# Wyndham Violation Letter Re: Commercial Use



## SilverLeafOwner

So, the following was posted on a Wyndham Facebook User Group:


For those who cannot read it, the poster writes:

"Hey Everyone,
I am very concerned. I have rented out some units this year to help cover maintenance expenses as we wernt able to vacation as much due to covid.
My friend just messaged me that he received a certified mail from wyndham telling his that he had been identified as renting for commercial purposes. He was told he had to cancel all his reservations or else they would delete this account.
Is for real ??? Or is this a scam letter? Its certified mail able to be scammed?  He said it looked legit.
The sales rep told us to rent in my account so I would buy into VIP for times when we didnt use all our points such as this past year....
Am I at risk as well ? How can I find out? what is wyndham doing? Seems like if its for real another lawsuit might happen I am so scared. I need these rental this year especially  after the turmoil of covid."

I have heard from another friend that she also received a similar letter two days ago which leads me to believe this letter is real.  I have rented about 2 dozen guest rentals this year to get rid of points from last year and this year.  And while I have not received a letter, I do have a few questions:

1. Has anyone else received this or dealt with this?

2. What is meant by commercial use?
(e.g., if we are trying to recover our maintenance fees via things like VRBO, EBAY, Booking.com or Airbnb...is the act of listing on those sites at all commercial use)
(e.g., what is allowed:  Friends and Family?)

3. There are literally over a hundred people listing Wyndham rentals on those sites I mentioned above, are they all in violation?

4. Who at Wyndham can we talk to about this matter?

5. Any other thoughts you may have on this matter?


----------



## Cyrus24

Can you tell us what Facebook Group this info is coming from?  Thanks.

The people who will know the answers are the ones receiving the mail from Wyndham.


----------



## 55plus

It sounds fishy. I don't believe Wyndham would single out an individual like this concerning this matter. If this is a position they plan to enforce I believe they would send out a mass email informing every one that they plan to enforce commercial venture (renting) restrictions. And then limit the owners to rent through Extra Holidays and make it a money grab. Lastly, how would Wyndham determine usages between a friend or renter?


----------



## dioxide45

Seems like hearsay of hearsay. I am sure the story has changed a few times through the different tellings. Why would this one person get a certified letter yet we know there are many mega renters, even on TUG that have never received such a letter.


----------



## bnoble

We know that Wyndham in the past has frozen accounts and made "offers you can't refuse," so it would not shock me if they did something like that again--and this is a lot less than that, in that it seems more like rattling sabers. But my guess is that is any steps even remotely like that would be _very_ narrowly targeted.


----------



## spackler

My friend's cousin's ex-wife knows a guy on Facebook who said there's probably more to this story.


----------



## Cyrus24

Here is the FB post.  Makes for some interesting reading.









						Club Wyndham Timeshare - Owners helping owners | Facebook
					

The only Wyndham timeshare owner-centric group that will help you on all fronts regarding your ownership.  Moderation is limited so please be respectful.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## 55plus

[DELETED: TUG Forum Rules-]


> Avoid posting about *politics*, religion, or contentious social issues
> 
> 
> 
> Unless directly related to timesharing, such discussions are prohibited in these forums, including TUG Lounge. We've been down that road before, it was ugly, and we are not going there again.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cyrus24

The letter was posted on Facebook.  Seems to be a legitimate warning.  Based on other comments from the facebook post, it's safe to say that this person was renting, a lot.  Whether or not it was 'commercial' would require a lot of research.   I guess if Wyndham saw numerous rental postings and subsequent GC at what would clearly be a profit, they'd declare it as commercial.


----------



## chapjim

spackler said:


> My friend's cousin's ex-wife knows a guy on Facebook who said there's probably more to this story.



First or second ex-wife?


----------



## lost patience

Similar to June 18 email that arrived at 6pm and went into effect at midnight for reservations less than 15 days out.  That letter says Wyndham identified commercial use, but does not describe what they define commercial use is and demands that the owner immediately cancel any reservation that is commercial.


----------



## 55plus

I guess a good measurement for Wyndham would be using more guess confirmations than the ones allotted to an account. If you are allotted, let's say 15 and buy an additional 15, or what they determine to be reasonable they will assume you are in a commercial venture. But assuming is not the same as proving and that's where it gets tricky.


----------



## geist1223

I remember when they went after Ron P. He truly was a Commercial Renter. They froze all his Accounts and he spent months negotiating with Wyndham.  They finally reached a settlement that included a NDA and he could never discuss the specifics.


----------



## 55plus

I remember Ron P. He was a Rockstar when it came to renting. That man has a lot of knowledge on the subject.


----------



## TravelTime

I am reading this topic because it is interesting but I am not a Wyndham owner. Does anyone else who is reading this thread know if other timeshare companies like Marriott or Vistana also prohibit commercial use? How do timeshare companies define commercial use?


----------



## bnoble

spackler said:


> My friend's cousin's ex-wife knows a guy on Facebook who said there's probably more to this story.


Reminds me of this classic:


----------



## dgalati

Looks like Wyndham's flexing their right to limit commercial renting. I'm sure some owners will say sales sold it as away to pay maintenance fees but its clearly prohibited in the owners directory.


----------



## echino

All timeshares that I know have prohibition of commercial use.


----------



## dioxide45

echino said:


> All timeshares that I know have prohibition of commercial use.


What is the definition of commercial use though? Staying in a timeshare and making furniture that you sell or having people come by to pick up stuff you sold. Or perhaps even running an etsy shop of handmade items out of a timeshare? Or does it pertain to a commercial rental enterprise?


----------



## josegm888

Too bad there isn’t other timeshare systems way better than Wyndham that don’t hassle their owner. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dioxide45

josegm888 said:


> Too bad there isn’t other timeshare systems way better than Wyndham that don’t hassle their owner.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I suspect most of the other systems don't see the volume of rentals that Wyndham sees though. Wyndham seems like a renters paradise.


----------



## josegm888

dioxide45 said:


> I suspect most of the other systems don't see the volume of rentals that Wyndham sees though. Wyndham seems like a renters paradise.



True. Probably cause their low resale value. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dioxide45

josegm888 said:


> True. Probably cause their low resale value.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think it has more to do with how the WYndham system works. One can buy cheap points at any resort, book through Club Wyndham and rent it out. Many other systems are weeks based and the regular exchange companies are more strict with their rental restriction policies. People still rent out II and RCI exchanges, but probably not near the volume of Wyndham. Wyndham also has pretty liberal cancellation policies, especially for their VIP owners. Most other systems have 60 day cancellation policies and then it is use it or lose it.


----------



## Sandy VDH

I'd like to see a more clear definition on exactly what behavior is commercial.  It is targeted to certain size owners?  A percentage of point usage?  A percentage of GCs vs non-GCs?  Is it a certain website, or service?  What do people do on Extra vacations, when you put reservations in there?  

This whole commercial usage is frustrating, given that Wyndham even has a venue to use.

This is on top of the fact that at the 11 hour they dropped the NO GC rule on us.


----------



## josegm888

dioxide45 said:


> I think it has more to do with how the WYndham system works. One can buy cheap points at any resort, book through Club Wyndham and rent it out. Many other systems are weeks based and the regular exchange companies are more strict with their rental restriction policies. People still rent out II and RCI exchanges, but probably not near the volume of Wyndham. Wyndham also has pretty liberal cancellation policies, especially for their VIP owners. Most other systems have 60 day cancellation policies and then it is use it or lose it.



I’ll agree on the cheap points IF you bought resale, but I own points in at least three different timeshare systems and none of them are at this level of hunting down owners, it’s not good PR. Plus I know for a fact people make more money renting out other timeshare points than Wyndham. The day timeshare stop letting owners rent out their ownership will be the day timeshare will lose part of its appeal. Imho Wyndham can go pound sand, how many people have they lured into updates and lied to knowing that the value of their points is dirt? Now they’re going after owners because they found a way to try to recoup their money. They’re thieves like many other timeshare systems out there and they know it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgalati

josegm888 said:


> I’ll agree on the cheap points IF you bought resale, but I own points in at least three different timeshare systems and none of them are at this level of hunting down owners, it’s not good PR. Plus I know for a fact people make more money renting out other timeshare points than Wyndham. The day timeshare stop letting owners rent out their ownership will be the day timeshare will lose part of its appeal. Imho Wyndham can go pound sand, how many people have they lured into updates and lied to knowing that the value of their points is dirt? Now they’re going after owners because they found a way to try to recoup their money. They’re thieves like many other timeshare systems out there and they know it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


At least you now know what you don't know. Its all about the bottom line and enhancing shareholders value. Certified exit also is only to benefit owners looking to 
relieve themselves of the burden of paying maintenance fees..


