounts with in-good-standing Weeks, unless the owner gives those companies the rights to do so (such as when an owner makes a reservation or an exchange deposit, etc.)  Even if what appears to have happened here wouldn't be a technical violation of the rental contract between the owner and his renter (which is questionable on the face of it,) it would most definitely be a violation of the owner protections that are contractually-bestowed by both MVW and II.

I don't know how owner rentals work within your owned system but within MVW's the owner's name remains on the reservation, the renter's name is added by the owner as a guest, and control of/responsibility for the reservation remains with the owner through the check-out day.  (Added just in case things are done differently ...)


----------



## Cmore (Jul 25, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> Here's another.  Say you've rented your owned 1BR unit for a mid-demand resort/period for $1200.  Somehow your renter manages to deposit your rented interval into his/her or another II account and exchange it for a 2BR unit at a high-demand resort/period, having paid only the original rental fee and additional minimal up-charge to II for what could be a $3,000+ rental on the established market.
> 
> Effectively your renter has managed without your knowledge or consent to short-change anyone on the established rental market, including you, who owns the 2BR interval that the renter ultimately obtained.  And, the possibility exists that if your accounts are reviewed then II could conceivably suspend your account because you have been compensated by a renter for what is an II interval (and so is not permitted by II rules to be rented.)
> 
> There are all kinds of ramifications that people aren't looking at here.



DeniseM and SueDonJ - Thank you for explaining the pitfalls, I was just looking at the fact the "owner" got his money and really shouldn't care.  For the most part I still think that, but agree totally that there should be a verification before II deposits it.  Clearly, owners must be protected against someone stealing their reservation.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Jul 25, 2016)

*Update*

I spoke with Mark @ II today for a while.  Here's some info about our conversation.

As we all (or most of us) know, this absolutely should not have happened.  Mark will be investigating the entire process of how this deposit was confirmed and completed.  MY week was deposited into the II account of a 3rd person, presumably the "brother-in-law".  The reason I put that in quotes is because this person appears to be a naughty II member with their previous activities.  It is unclear if the person I dealt with was providing real name, etc.  Lets just say that when the deposit was reviewed, the name of the II member was a known name, not for good reasons.

Anyway, the II deposit process requests information from Marriott.  Marriott's system is supposed to confirm owner and reservation details, then confirm or reject with II.  It seems that system failed miserably.  Mark will investigate the whole process, including the Marriott side.  I plan to wait for Mark's results before contacting Marriott.  But, there was concern that if this happened, could there be something wrong with the confirmation/validation process?

Again, Mark is reviewing what happened and will get back to me, but possibly not for a few weeks.

One of my big questions was, am I in any way tied to the deposit, which means I could somehow be liable for the future booking.  Mark told me that I am not associated to it at all, since it is in somebody else's account.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> I spoke with Mark @ II today for a while.  Here's some info about our conversation.
> 
> As we all (or most of us) know, this absolutely should not have happened.  Mark will be investigating the entire process of how this deposit was confirmed and completed.  MY week was deposited into the II account of a 3rd person, presumably the "brother-in-law".  The reason I put that in quotes is because this person appears to be a naughty II member with their previous activities.  It is unclear if the person I dealt with was providing real name, etc.  Lets just say that when the deposit was reviewed, the name of the II member was a known name, not for good reasons.
> 
> ...



Brady, I'm glad you have someone working for you who appears to understand the seriousness of your situation and is doing what should be done to ensure that corrections are made and that you are protected.  Continued good luck that you'll be satisfied with the final resolution whatever it may be.  Thank you for updating the thread.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Lawyer could have a field day but the renter used that particular week / resort as a deposit on a new contract with a different party.
> 
> What they get in return is no party of the original contract. That contract was honored by both sides.





Once again, if the agreed upon use of the specific week and resort was part of the agreement, then I can't see any grey in this issue. Depositing the week into an exchange company is not a standard use for a rental, and I doubt it was a specifically granted right along with the right to use the week at the resort, etc.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 25, 2016)

Ken555 said:


> Once again, if the agreed upon use of the specific week and resort was part of the agreement, then I can't see any grey in this issue. Depositing the week into an exchange company is not a standard use for a rental, and I doubt it was a specifically granted right along with the right to use the week at the resort, etc.


Once again (though i note the twist above)  

Contract between week owner and renter resulted in the use of the specific week and unit as a deposit to II.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Once again (though i note the twist above)
> 
> Contract between week owner and renter resulted in the use of the specific week and unit as a deposit to II.





The "twist" as you say is the same point I've been making in my earlier posts on this thread. It's all about the intended and agreed upon use of the week. I've never heard of a renter having the right to deposit their rented week in an exchange company, though I imagine it's technically possible if agreed upon at time of rental. Your point seems to be that the renter has the right to use the week in any way they want, which I do not agree.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> Once again (though i note the twist above)
> 
> Contract between week owner and renter resulted in the use of the specific week and unit as a deposit to II.