----------



## simpsontruckdriver

I wonder if "commercial use" would be placing ads on VRBO or AirBnB. I've seen people ask on certain Facebook groups for certain timeshare companies asking if that is possible. I would think the timeshare companies like Wyndham could search on those two sites, find their resort, and shut the owner down. Since Wyndham owns Extra Holidays, I think they may "look the other way" since the company gets a cut of the rental costs.

TS


----------



## josegm888

dgalati said:


> At least you now know what you don't know. Its all about the bottom line and enhancing shareholders value. Certified exit also is only to benefit owners looking to
> relieve themselves of the burden of paying maintenance fees..



Oh I knew it before I went in it, hence why I bought into Wyndham on the resale market. The only timeshare I’ve bought directly from the developer the value was close to resale and the benefits outweighed the extra cost. Unfortunately, I think thats the problem with Corporate America, it’s willing to screw fellow Americans knowing that they are selling packaged crap, it’s not a sustainable business model. Eventually people are going to find value somewhere else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dioxide45

josegm888 said:


> it’s not a sustainable business model. Eventually people are going to find value somewhere else.


THey have been saying that about timeshare for a few decades, yet it is doing better than ever. You think there would be a tipping point, we just don't know where it is yet.


----------



## lost patience

What kind of PR is this going to have for Wyndham??  It seems Wyndham sent this one by postal service mail as compared to the guest pass which was by email.   What happens if the owner is not home?  Wyndham could cancel the reservation(s) and the guest shows up and gets turned away???  That would be bad for everyone!   Bad for the owner, bad for the guest, and bad for Wyndham.


----------



## SueDonJ

TravelTime said:


> I am reading this topic because it is interesting but I am not a Wyndham owner. Does anyone else who is reading this thread know if other timeshare companies like Marriott or Vistana also prohibit commercial use? How do timeshare companies define commercial use?


I think all of the big players have anti- "commercial activity" language in their governing docs despite those same docs giving owners the right to rent out their ownerships. The language is vague enough that it can be interpreted any number of ways including the two mentioned in this thread, i.e. running a business out of a timeshare unit, and, running a profitable business by renting timeshare intervals through an owner's account. The wording is deliberately vague so that they can target owners on an individual basis as they deem fit, and it's in conjunction with governing doc language that gives the developers/managers the right to arbitrarily enforce any restrictions/penalties on any accounts. (Meaning, if they go after one owner with a letter/action like the one posted in this thread, they're not required to simultaneously go after every other owner who is doing the same thing.)

Disney (DVC) instituted a policy several years ago of limiting the number of Guest Certificates that can be attached to intervals in an owner's account. (I think it's ten but am not sure.) Wyndham has recently instituted a policy of not allowing Guest Certificates to be attached to what they deem high-value/holiday intervals.

Marriott, and I believe Vistana, do not currently limit the number of private rentals through owners' accounts. Marriott does not require Guest Certs or a fee to add a renter/guest name to an owner's interval - we have to call in but it never presents a problem to say that the interval is being rented. I don't know if Vistana requires Guest Certs or charges a transaction fee, but I do know that it is not an issue with Vistana either to say that the interval is being rented.

I've done some rentals with Marriott, a few but not nearly as much as some. It wouldn't bother me if they were to somehow limit the highest-demand/holiday (and 13-mos reservation window) intervals "for owner occupancy only," but the problem with them enforcing that policy is the lack of such restrictive language in the governing docs of every resort across the portfolio. If it were in every resorts' docs then it would be easy enough for them implement the policy. Not having it in every resort's docs makes it harder for them but I have no doubt that if/when owner rentals begin to impact their bottom line to where they're not willing to accept the competition, the anti-commercial activity language will protect them more than it would the owners who run rentals.


----------



## echino

There is no clear definition of commercial use. It's up to resort's discretion. It's never been enforced by any timeshare other than Wyndham, AFAIK.


----------



## Lisa P

TravelTime said:


> I am reading this topic because it is interesting but I am not a Wyndham owner. Does anyone else who is reading this thread know if other timeshare companies like Marriott or Vistana also prohibit commercial use? How do timeshare companies define commercial use?


Other companies do have this restriction, including DVC, in their POS.


dioxide45 said:


> I suspect most of the other systems don't see the volume of rentals that Wyndham sees though. Wyndham seems like a renters paradise.


Agree. Wyndham is the largest timeshare company in the world, with more owners, more resorts, and more units than any other timeshare company. So there will likewise be more rentals out there, both by owners and the developer. But the low cost of acquiring resale contracts probably contributes greatly to the rental activity since it makes having a big portfolio (including more points than a family may need) an accessible option for so many people.


----------



## cbyrne1174

55plus said:


> I guess a good measurement for Wyndham would be using more guess confirmations than the ones allotted to an account. If you are allotted, let's say 15 and buy an additional 15, or what they determine to be reasonable they will assume you are in a commercial venture. But assuming is not the same as proving and that's where it gets tricky.



That doesn't make sense for resale owners with only 2 GCs. I could let my parents (in their 60s) use my account twice and my sister (in her 30s) use my account twice, which is double my allotted amount, yet still not the slightest bit fishy and being used exactly as intended. I have 742,000 points, which if they were retail would have equaled 10 GCs.


----------



## MikeandLisaR

How many guest GC's does an owner get? Does it change with VIP status? This year I have two for 536k points, odd year, plus 224k transfer points from last year. 659k even years until my new resale contract shows up in my account. Never have used one so I haven't paid much attention to them. Secondly, last November we stayed at Palme -Aire and sales kept tracking my wife down trying to get us to go to an owner update, every time she walked through the lobby she tried  giving her something different as incentive, stating that there were only  four or five owners on the whole property. Are rentals not a good lead generator or, do they mostly stick to existing owners for additional sales? I do remember they really didn't want another couple that was with us coming to the update several years ago.


----------



## 55plus

Sales weasels use the term 'renting as a way to pay maintenance fees', but in reality they are using the term renting as a way to make a sale. I met a guy (can't remember which resort) who bought, according to him, over 100 guest certificates one year for rentals. Is that even possible or is it BS? That many guest certificates is a red flag and would most certainly draw attention. All IT would have to do is run a report on guest certificate usages and, busted!

Do resale contracts get guest certificates or only developer purchases?


----------



## troy12n

I'm pretty sure Wyndham has all this information they need to determine who is running a business and who is just renting a unit a couple times a year to help with maintenance fees. The person in question is likely trying to run their timeshare like a travel agency. They have better things to do than mess with nickel and dime people who rent occasionally.


----------



## Eric B

One other issue would be the use of Wyndham stays in other exchange systems.  As an example, when we originally bought our Bali Hai contract, it came with a membership in Trading Places and Wyndham would actually confirm deposits of weeks there.  I read elsewhere that Wyndham stopped confirming the deposits with independent exchanges (IIRC it was for another Hawaiian resort using TPI) and they never confirmed deposits for SFX.  I have used SFX on and off with my Wyndham ownership when I have excess points and have to use a guest certificate for whoever uses the exchange week - those aren't commercial uses of the points, but instead just me wanting to go somewhere else without using RCI.


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> I'm pretty sure Wyndham has all this information they need to determine who is running a business and who is just renting a unit a couple times a year to help with maintenance fees. The person in question is likely trying to run their timeshare like a travel agency. They have better things to do than mess with nickel and dime people who rent occasionally.


It would be easy for Wyndham to find the large renters with the software they have in place tracking GC's used /1000 points owned. Wyndham can find most large renters that are advertising multiple rentals on the various online rental forums. I also remember when a certain mega renter boasted one time that Wyndham new who is was and where to find him and eventually Wyndham did. IMHO All it would take is another big audit freeze to get the word out that Wyndham is getting serious about limiting the rentals for commercial use. This would also help Wyndham take back inventory with certified exit.


----------



## VacayKat

dgalati said:


> It would be easy for Wyndham to find the large renters with the software they have in place tracking GC's used /1000 points owned. Wyndham can find most large renters that are advertising multiple rentals on the various online rental forums. I also remember when a certain mega renter boasted one time that Wyndham new who is was and where to find him and eventually Wyndham did. IMHO All it would take is another big audit freeze to get the word out that Wyndham is getting serious about limiting the rentals for commercial use. This would also help Wyndham take back inventory with certified exit.


No, it is not easy at all. Just because you use a guest certificate does NOT mean you are receiving financial compensation for that reservation. The idea that anyone can instantly tell how you use your ownership (and I use owner loosely here, because owners can decide how they want to use something, Wyndham owners are greatly reduced in that choice) is at best a poor generalization of what one has heard or seen elsewhere. 
And to be perfectly honest, if Wyndham is going to say you can not rent out your reserved vacations and use guest certificates then they need to tell EVERY sales person to stop telling owners to do it. Literally every owner’s update I have been to in the past 3 years had the sales person asking if I knew how to optimize my ownership by renting.


----------



## dgalati

VacayKat said:


> And to be perfectly honest, if Wyndham is going to say you can not rent out your reserved vacations and use guest certificates then they need to tell EVERY sales person to stop telling owners to do it. Literally every owner’s update I have been to in the past 3 years had the sales person asking if I knew how to optimize my ownership by renting.


Good luck with this idea. Bottom line this sales strategy sells points and IMHO is conveniently ignored. Its common knowledge that any and all of the promises, half truths, Wyndham math or just nonsense made up during a presentation is not included in the purchase agreement and not enforceable. Even if its in the purchase agreement Wyndham has the right to change policy when they feel its necessary. .


----------



## am1

I doubt it’s enforceable.  But they have deep pockets and a bunch of owners would be okay with Wyndham devaluing timeshares and owner rights as long as it does not affect them yet.

I always believe it was running a commercial enterprise out of the unit itself.

I used to send well over a thousand guests a year to wyndham resorts.  Thankfully did not buy all of them.  3 accounts of 30 each. Would do split reservations at the same resort/unit size or upgrade on part later if different unit sizes were sold.  Add two first names and two last names to the split reservations.  Then each could check into their unit.  If there were a few days in between check in and check out would book a 3 reservation split reservation and cancel the middle part.  For small reservations a especially after the 10 unit limit at a resort at a time it was cheaper to book in other platinum owners account and use free guest confirmations.

Then towards the end I went 5 times to Florida in a year to check into units and then add the renter as a guest at the front desk for free.  Ocean Walk allowed me to do that upcoming stays a up to a week out.  Bonnet Creek was very good at it until it was limited 2 per owner.  Thankfully a "co owner" always came down to visit their grandkids so we could do 3 units at a time as we had to stay somewhere ourselves.  Towards our day of departure I would check in guests staying for multiple weeks as normally it would be a guest confirmation for up to 7 days.  December 30th checked in guests at Bonnet Creek, drove to Ocean Walk for a guests, down to Royal Vista for 5-6, Orange Bowl, December 31 back to Ocean Walk for more guests then watching the the fireworks from the Tower 6 balcony.  

Then there was a think where if contracts came into your account mid year guest confirmations would be replenished by a random amount.  

Good times and all.  Without going through my taxes, after all the tricks I spent low six figures in guest confirmations over a few years.  But it got me in to renting larger units to spread the guest confirmation fee around.  At half the points of the smallest unit at the resort.  So in the end it was a lot of hassle Wyndham charging for them but I made it work.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> I always believe it was running a commercial enterprise out of the unit itself.


Do you mean, by the owner being compensated for cutting hair, etc., in the unit or prostitution and not the owner being compensated for a non owner staying in the unit?


----------



## dioxide45

55plus said:


> Do you mean, by the owner being compensated for cutting hair, etc., in the unit or prostitution and not the owner being compensated for a non owner staying in the unit?


That is kind of what I meant upthread when I mentioned it. What is the true definition of commercial activity. They don't define it for a reason. Is it running a barber shop in the unit or renting units for profit? No definition in the documentation, so it is left up to the management company to define as they see fit.


----------



## 55plus

It's not vague if Wyndham means any and all commercial ventures.


----------



## dioxide45

55plus said:


> It's not vague if Wyndham means any and all commercial ventures.


But where have they defined it as that?


----------



## 55plus

It's vague by design to covers it all - any compensation. That's my interruption, but we all have our own.


----------



## rickandcindy23

geist1223 said:


> I remember when they went after Ron P. He truly was a Commercial Renter. They froze all his Accounts and he spent months negotiating with Wyndham.  They finally reached a settlement that included a NDA and he could never discuss the specifics.


Still is a commercial renter.  Don't let him fool you.


----------



## rickandcindy23

dgalati said:


> Looks like Wyndham's flexing their right to limit commercial renting. I'm sure some owners will say sales sold it as away to pay maintenance fees but its clearly prohibited in the owners directory.


In the owners' directory, and so that is some policy they put in a directory for us to read and for them to enforce? 

How would you like it if someone told you that you cannot rent your "vacation home" to others.  We pay our fees, we own deeds, we pay SA's, we pay the guest certificates, etc.  When we bought in 2007, we were told we would get unlimited GC's.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Do you mean, by the owner being compensated for cutting hair, etc., in the unit or prostitution and not the owner being compensated for a non owner staying in the unit?



correct.


----------



## CPNY

SueDonJ said:


> Marriott, and I believe Vistana, do not currently limit the number of private rentals through owners' accounts. I don't know if Vistana requires Guest Certs or charges a transaction fee, but I do know that it is not an issue with Vistana either to say that the interval is being rented.


Vistana allows you to change the name on the reservation for your home resort reservation with no charge. If you book a reservation using Star Options they they will charge $59.00 to change the name. You can change the name of every reservation you make, there are no limits to name changes.

Technically it is against the rules to rent any unit that you do not own. So if i own at harborside but use star options to book Maui, I technically cannot rent that reservation. However, I can gift it to a friend with a name change. Since they know people still rent VSN reservations, they added the 59 dollar charge. This fee was added recently, around the time of the Vistana/ILG spin off or around the time Marriott acquired ILG. The name change can be done online.


----------



## rickandcindy23

55plus said:


> Sales weasels use the term 'renting as a way to pay maintenance fees', but in reality they are using the term renting as a way to make a sale. I met a guy (can't remember which resort) who bought, according to him, over 100 guest certificates one year for rentals. Is that even possible or is it BS? That many guest certificates is a red flag and would most certainly draw attention. All IT would have to do is run a report on guest certificate usages and, busted!
> 
> Do resale contracts get guest certificates or only developer purchases?


In my experience, 100 is a fairly average number for a "mega renter."  I know that we used to get more than that, when Wyndham rented additional points, and it was unlimited points.  Our daughter loved the $99 fee that she could put on her credit card X 100 and get the airline points.  That stopped when Wyndham started charging $8.00/ 1,000, and now they charge $12/ 1,000.

I know people who own 60 million points, and not just one or two who own that many.  I also know a couple who backed out after the big changes of 5 years ago, when Wyndham redid the computer system that April-May (was that 5 years ago?).  It was a big deal, and they walked away from tens of millions of points, gave them right back to Wyndham.  He would never tell me how many he bought, but he did multiple conversions of Bali Hai and Shearwater units and the salespeople kept telling him, "This is the last one we can do for you because you are a mega renter, and we know it."  Then he would go to Princeville again, and they would sell him the same thing.  He had units to convert and they did it for him on the cheap.  He had websites with the name of the resorts as the website name.  I couldn't believe Wyndham would allow it. 

This play on Wyndham's part is exactly what will stop dozens of mega renters from continuing their businesses.  They will just walk away and Wyndham will get those points back.  I am thinking of keeping the platinum points but not the rest of the points I bought resale.  I don't want the obligation of fees.  The thing is, we own at Kingsgate, Fairfield Bay and a few other resorts that could be hurt by us walking away.  I see Wyndham offering cheap platinum memberships to keep those resorts afloat after some of us give back the points we bought resale.  

Maybe they will force us to give back everything we have and not just our resale.  I would just give away our other points, but who will want them?  Wyndham is killing the resale value, and there wasn't much to them to start.


----------



## 55plus

What happens to Extra Holidays, the Grand Poohbah of rentals. I can't see it going away, but I can see Wyndham continue allowing owners to list their rentals through them as a way of getting around a double standard.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> What happens to Extra Holidays, the Grand Poohbah of rentals. I can't see it going away, but I can see Wyndham continue allowing owners to list their rentals through them as a way of getting around a double standard.


You are onto something big now!


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> What happens to Extra Holidays, the Grand Poohbah of rentals. I can't see it going away, but I can see Wyndham continue allowing owners to list their rentals through them as a way of getting around a double standard.



The truth is, we have yet to see any real evidence of this happening. Other than some vague post on Facebook, with literally no details. No idea how many points that owner has, how many GC's they have used, etc.

Wyndham has better things to do than go after people owning less than like 3-4 million points...


----------



## josegm888

}}


----------



## lost patience

troy12n said:


> The truth is, we have yet to see any real evidence of this happening. Other than some vague post on Facebook, with literally no details. No idea how many points that owner has, how many GC's they have used, etc.
> 
> Wyndham has better things to do than go after people owning less than like 3-4 million points...


More details posted a bit ago.  Owner is less then 3-4 M points.


----------



## dgalati

lost patience said:


> More details posted a bit ago.  Owner is less then 3-4 M points.
> View attachment 37497


Sounds like this dog has some teeth and is not all bark! It will be interesting if Wyndham does another audit freeze to put the ice on these large renters. No pun intended!