But you're the one that's extending the "usage" of the rented reservation to include a deposit to II of the Week used to make the reservation.  Remember, rental contracts specify a reservation of a certain unit size/view at a certain resort for a certain time period; they don't specify usage of a Week in whatever incantation the owner would be allowed.  Using the Week in any manner other than what's specifically stated in the rental contract would not at all constitute conforming to the rental contract.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 26, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> I spoke with Mark @ II today for a while.  Here's some info about our conversation.
> 
> As we all (or most of us) know, this absolutely should not have happened.
> 
> ...



Finding out about Mark has been the biggest piece of helpful information I have found by reading through this thread.   I rarely venture out of the Marriott forum and didn't know about this fortunate feature of TUG.

I've been waiting to see how II responded to Brady and II's response is playing out much the way I hoped it would.   There is the little twist of surprise that the BIL may be a naughty II member (reality show drama ) and MVC's check system failed.  I'm eagerly waiting for the next episode.  

This is truly a live and learn situation for us all to consider when renting. 

We have more timeshare weeks than we use so I dabble in renting.   Here's the first bit from the contract I use:

"TIMESHARE USE AGREEMENT


AGREEMENT dated this DATE by and between Owner and the Resort Guest

1.  Owner(s)/Agent of unit ("Owner"):

2. Resort Guest(s) in unit ("Guest"):

Name:
Address:

E-mail address:

3. Unit subject to Agreement ("Unit"):

Resort Name & Address:

4. Term of use ("Term"):
Starts at:  Resort checkin on 
Ends at:   Resort checkout on 

5. Fee for term:
Paid in full at time of Agreement."

I use this directly for those who seem to think being paid for a rental then gives the renter carte blanche over the week.   I want to know who's renting, how many people they plan to put in the room and if the age of the renter (and occupant's) is something I'm comfortable with.  With a week deposited out of my control I could unwittingly be renting to the very type of renter I would not rent to.   Not only that, but I would be renting an II exchange which is a BIG no-no with II.   If this tidbit has been brought up in the thread I've missed it.

Another tidbit that I haven't seen addressed is the fact that TIME IS MONEY.  When I rent I'm using my time to make reservation, run ad, answer emails,  call MVC to add renter, etc.   Once I've fulfilled my obligation to a contract that is the portion of my time the renter has bought.   If they then need more of my time for special concessions it is only reasonable that there should be additional fees.   Honestly, the thought of checking and rechecking flex change options for a renter is nauseating.   Can you imagine how much time that could eat up with phone calls and emails?   All for someone you don't have any real personal connection to and was a bit of a nuisance from the start.

While I can't remember having this happen yet with my rentals I have often considered what I would do.   Among several options my first would be to tell the renter if they want their money back they need to find me another renter within my parameters.  If I renewed my ad and found the new renter the emergency/hardship of the situation would determine whether I charged a penalty on the return of first rent.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> MY week was deposited into the II account of a 3rd person, presumably the *"brother-in-law"*.  The reason I put that in quotes is because this person appears to be a *naughty II member* with their previous activities.  It is unclear if the person I dealt with was providing real name, etc.  Lets just say that when the deposit was reviewed, the *name of the II member was a known name, not for good reasons.*



In plain speak:

-The "so called BIL" is probably not even related to the renter.

-The owner of this II Acct. has previous violations on his Acct. - this is usually for renting exchanges.

-The II Rep. knows who the II Acct. holder is, because of past violations.​
My guess - the renter sold the reservation to the owner of the II Acct. who plans to use it for rentals.


----------



## kds4 (Jul 27, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> In plain speak:
> 
> -The "so called BIL" is probably not even related to the renter.
> 
> ...



And if that's the case, the plain speech version of the conversation between the renter and the owner would have sounded something like "So, since I've decided not to use the reservation I rented from you I'm going to try and sell it to someone else (and maybe even they will resell/rent it out after that). That's okay with you, right?"

Uhhh. No


----------



## VegasBella (Jul 27, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> My guess - the renter sold the reservation to the owner of the II Acct. who plans to use it for rentals.



Or they're actually the same person.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 27, 2016)

A second security breach has occurred in another TUGger's MVW account: My potential renter just changed my Marriott reservation! What is going on??? 

Full disclosure, I've posted this in that thread:





SueDonJ said:


> ... I hope that TUGgers understand but I have now called MVW's attention to this and the other thread detailing the other security breach.  An an owner I am genuinely spitting mad that these situations have occurred and I believe that MVW owes all of us owners an explanation.