----------



## troy12n

lost patience said:


> More details posted a bit ago.  Owner is less then 3-4 M points.
> View attachment 37497



130 GC's, sounds like a business to me... case closed


----------



## Eric B

troy12n said:


> 130 GC's, sounds like a business to me... case closed



130 purchased GCs - they also should have had 30 (or 15) free GCs for the VIP level.  Not making me worry about the minor amount of renting/exchanging I do.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Deleted


----------



## lost patience

More food for thought from that FB post.  Seems like this guy was renting at locations with lower point usage - likely older resorts.  He could have rented fewer larger?


----------



## troy12n

Eric B said:


> 130 purchased GCs - they also should have had 30 (or 15) free GCs for the VIP level.  Not making me worry about the minor amount of renting/exchanging I do.



And that was my point... none of us really have anything to worry about. A certain person or persons here likes to make drama and stir up discontent because he got the rug pulled out from under his rental business a few years ago. This isn't ever going to affect the vast majority of people here.


----------



## bestresort

That's why people refer to them as Wynsham. Worst timeshare company out there bar none.
Only Wynsham can rent your points, points they don't own btw.

What a scam, sell a zillion points, then tell the owners they can't USE their own points as they see fit. Totally illegal btw. Everyone should file a complant with state Attorney General and force them to answer every complaint.


----------



## troy12n

bestresort said:


> That's why people refer to them as Wynsham. Worst timeshare company out there bar none.
> Only Wynsham can rent your points, points they don't own btw.
> 
> What a scam, sell a zillion points, then tell the owners they can't USE their own points as they see fit. Totally illegal btw. Everyone should file a complant with state Attorney General and force them to answer every complaint.



Going to go out on a limb here and speculate that most of the real "mega renters" only bought 1-1.4 million points retail. The rest were most likely bought on the resale market... so no,  *Wyndham* didn't really "*sell them a zillion points*"... that's a straw man argument

Your complaints fall on deaf ears as far as I, and most owners, are concerned. I see this as a way to get real owners the ability to use their points.


----------



## 55plus

bestresort said:


> That's why people refer to them as Wynsham. Worst timeshare company out there bar none.
> Only Wynsham can rent your points, points they don't own btw.
> 
> What a scam, sell a zillion points, then tell the owners they can't USE their own points as they see fit. Totally illegal btw. Everyone should file a complant with state Attorney General and force them to answer every complaint.


I'm not familiar with the other timeshare companies so I can't comment on them. What I can say is Wyndham had been very good to me over the years. I don't 'abuse' the system like some have. I don't mean those doing some renting to help pay fees. I mean those who reserve all the prime locations during primetime 13 months out to rent for profit. Those who make a profit (above maintenance fees cost), are in a commercial venture. One can split hairs as to what a commercial venture is, but making a profit is a commercial venture.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Deleted


----------



## paxsarah

bestresort said:


> Totally illegal btw.


I follow a twitter account called Bad Legal Takes. This made me think of it.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> I'm not familiar with the other timeshare companies so I can't comment on them. What I can say is Wyndham had been very good to me over the years. I don't 'abuse' the system like some have. I don't mean those doing some renting to help pay fees. I mean those who reserve all the prime locations during primetime 13 months out to rent for profit. Those who make a profit (above maintenance fees cost), are in a commercial venture. One can split hairs as to what a commercial venture is, but making a profit is a commercial venture.



You are way off base.  If one books at 13 months it means they purchased there and got up at whatever time booking starts now. Also why hate on capitalism?


----------



## Rolltydr

Does anyone else find it humorous that most posters on this website will tell everyone to never believe anything a Wydham salesperson tells you. Yet, when it comes to renting and GCs, many of those same people say “the salesman said I could”!

I agree with @troy12n, this won’t have any negative impact on me at all. If anything, I will be able to reserve units that otherwise may have gone to renters.


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> Going to go out on a limb here and speculate that most of the real "mega renters" only bought 1-1.4 million points retail. The rest were most likely bought on the resale market... so no,  *Wyndham* didn't really "*sell them a zillion points*"... that's a straw man argument
> 
> Your complaints fall on deaf ears as far as I, and most owners, are concerned. I see this as a way to get real owners the ability to use their points.



I bought 308k in a hurry after my gold status was taken away.  Picd two 3 bedrooms and was Platinum.  Along the way got two more platinum accounts resale (no special tricks). Twice almost exchanged my resale Platinum to PR.  First time everything was signed on my part but my "co owner" never sent back their contract sent by fedex.  Thought it over and got cold feet when ran the numbers.  Then after account was locked and Wyndham knew it was a resale contract I was going to pull the trigger for PR at Bonnet Creek until when signing the sales people refused to sell to me.  

I hope Wyndham enjoyed their 30k or so I paid to purchase from them.


----------



## dgalati

am1 said:


> I bought 308k in a hurry after my gold status was taken away.  Picd two 3 bedrooms and was Platinum.  Along the way got two more platinum accounts resale (no special tricks). Twice almost exchanged my resale Platinum to PR.  First time everything was signed on my part but my "co owner" never sent back their contract sent by fedex.  Thought it over and got cold feet when ran the numbers.  Then after account was locked and Wyndham knew it was a resale contract I was going to pull the trigger for PR at Bonnet Creek until when signing the sales people refused to sell to me.
> 
> I hope Wyndham enjoyed their 30k or so I paid to purchase from them.


As a stock holder I appreciate your goodwill to help Wyndham raise stock holders value. That 30k was probably 15k of profit.


----------



## Mongoose

Are they also doing this with Mega Renters at Worldmark?  A limit on rentals seems reasonable.  130 GC's is nuts...


----------



## am1

dgalati said:


> As a stock holder I appreciate your goodwill to help Wyndham raise stock holders value. That 30k was probably 15k of profit.


Not when I was running 3 platinum accounts off of it.  Everything cancelled and rebooked and upgraded.  Hours a day on the phone.  Then the end came.


----------



## am1

Mongoose said:


> Are they also doing this with Mega Renters at Worldmark?  A limit on rentals seems reasonable.  130 GC's is nuts...


130 is still the kids pool.


----------



## Mongoose

am1 said:


> 130 is still the kids pool.


Were you renting as a business or just a globetrotter with a lot of friends?


----------



## dgalati

Mongoose said:


> Were you renting as a business or just a globetrotter with a lot of friends?


It was just his hobby. No profit was involved as he was just trying to cover maintenance fees.


----------



## chapjim

Rolltydr said:


> Does anyone else find it humorous that most posters on this website will tell everyone to never believe anything a Wydham salesperson tells you. Yet, when it comes to renting and GCs, many of those same people say “the salesman said I could”!
> 
> I agree with @troy12n, this won’t have any negative impact on me at all. If anything, I will be able to reserve units that otherwise may have gone to renters.



How do you think that opinion was formed?  They don't believe Wyndham salespersons.  They used to.


----------



## Rolltydr

chapjim said:


> How do you think that opinion was formed?  They don't believe Wyndham salespersons.  They used to.


Even after reading your contract that states it can’t be used for commercial purposes?


----------



## Sandi Bo

I found multiple spreadsheets my Dad has that the Ocean Walk salespeople would give him.... the best 20 weeks to book / rent (ya know Daytona 500, Bike Week, they handed out spreadsheets with a 5 year projectory (dates for those top 20 events for the next 5 or 6 years)).  I would imagine they are still handing those out?  And I can't imagine Ocean Walk is the only resort that does that?


----------



## chapjim

Rolltydr said:


> Even after reading your contract that states it can’t be used for commercial purposes?



Yes, _especially _after reading the contract.

I wonder if anyone has actually read the contract of sale in its entirety.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

55plus said:


> I remember Ron P. He was a Rockstar when it came to renting. That man has a lot of knowledge on the subject.



Ron is still around / He last visited TUG about 2 weeks ago.

As a non Wyndham owner I learned a lot from his posts because there was a lot of specific
details. He took the time to learn the Wyndham system & readily shared that on TUG.


----------



## Rolltydr

Wyndham’s lawyers have. And, they have a pretty good track record in court. If you’re in violation of the contract, and have been put on notice that you are, you might want to become more familiar with it. I’m not necessarily referring to you, Jim. I don’t know if you received the letter or not.


----------



## am1

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Ron is still around / He last visited TUG about 2 weeks ago.
> 
> As a non Wyndham owner I learned a lot from his posts because there was a lot of specific
> details. He took the time to learn the Wyndham system & readily shared that on TUG.


 And killing the business along the way.  All for a few cheap pops from the peanut gallery.


----------



## dgalati

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Ron is still around / He last visited TUG about 2 weeks ago.
> 
> As a non Wyndham owner I learned a lot from his posts because there was a lot of specific
> details. He took the time to learn the Wyndham system & readily shared that on TUG.


It more then likely  was why he was targeted by Wyndham.  What he taught you he also taught Wyndham. Openly discussing running a commercial business on a open forum is probably the dumbest thing a mega-renter can do. Many did and are no longer in business a few others didn't learn from this mistake. Loose lips sink ships!


----------



## scootr5

Rolltydr said:


> Wyndham’s lawyers have. And, they have a pretty good track record in court. If you’re in violation of the contract, and have been put on notice that you are, you might want to become more familiar with it. I’m not necessarily referring to you, Jim. I don’t know if you received the letter or not.



as a resale-only owner, I’ve never seen a copy of the original contract.


----------



## dgalati

scootr5 said:


> as a resale-only owner, I’ve never seen a copy of the original contract.


I also bought resale but it makes no difference to me as I use all my points personally and never rented any points I have owned.


----------



## 55plus

It doesn't matter what it states or doesn't state, the current Wyndham directory speaks to commercial ventures.


----------



## Sandi Bo

55plus said:


> It doesn't matter what it states or doesn't state, the current Wyndham directory speaks to commercial ventures.


I've never understood when the directory overrides the contract or vice-versa.  Does the contract say the rules can change any time?


----------



## Tank

They can , and do move the goal posts as needed to benefit themselves 
Unannounced 
Without notice


----------



## dgalati

Tank said:


> They can , and do move the goal posts as needed to benefit themselves
> Unannounced
> Without notice


Very true. I know how they work the system to their advantage.


----------



## troy12n

Sandi Bo said:


> I've never understood when the directory overrides the contract or vice-versa.  Does the contract say the rules can change any time?



There is verbiage that says something to the effect of "Club rules can change". The contract just codifies your ownership, and the fact that you always owe MF and special assessments. As we all know, VIP levels and benefits can and do change, at their whim. I don't see this as any different. Also there is language saying you can't use the timeshare for business purposes. 

The people being targeted by these notices clearly are running a business. You would have a hard time convincing any judge or jury otherwise...


----------



## troy12n

Maybe, as a way they can "fix" this is to limit the number of GC's you can buy in a UY... throwing coal on the fire with this one. This seems like a simple way they could fix it.


----------



## dioxide45

How do we know the 130 GC guy was running a business? Was there proffit? He had piled up points and didn't want to lose out on the MF cash spent and wanted to recoup his costs?


----------



## bnoble

I'm not sure it matters if it is "a business" vs. whether Wyndham _reasonably_ thinks that it is "commercial use."

If I think about what it would take for me to rent out 130 different reservations in a calendar year, there's a lot to it. I can't do that just through friends and family--I don't know about y'all, but I just don't have that many friends, period, let alone that many who'd want to travel somewhere in the past twelve months during COVID. I'd need to advertise somehow, and I'd be renting to a lot of people I'd never met before.

Is that commercial? Maybe. It's not obviously *not* commercial---at least IMO.


----------



## am1

bnoble said:


> I'm not sure it matters if it is "a business" vs. whether Wyndham _reasonably_ thinks that it is "commercial use."
> 
> If I think about what it would take for me to rent out 130 different reservations in a calendar year, there's a lot to it. I can't do that just through friends and family--I don't know about y'all, but I just don't have that many friends, period, let alone that many who'd want to travel somewhere in the past twelve months during COVID. I'd need to advertise somehow, and I'd be renting to a lot of people I'd never met before.
> 
> Is that commercial? Maybe. It's not obviously *not* commercial---at least IMO.



And? Hopefully someone fights it.  I can only talk with a subpoena.


----------



## troy12n

dioxide45 said:


> How do we know the 130 GC guy was running a business? Was there proffit? He had piled up points and didn't want to lose out on the MF cash spent and wanted to recoup his costs?



Come on... *really?*

Also, as someone else mentioned, this was in all likelihood between145-160 GC's because the 130 were *PAID* GC's, not including the ones they got free for being founders level VIP


----------



## Rolltydr

dioxide45 said:


> How do we know the 130 GC guy was running a business? Was there proffit? He had piled up points and didn't want to lose out on the MF cash spent and wanted to recoup his costs?


Also, a “business“ does not necessarily have to turn a profit. It can be a losing proposition.


----------



## 55plus

Rolltydr said:


> Also, a “business“ does not necessarily have to turn a profit. It can be a losing proposition.


Your are correct, a business doesn't have to turn a profit to be a business. But nevertheless, a business is still s business whether it turns a profit or not. A commercial venture doesn't always have to be a business. A commercial venture can be investments, etc. Wyndham using the term 'commercial venture' covers all aspect of businesses, investment, etc.


----------



## lost patience

More from the FB post that adds perspective to the large number of guest certificates used.  I'm guessing Wyndham will never actually define what they mean by commercial use.


----------



## troy12n

The reason why you will probably not see Wyndham actually define what a "commercial venture" is or put hard limits on these things is that people will try to skirt the rules or work around declared barriers they put in place. 

I can already see the wheels spinning...


----------



## HitchHiker71

rickandcindy23 said:


> The thing is, we own at Kingsgate, Fairfield Bay and a few other resorts that could be hurt by us walking away.  I see Wyndham offering cheap platinum memberships to keep those resorts afloat after some of us give back the points we bought resale.



Curious, why would Wyndham do this?  I'm not understanding the logic and would like to understand.  Feel free to DM me if this is a better topic to cover privately.  I'm assuming these points, if turned back in, would likely be subsumed into CWA - but that's just a guess - as I'm sure there are ratios for CWA inventory that must be maintained between the less/more expensive resort holdings to keep the MFs somewhat reasonable.


----------



## HitchHiker71

55plus said:


> What happens to Extra Holidays, the Grand Poohbah of rentals. I can't see it going away, but I can see Wyndham continue allowing owners to list their rentals through them as a way of getting around a double standard.



Given EH does not require the use of GCs for the owner - at least on the surface - EH is not impacted at all by the recent changes in flight.  Wyndham does seem to be honoring the GC blackout dates on EH at this point in time, but this is a simple choice by Wyndham at this time - and that choice is subject to change at any future point in time.


----------



## Roger830

lost patience said:


> More from the FB post that adds perspective to the large number of guest certificates used.  I'm guessing Wyndham will never actually define what they mean by commercial use.
> View attachment 37537
> View attachment 37538



If he used 3,300,000 points for about 140 reservations that's about 24,000 points per reservation.
If he rented weeks for about 180,000 points each, that's less than 20 reservations.

His use of shorts term rentals requires about 120 additional cleanings that Wyndham has to provide. Perhaps that's a big part of the problem.


----------



## 55plus

In the above case I don't think it's the locations, I think it's the amount of guest confirmations. That's the best way to flag massive renting. I believe the reservation restrictions that are currently in place at this time will solve of a lot of complaints owners have about personal use/travel availability. I'd like to see these reservation restrictions become permanent.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Sandi Bo said:


> I found multiple spreadsheets my Dad has that the Ocean Walk salespeople would give him.... the best 20 weeks to book / rent (ya know Daytona 500, Bike Week, they handed out spreadsheets with a 5 year projectory (dates for those top 20 events for the next 5 or 6 years)).  I would imagine they are still handing those out?  And I can't imagine Ocean Walk is the only resort that does that?



Having attended well over 25 updates - I can confidently say I've never seen anything remotely similar to this.  Something like this would only be brought out for those owners who fit into the very exclusive club of borderline megarenter category - in other words - you are referring to the exception not the rule.  Wyndham is making changes based upon good business practices now - at least in theory - which is to change the broader system to ensure it works better for the vast majority of owners, and not the 1% any longer.  For the 1%, that's going to feel painful and no doubt elicit a lot of complaints - but it's a necessary step that must be taken if they want to start turning their reputation around for the masses.  These types of changes will be years in the making.  

Same with the website - it appeals to the masses - owners who need to book a few vacations per year - not to owners with millions or tens of millions of points trying to run a commercial enterprise and need sophisticated tracking capabilities.  If no one noticed - _all _of these more advanced website features were removed from the current website. Do you really think that's by coincidence, when taking into account the basis of this thread, coupled with the GC limitations?


----------



## HitchHiker71

Sandi Bo said:


> I've never understood when the directory overrides the contract or vice-versa.  Does the contract say the rules can change any time?



Yes, it does.


----------



## dgalati

Roger830 said:


> His use of shorts term rentals requires about 120 additional cleanings that Wyndham has to provide. Perhaps that's a big part of the problem.


It all comes down to costs. If the OP is grandfathered in to free HK's I could see it being very costly to Wyndham. At $159  across the board for any size unit X 120 reservations that would equate to $19,080 in HK fees yearly.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> The thing is, we own at Kingsgate, Fairfield Bay and a few other resorts that could be hurt by us walking away.  I see Wyndham offering cheap platinum memberships to keep those resorts afloat after some of us give back the points we bought resale.