----------



## icydog (Jul 28, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Is it possible that the unit/week isn't even confirmed yet? Someone can go to the II website or even call and input or give the reservation details, but it can take a few days for Marriott to actually confirm the deposit. It is still possible for Marriott to report back to II that the week isn't confirmed and the person still has an un-deposited week.
> 
> If confirmed, I do find this to be a very odd situation. Not sure I would rock the boat, but I would be concerned what someone could do with just a reservation number and a name.




This is exactly what I was thinking.  Ditto to everything Dioxide says.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 28, 2016)

Not possible. If a deposit is not yet confirmed then the reservation remains with Marriott. It doesn't go from Marriott to II unless they confirm it. The OP said in his original post that MVC confirmed that the reservation is gone to II. That step just can't happen unless someone confirms it.

It would be different if it was II that was saying it was deposited but it still showed up on marriott.com. Instead the deposit notification came from MVC.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 28, 2016)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Not possible. If a deposit is not yet confirmed then the reservation remains with Marriott. It doesn't go from Marriott to II unless they confirm it. The OP said in his original post that MVC confirmed that the reservation is gone to II. That step just can't happen unless someone confirms it.
> 
> It would be different if it was II that was saying it was deposited but it still showed up on marriott.com. Instead the deposit notification came from MVC.



I tend to agree. I amended my original thoughts and arrived at a similar conclusion in post #87.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 12, 2016)

*II's investigation results*

I received an email from Mark @ II today.  He informed me what we assumed all along.  This was actually a Marriott mistake.  The mistake is the same mistake that occurred in another TUG thread.  Marriott saw the renters name on the reservation, saw the same name on the II account, and allowed the deposit to be made.  Per Mark, Marriott agreed that they made a mistake and this should not have happened.

So, I am good with that.  Especially finding out a while ago that I have no relation at all to the deposit, so nothing could come back on me.  But, I would like to reach out to Marriott to make sure that they understand there is obviously an issue.  As I said, there is another thread where this same thing occurred.  Someone or something is wrong with the process, and for all owners safety, Marriott needs to fix this.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 12, 2016)

I am confused:

I thought it was deposited in the brother-in-law's II Acct.  A brother-in-law would not have the same name.

Also - what about the thing they told you about this person having previous infractions?


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 13, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> I am confused:
> 
> I thought it was deposited in the brother-in-law's II Acct.  A brother-in-law would not have the same name.
> 
> Also - what about the thing they told you about this person having previous infractions?


I know a couple of families where they are all say Joe Blogs but go by their middle name. 

Joe David Blogs
Joe Robert Blogs etc

Would kinda have the same name then.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 13, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> I know a couple of families where they are all say Joe Blogs but go by their middle name.
> 
> Joe David Blogs
> Joe Robert Blogs etc
> ...



The OP is male, it would be nearly impossible (though not completely impossible in today's world) that the BIL has the same last name. It would either be their wife's husband, thus a different last name, or their sisters husband, again with a different last name. It doesn't seem that the OP ever changed the guests name on the reservation to that of the BIL, unless the renter called an added it before having it deposited in the BIL's II account.


----------



## rapmarks (Aug 13, 2016)

SMHarman said:


> I know a couple of families where they are all say Joe Blogs but go by their middle name.
> 
> Joe David Blogs
> Joe Robert Blogs etc
> ...



so the renter has an in law with the same name as him?


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 13, 2016)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> I received an email from Mark @ II today.  He informed me what we assumed all along.  This was actually a Marriott mistake.  The mistake is the same mistake that occurred in another TUG thread.  Marriott saw the renters name on the reservation, saw the same name on the II account, and allowed the deposit to be made.  Per Mark, Marriott agreed that they made a mistake and this should not have happened.
> 
> So, I am good with that.  Especially finding out a while ago that I have no relation at all to the deposit, so nothing could come back on me.  *But, I would like to reach out to Marriott to make sure that they understand there is obviously an issue.*  As I said, there is another thread where this same thing occurred.  Someone or something is wrong with the process, and for all owners safety, Marriott needs to fix this.



About what's bolded, it's a VERY good idea for you to involve MVW in this mess.  Again, I'd start with Customer Care - MVW / Contact Us.  I also would ask them to coordinate with II so that together they can figure out and tell you exactly what happened with your Week, in your accounts as well as anybody else's.

Thanks for the update; continued good luck!


----------



## bnoble (Aug 13, 2016)

rapmarks said:


> so the renter has an in law with the same name as him?



I think it is more likely that they are one and the same person, and the renter has been less than completely honest. This is perhaps not surprising given that the II account in question is "naughty."

I also suspect that the renter has done this before, counting on the fact that the average timeshare owner knows a lot less about how all this works than the OP does.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Aug 13, 2016)

bnoble said:


> I think it is more likely that they are one and the same person...<cut>.



My sister-in-law (brother's wife) and I have the SAME EXACT names .. first, middle, and last names.