There is no such thing as a cheap Platinum membership unless you can time travel back to the Fairfield days 30 years ago.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> Having attended well over 25 updates - I can confidently say I've never seen anything remotely similar to this.  Something like this would only be brought out for those owners who fit into the very exclusive club of borderline megarenter category - in other words - you are referring to the exception not the rule.  Wyndham is making changes based upon good business practices now - at least in theory - which is to change the broader system to ensure it works better for the vast majority of owners, and not the 1% any longer.  For the 1%, that's going to feel painful and no doubt elicit a lot of complaints - but it's a necessary step that must be taken if they want to start turning their reputation around for the masses.  These types of changes will be years in the making.
> 
> Same with the website - it appeals to the masses - owners who need to book a few vacations per year - not to owners with millions or tens of millions of points trying to run a commercial enterprise and need sophisticated tracking capabilities.  If no one noticed - _all _of these more advanced website features were removed from the current website. Do you really think that's by coincidence, when taking into account the basis of this thread, coupled with the GC limitations?


Your above summary spells it out very clearly. The days of using the club as a rental business are coming to a end. Only thing you left out is the use of resale points with VIP benefits. This loophole being used to book rentals is at the expense of owners looking to book last minute reservations or if they have VIP developer points some great discounts and free upgrades. Millions of resale points are being rented and used with VIP discounts and free upgrades. Think about how much availability this would free up for owners looking to book last minute for personal use.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> It all comes down to costs. If the OP is grandfathered in to free HK's I could see it being very costly to Wyndham. At $159  across the board for any size unit X 120 reservations that would equate to $19,080 in HK fees yearly.


Good point. I didn't consider that aspect of the cost to Wyndham that renters create.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> Good point. I didn't consider that aspect of the cost to Wyndham that renters create.


To a certain extent Wyndham plays it both ways as rentals also bring in fresh meat for the sales team to feast on. If they sell one of the confirmed guests that just about covers the HK cost on the 120 GC's.


----------



## HitchHiker71

dgalati said:


> It all comes down to costs. If the OP is grandfathered in to free HK's I could see it being very costly to Wyndham. At $159  across the board for any size unit X 120 reservations that would equate to $19,080 in HK fees yearly.



Which at least in part probably explains why "unlimited" for anything was removed from the updated VIP program - to eliminate the possibility of any new owners running commercial enterprises from avoiding large amounts of fees like this.  Unfortunately for those VIP owners who play by the rules (the contractual rules mind you), they will enjoy less flexibility, which is always the case at least IME - the majority who play by the rules pay the price for the minority who buck the system.  At least those of us with grandfathering for VIP can still enjoy the unlimited HK/RT benefits that we have.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> At least those of us with grandfathering for VIP can still enjoy the unlimited HK/RT benefits that we have.


For now at least but as you know this could also change when they move down the food chain.


----------



## 55plus

HitchHiker71 said:


> Unfortunately for those VIP owners who play by the rules (the contractual rules mind you), they will enjoy less flexibility, which is always the case at least IME - the majority who play by the rules pay the price for the minority who buck the system.  At least those of us with grandfathering for VIP can still enjoy the unlimited HK/RT benefits that we have.


I truly believe owners who actually use the club/system for personal travel will have more flexibility and more opportunity to visit higher demand resorts/locations during prime time timeframes if the changes become permanent.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> I truly believe owners who actually use the club/system for personal travel will have more flexibility and more opportunity to visit higher demand resorts/locations during prime time timeframes if the changes become permanent.


I agree this is Wyndham's ultimate goal. Unfortunately they let the horse out of the barn on rentals years ago. Lets face it these changes will be very pain full to owners that bought into a system 20-30 years ago under the strategy of buy more points to rent. Wyndham is looking at the next generation to sell to as they will be their next meal ticket. As a few suggested the next gen has different buying and vacationing habits. Wyndham has to change their business model or lose market share to the disrupters in the business.


----------



## rickandcindy23

HitchHiker71 said:


> Curious, why would Wyndham do this?  I'm not understanding the logic and would like to understand.  Feel free to DM me if this is a better topic to cover privately.  I'm assuming these points, if turned back in, would likely be subsumed into CWA - but that's just a guess - as I'm sure there are ratios for CWA inventory that must be maintained between the less/more expensive resort holdings to keep the MFs somewhat reasonable.


They always did that anyway.  BocaBum99 was able to get platinum at Fairfield Bay that exact same way.  Cheap buy in.  People don't want to buy when they go to these resorts (that are not WOW resorts and locations) and so there are incentives for buying.  With a glut of Wyndham points (Fairfield points), this is a strategy they will use.  I am pretty sure. 

I guarantee it's much easier to sell points at Bonnet Creek or Grand Desert or some others that are popular right now than Fairfield Bay Arkansas and Kingsgate in Williamsburg.  

The HOA's have to survive.  Each HOA has a budget and if a lot of us leave at once, they will have less MF's.  It's logical.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> I agree this is Wyndham's ultimate goal. Unfortunately they let the horse out of the barn on rentals years ago. Lets face it these changes will be very pain full to owners that bought into a system 20-30 years ago under the strategy of buy more points to rent. Wyndham is looking at the next generation to sell to as they will be their next meal ticket. As a few suggested the next gen has different buying and vacationing habits. Wyndham has to change their business model or lose market share to the disrupters in the business.


I bought 30 years ago for personal travel, not to use as a rental business. I did buy resale at Old Town Alexandria to give me ARP for Presidential Inaugurations. Been to everyone since Clinton except Biden's due to the COVID shutdown. I general go during Memorial Day week annually to visit my buddies buried in Arlington..


----------



## Sandi Bo

HitchHiker71 said:


> Having attended well over 25 updates - I can confidently say I've never seen anything remotely similar to this.  Something like this would only be brought out for those owners who fit into the very exclusive club of borderline megarenter category - in other words - you are referring to the exception not the rule.


I'll tell you how that really played out... my Dad used his ARP to book bike week or the Daytona 500 type stuff. My father NEVER cancelled and rebooked. Tried renting at the prices recommended by sales. Couldn't rent it so went himself. Doesn't every 80 some year old need to go to bike week?


----------



## dioxide45

HitchHiker71 said:


> but it's a necessary step that must be taken if they want to start turning their reputation around for the masses. These types of changes will be years in the making.


I don't think Wyndham's bad reputation comes from a few mega renters. It comes from their abhorrent sales practices. The same practices that led to the mega renter problem.


----------



## HitchHiker71

dioxide45 said:


> I don't think Wyndham's bad reputation comes from a few mega renters. It comes from their abhorrent sales practices. The same practices that led to the mega renter problem.



The sales practices are also being transformed gradually, but I agree with your assessment. 

That said, one of the largest blocks of complaints that comes persistently through the website feedback mechanism is the lack of inventory and availability. Believe it or not Wyndham pays close attention to the feedback provided via these mechanisms, and I know for a fact that what I’m saying here contributed to the focus on freeing up inventory for normal run of the mill owners who just want to take a vacation via the changes we are seeing of late. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 55plus

Sandi Bo said:


> Doesn't every 80 some year old need to go to bike week?


I'm no way near 80, much 70 and I will go to Bike Week and Biketoberfest, along with Spring and Fall Rallies in Myrtle Beach until the day I die. Bikers are my people.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> I bought 30 years ago for personal travel, not to use as a rental business. I did buy resale at Old Town Alexandria to give me ARP for Presidential Inaugurations. Been to everyone since Clinton except Biden's due to the COVID shutdown. I general go during Memorial Day week annually to visit my buddies buried in Arlington..


I brought my Uncle to Arlington  so he could visit the Korean war and Vietnam wall Memorials. I went a year earlier with my wife and knew how much this trip would mean to him. It was a very emotional trip for him. Especially to visit Arlington cemetery along with the experience of seeing the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> The sales practices are also being transformed gradually, but I agree with your assessment.
> 
> That said, one of the largest blocks of complaints that comes persistently through the website feedback mechanism is the lack of inventory and availability. Believe it or not Wyndham pays close attention to the feedback provided via these mechanisms, and I know for a fact that what I’m saying here contributed to the focus on freeing up inventory for normal run of the mill owners who just want to take a vacation via the changes we are seeing of late.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Totally off topic, but is the lack of availability at desired time points not more accurately assigned to a points based system rather than a weeks system? I mean one would logically assume that for X property during X dates which are both highly desired the X inventory would be difficult to obtain because every owner is vying for it. Now if they are saying that for Indio in the heat of the summer no one can book even a 1-bed without planning for 6 months then we have a true problem of renters taking inventory. For e.g. if you want Hawaii during Christmas you need to plan 10 months out, if you don’t you take the dregs. That isn’t renters, it’s families and highly desired location by time. Maybe a better way for Wyndham to do this is sort of like Vistana- based on the purchase you buy you can get the desired weeks and the desired room sizes. Would make the availability actually available for the people who want it.


----------



## Sandy VDH

If you own a timeshare and want to go somewhere on a holiday week, especially so with a large unit, then you set a reminder in your calendar and you book it as soon as it becomes available.

If you want to go away for a holiday week, and decide 3 or 4 weeks prior, than you have NO business owning a timeshare and EXPECTING holiday weeks to just be there waiting for you.  You need to dump the timeshare and just stay at a hotel.  If not hotel then rent from a planner who does book that unit you want but couldn't decide upon when it was actually available.

I wonder if a lot of complaints about availability are really those still having a hotel stay mindset.


----------



## dgalati

VacayKat said:


> Totally off topic, but is the lack of availability at desired time points not more accurately assigned to a points based system rather than a weeks system? I mean one would logically assume that for X property during X dates which are both highly desired the X inventory would be difficult to obtain because every owner is vying for it. Now if they are saying that for Indio in the heat of the summer no one can book even a 1-bed without planning for 6 months then we have a true problem of renters taking inventory. For e.g. if you want Hawaii during Christmas you need to plan 10 months out, if you don’t you take the dregs. That isn’t renters, it’s families and highly desired location by time. Maybe a better way for Wyndham to do this is sort of like Vistana- based on the purchase you buy you can get the desired weeks and the desired room sizes. Would make the availability actually available for the people who want it.


Maybe ask the moderator to shut this thread down.   I agree this topic has been exhausted, and is now being dragged down with off-topic posts.


----------



## lost patience

Not sure if this has been asked explicitly or not..... 
 Owners are getting letters telling them to immediately cease commercial use.  Presumably commercial use is renting a large number of their points or renting a large quantity of reservations.  
Extra Holidays is the approved rental venue for owners.  Owners can book those EXACT SAME SOUGHT AFTER weeks 13 months out.  Turn them over to Extra Holidays to be rented.
How is this not the ultimate double standard?
And, with Extra Holidays, someone could book that unit immediately - but cancel 73 hours prior to the event and the room would sit empty and the owner receives zero.   
..


----------



## 55plus

lost patience said:


> Not sure if this has been asked explicitly or not.....
> Owners are getting letters telling them to immediately cease commercial use.  Presumably commercial use is renting a large number of their points or renting a large quantity of reservations.
> Extra Holidays is the approved rental venue for owners.  Owners can book those EXACT SAME SOUGHT AFTER weeks 13 months out.  Turn them over to Extra Holidays to be rented.
> How is this not the ultimate double standard?
> And, with Extra Holidays, someone could book that unit immediately - but cancel 73 hours prior to the event and the room would sit empty and the owner receives zero.
> ..


So far Extra Holidays is honoring the restrictions Wyndham imposed on guests at specific resorts and timeframe. As for this matter there is not a double standard. As for owners not being able to rent, at least on a large scale and Extra Holidays able to, that needs to playout.


----------



## dgalati

lost patience said:


> Not sure if this has been asked explicitly or not.....
> Owners are getting letters telling them to immediately cease commercial use.  Presumably commercial use is renting a large number of their points or renting a large quantity of reservations.
> Extra Holidays is the approved rental venue for owners.  Owners can book those EXACT SAME SOUGHT AFTER weeks 13 months out.  Turn them over to Extra Holidays to be rented.
> How is this not the ultimate double standard?
> And, with Extra Holidays, someone could book that unit immediately - but cancel 73 hours prior to the event and the room would sit empty and the owner receives zero.
> ..


Welcome to the Club Wyndham.


----------



## Rolltydr

I think you answered your own question, “Extra Holidays is the approved rental venue for owners.”


----------



## CO skier

Sandy VDH said:


> If you own a timeshare and want to go somewhere on a holiday week, especially so with a large unit, then you set a reminder in your calendar and you book it as soon as it becomes available.
> 
> If you want to go away for a holiday week, and decide 3 or 4 weeks prior, than you have NO business owning a timeshare and EXCEPTING holiday weeks to just be there waiting for you.  You need to dump the timeshare and just stay at a hotel.  If not hotel then rent from a planner who does book that unit you want but couldn't decide upon when it was actually available.
> 
> I wonder if a lot of complaints about availability are really those still having a hotel stay mindset.


There are some owners who expect "what they want, when they want it."  This is not how a timeshare works, so there is no solution to this complaint.

A far more common complaint is, "The dates for my vacation are unavailable to book online using my ownership, but there are multiple listings available for rent online."  There is a certain logical thinking that proceeds from this, "If I have to rent what I want when I want it, what good is my ownership?"

This is one example from the WorldMark Owners' Complaint page that typifies what Wyndham is hearing (WorldMark does not have home resorts; at 13 months it is one big free-for-all beginning at 6 a.m. PT):

"All reservations should be owner occupied. No more guest reservations. If you book more than one unit, the owner must be on site. Getting up to be poised to book every day at 6:00 AM is toxic to your day. Then to go to the popular social media sites (Airbnb, VRBO, Ebay, etc.) to see there are plenty of Worldmark rooms available for a price. This is insulting. The Board promised to address this. Changes defined guest reservation, without fixing the problem. Allowing outside renters to occupy units is allowing occupancy by someone with no responsibility for ownership. We've been owners for 21 years. This is not the Worldmark we bought into."


The owner does not fully comprehend the situation, but it is this common complaint that the new Club Wyndham guest usage restriction is targeting.  Limiting popular resorts and times to two unrestricted guest reservations will eliminate much of the reserving and advertising for guests, and maybe cut down on some of the complaining.


----------



## chapjim

Rolltydr said:


> Wyndham’s lawyers have. And, they have a pretty good track record in court. If you’re in violation of the contract, and have been put on notice that you are, you might want to become more familiar with it. I’m not necessarily referring to you, Jim. I don’t know if you received the letter or not.



Of course I understand that and I really don't care if you are referring to me or not.  I assume you are, despite the disclaimer.  It should have been pretty obvious that when I said "anyone" I meant prospective purchasers, not Wyndham's attorneys. 

I understand contracts and the superior position that Wyndham has compared to a prospective purchaser.  I also understand standard form contracts and the fact that there is nothing to negotiate.  Sign or don't sign, no strike-outs, no counteroffers, etc.

I'm a licensed attorney in Virginia (in retired status).  Thanks for the legal advice to read the contract (RTFC).


----------



## Eric B

.


----------



## dgalati

Lawyers are the only winners when lawyers are involed. A lawyer once told me this "they still have assets we cant settle yet"


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> There is no such thing as a cheap Platinum membership unless you can time travel back to the Fairfield days 30 years ago.



There isn't but there certainly could be.  Maybe rickandcindy23's scenario is a bit of a stretch, but there's no reason Wyndham couldn't reduce the price of a Platinum ownership if it found itself with excess inventory.  "Cheap" is a relative term -- cheap compared to what?


----------



## Rolltydr

chapjim said:


> Of course I understand that and I really don't care if you are referring to me or not.  I assume you are, despite the disclaimer.  It should have been pretty obvious that when I said "anyone" I meant prospective purchasers, not Wyndham's attorneys.
> 
> I understand contracts and the superior position that Wyndham has compared to a prospective purchaser.  I also understand standard form contracts and the fact that there is nothing to negotiate.  Sign or don't sign, no strike-outs, no counteroffers, etc.
> 
> I'm a licensed attorney in Virginia (in retired status).  Thanks for the legal advice to read the contract (RTFC).


Are you trying to impress me? Or, intimidate me? Not working in either case. If you truly are an attorney and you’re violating the rules of the contract, that‘s actually worse than someone who was misled by the Wyndham salesperson. You should have known better.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Sandy VDH said:


> If you own a timeshare and want to go somewhere on a holiday week, especially so with a large unit, then you set a reminder in your calendar and you book it as soon as it becomes available.
> 
> If you want to go away for a holiday week, and decide 3 or 4 weeks prior, than you have NO business owning a timeshare and EXCEPTING holiday weeks to just be there waiting for you.  You need to dump the timeshare and just stay at a hotel.  If not hotel then rent from a planner who does book that unit you want but couldn't decide upon when it was actually available.
> 
> I wonder if a lot of complaints about availability are really those still having a hotel stay mindset.


I think people generally do think timeshares should be available at their whim.  I have talked to people via PM many times who told me they cannot book their home resort for the dates they want.  I asked the obvious question each time, "How much planning, how much time are you allowing yourself to get the week you want."  People say two weeks, and I am aghast that they are hoping for inventory at such short notice.  It just doesn't happen.  It's the same thing with RCI.  People think RCI should just have inventory sitting online for prime locations all of the time.  Owners at my own Val Chatelle tell me that exchange doesn't work.  I am supposedly the exchange expert and I just don't know what to say to that.  

Timeshare is not a hotel.  Everyone wants the good stuff.  The competition is fierce for the better trades and the better resorts.