Any presents to HER within the family, must have my brother's first name and then, her name. Else I claim the present as MINE (... for a few minutes).


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 13, 2016)

rapmarks said:


> so the renter has an in law with the same name as him?


I dunno, nobody is naming names here. May just be general incompetence of Marriott approvals here.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 13, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> I am confused:
> 
> I thought it was deposited in the brother-in-law's II Acct.  A brother-in-law would not have the same name.
> 
> Also - what about the thing they told you about this person having previous infractions?



Thanks for catching this one. I forgot about this. It's been a while, and lots of stuff going on in my life that is more important, so this slipped my mind. I will follow up on this.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 13, 2016)

vacationhopeful said:


> My sister-in-law (brother's wife) and I have the SAME EXACT names .. first, middle, and last names.
> 
> Any presents to HER within the family, must have my brother's first name and then, her name. Else I claim the present as MINE (... for a few minutes).



Your BIL is your siblings spouse, so to have the same last name, _he would have to have taken your siblings last name._  While this is certainly possible, its a lot more likely that a SIL will have the same name.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 15, 2016)

The deposit did not go into an II account with the same name as my renter.  I had updated my reservation with the renters name, Joe Schmo, and the deposit was made into an account with the name, Bob Doe.  Those are not the real names.  This means my renter must have called in and also changed/added the name of his BIL to the reservation, then did the deposit request.

Two things I want to track with Marriott now:
1. Should the owner be the only person allowed to make a name change on a reservation?
2. Why did they confirm the II deposit without verifying that the reservations owner was the same as the II account the deposit was going into?


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 20, 2016)

*Response from Marriott*

I spoke with someone in the "executive offices" at Marriott a few times last week.  They looked into this situation.  At first, the guy I was speaking to seemed to have a similar feeling as many in this thread, "you got paid, so what's the big deal?".  But then, he looked into what actually happened and realized that there are several different ways that this situation could negatively impact owners, if it were to continue happening.

I found out a few things.
1. Marriott's policy for name changes on a reservation allow for anyone already on the reservation to change the name.  The rep asks simple questions to identify the person on the phone is the right person, but when it comes to the renters name, the only way to really validate is if the caller says that same name.
2. Marriott confirmed that they screwed up the deposit approval.  They are specifically supposed to validate the owners name of the unit being deposited matches the Interval member name.  I was informed this is a manual process, it is not automated.  So, a person screwed up, not a computer.  They identified that person that allowed the deposit, and they will interview that person to find out why they allowed it, and put steps into place to make sure it doesn't happen again.

A suggestion I was given is that you should never use the same email address as the email address you have on file with Marriott Vacations, when working with a renter.  In situations where a renter may be trying to pull a fast one, one form of identification is usually going to be email address.  If you have been corresponding with your address on file, then the renter knows that address as well.

I also asked about the scenario of getting a small deposit, adding the renters name to the resi, allowing them to confirm its a legit resi, then getting paid in full.  If the renter somehow requested the unit to be deposited into II at this point, and you have not been paid, Marriott doesn't have much power in this situation.  For instance, if the unit deposited, even though wrongly, has been confirmed to a different II member, Marriott can not pull it back out of II.  Their only recourse would be to give you a II bonus week.  You could of course request that they cover your rental fee, but that will be a negotiation.

Lets hope this loophole gets fixed.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 21, 2016)

In this case the Marriott rep knew he was dealing with someone other than the owner but still went ahead and processed a transaction through the owner's account.  I wouldn't call this a loophole; I'd call it a Marriott rep doing something wrong.

It also sounds to me like they fabricated this faux loophole in order to pacify you rather than admit to their wrongdoing.  Owner rentals have been happening for decades.  If this email-related "loophole" actually existed, it would have been exposed and dissected on TUG long before now.

LUVourMarriotts, I hope they don't believe that their responsibility for this wrongdoing has been satisfied with a few simple phone conversations between you and them.  I still believe that you are owed something for it, considering that between MVW and II they gave to your renter a flex deposit that should have been credited to your account and completely in your control.  But beyond that, they should be on the hook for the aggravation they've caused you and for the wake-up call you've given them.  I don't often call for compensation but this is an exceptional (not in a good way) error.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 22, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> ...I wouldn't call this a loophole; I'd call it a Marriott rep doing something wrong...



To clarify this part, I called it a loophole, not Marriott. As I mentioned in item 2 above, they confirmed that they screwed up. 

Regarding compensation, I was asked at the beginning of the initial conversation if I was also looking for Marriott to compensate me in any way. I told them I was not, since I got paid in full for my rental. I told them I wanted them to investigate how this happened and make sure it would not happen again. I also mentioned several people on this thread were concerned. He reviewed this thread and understands the concern. They have all intention of putting in procedures to make sure this doesn't happen again. That's all I can really ask for. I can't have them show me their new procedures document to prove it to me.


----------