----------



## rickandcindy23

chapjim said:


> There isn't but there certainly could be.  Maybe rickandcindy23's scenario is a bit of a stretch, but there's no reason Wyndham couldn't reduce the price of a Platinum ownership if it found itself with excess inventory.  "Cheap" is a relative term -- cheap compared to what?


Bocabum99 paid less than $10K for platinum.  I don't know how many points he got, but it was at the lesser resorts and it was done at Fairfield Bay, AR.  jyaning, if I remember the name correctly, did the same thing.  That was in 2006 or 2007.  I way overpaid.


----------



## VacayKat

rickandcindy23 said:


> I think people generally do think timeshares should be available at their whim.  I have talked to people via PM many times who told me they cannot book their home resort for the dates they want.  I asked the obvious question each time, "How much planning, how much time are you allowing yourself to get the week you want."  People say two weeks, and I am aghast that they are hoping for inventory at such short notice.  It just doesn't happen.  It's the same thing with RCI.  People think RCI should just have inventory sitting online for prime locations all of the time.  Owners at my own Val Chatelle tell me that exchange doesn't work.  I am supposedly the exchange expert and I just don't know what to say to that.
> 
> Timeshare is not a hotel.  Everyone wants the good stuff.  The competition is fierce for the better trades and the better resorts.


Heck, even hotels if you want the good inventory at the right prices you plan well in advance. People just like complaining when they don’t get what they want because it is always someone else’s fault.


----------



## am1

Solution is to raise points amounts for prime weeks.  Thanksgiving and Easter (sometimes) is value season at Bonnet Creek.  A serious oversight on managements part.  Or AC, weekends should be 3 times the points as weekdays.


----------



## CO skier

VacayKat said:


> Heck, even hotels if you want the good inventory at the right prices you plan well in advance. People just like complaining when they don’t get what they want because it is always someone else’s fault.


Exactly.  Why should megarenters' customers, who cannot plan well in advance, be able to reserve 13-month reservations only a few weeks or a few months ahead when these reservations are not available to Club Wyndham owners, who have invested into Club Wyndham for family vacations?

These premium, 13-month reservations should be booked by owners who can commit to the reservations 13 months ahead of time, not to customers-yet-to-be-named months or a year later.


----------



## HitchHiker71

am1 said:


> Solution is to raise points amounts for prime weeks. Thanksgiving and Easter (sometimes) is value season at Bonnet Creek. A serious oversight on managements part. Or AC, weekends should be 3 times the points as weekdays.



AFAIK the points values on the charts cannot be altered and are set in stone. That said, are the seasons like prime vs high vs value subject to change?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CO skier

rickandcindy23 said:


> Bocabum99 paid less than $10K for platinum.  I don't know how many points he got, but it was at the lesser resorts and it was done at Fairfield Bay, AR.  jyaning, if I remember the name correctly, did the same thing.  That was in 2006 or 2007.


I am not sure if the Beatles' "Yesterday" or Jethro Tull's "Living in the Past" is more appropriate.  Since I prefer Jethro Tull:

"Now there's revolution, but they don't know what the're fighting"


----------



## Richelle

I have a question...I keep seeing that owners (plural) are getting these letters.  I've only seen the one FB posting.  Where are the other reports of these letters?  I might have missed it when I went through this thread.


----------



## CO skier

Richelle said:


> I have a question...I keep seeing that owners (plural) are getting these letters.  I've only seen the one FB posting.  Where are the other reports of these letters?  I might have missed it when I went through this thread.


Somewhere along the line in this thread or another, rickandcindy23 mentioned receiving the letter/email.

As was pointed out in the now closed thread related to this, how many owners would want to "out" their commercial rental activities by acknowleging receipt of the Wyndham Commercial Renting notification?


----------



## am1

HitchHiker71 said:


> AFAIK the points values on the charts cannot be altered and are set in stone. That said, are the seasons like prime vs high vs value subject to change?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes seasons can change.  At one point sales said they never had.


----------



## troy12n

Sandy VDH said:


> If you own a timeshare and want to go somewhere on a holiday week, especially so with a large unit, then you set a reminder in your calendar and you book it as soon as it becomes available.
> 
> *If you want to go away for a holiday week, and decide 3 or 4 weeks prior, than you have NO business owning a timeshare and EXPECTING holiday weeks to just be there waiting for you*.  You need to dump the timeshare and just stay at a hotel.  If not hotel then rent from a planner who does book that unit you want but couldn't decide upon when it was actually available.
> 
> I wonder if a lot of complaints about availability are really those still having a hotel stay mindset.



You know, when people were complaining about the website a while back, I posted almost those exact sentiments and was absolutely lambasted by people here. Yes, the website sucks, yes, the mega renters have been impacting availability, yes, COVID and moved forward points are affecting it too, but my opinion is overwhelmingly people have such crazy expectations that there will be availability at their fingertips, at a moment's notice and they can just book a "4BR at BC for 2 weeks, a few days before Memorial Day"... wtf?

Maybe this is partly the fault of timeshare companies not properly setting expectations too


----------



## Sandi Bo

HitchHiker71 said:


> AFAIK the points values on the charts cannot be altered and are set in stone. That said, are the seasons like prime vs high vs value subject to change?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





am1 said:


> Yes seasons can change.  At one point sales said they never had.


Oh dear, here I am quoting sales people, but here goes... I remember being told they could be changed, but it's quite a complicated process and highly unlikely. And salespeople loved to point out the points chart at Bonnet Creek for Thanksgiving and how they messed up (using it as a selling point). That's my recollection.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> Yes seasons can change.  At one point sales said they never had.


Total points can't increase at a resort, but they can be shuffle around. If points are raised on, let's say weekends, they have to decrease somewhere else. It almost takes an act of God to shuffle points.


----------



## 55plus

CO skier said:


> Exactly.  Why should megarenters' customers, who cannot plan well in advance, be able to reserve 13-month reservations only a few weeks or a few months ahead when these reservations are not available to Club Wyndham owners, who have invested into Club Wyndham for family vacations?
> 
> These premium, 13-month reservations should be booked by owners who can commit to the reservations 13 months ahead of time, not to customers-yet-to-be-named months or a year later.


CO Skier hit it on the head. This is the major problem and complaint I, along with many others have. I can't book my home resort 13 months out unless I get up at midnight eastern time to book it. By 5AM the larger units are gone, but not forgotten. They end up for rent on Craigslist, etc. I love the new restrictions. It needs some tweaking (add some other timeframes).


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Total points can't increase at a resort, but they can be shuffle around. If points are raised on, let's say weekends, they have to decrease somewhere else. It almost takes an act of God to shuffle points.


Right but as in most things money is the great equalizer.  A super prime week at some resorts would have been better.  Until the points chart is corrected inventory will always be an issue.  I have a full schedule but could easily take it on.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> Right but as in most things money is the great equalizer.  A super prime week at some resorts would have been better.  Until the points chart is corrected inventory will always be an issue.  I have a full schedule but could easily take it on.


Maybe on the seventh day when you're suppose to rest you can set an hour or two aside to fix the point charts and end world hunger.


----------



## lost patience

In addition to the one I saw on FB that I've shared here, I did see one other that did not have details and I doubt I could find it again.  I also know 2 owners that received the letter.  They are keeping publicly silent.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Maybe on the seventh day when you're suppose to rest you can set an hour or two aside to fix the point charts and end world hunger.


I work 7 days a week.  But I could fit it in and more if one decides to open up their checkbook.


----------



## dgalati

lost patience said:


> In addition to the one I saw on FB that I've shared here, I did see one other that did not have details and I doubt I could find it again.  I also know 2 owners that received the letter.  They are keeping publicly silent.


No shame in making the numbers public. The truth is Wyndham already has them on their radar and will eliminate them if they want to. Who cares if everyone knows your a mega renter? Most here already know who is or who isn't a mega renter. All anyone has to do is look at the TUG rentals to see who is actively renting points as a commercial business.


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> when these reservations are not available to Club Wyndham owners





55plus said:


> I can't book my home resort 13 months out unless I get up at midnight eastern time to book it.


These reservations are available to owners. Even if rentals (by people who are _also owners_) are strongly curtailed, you're still not going to get that 4BR presidential unless you're on at midnight. There will still be a lowly run-of-the-mill owner who will beat you to it if you wait. And then you won't have the renters to blame.

I'm agnostic on the current restrictions Wyndham has added to prevent rentals, because it's Wyndham's ballgame and they make the rules. But it's always been the case that an owner who was willing to put in the work, either by planning ahead or diligently checking for cancellations, would generally be able to find the vacations they want, and owners that wait and or don't check often or don't learn and maximize their use of the system will not. This second group of owners (based on what I see on FB) complains a lot about renters, but it's the first group of owners who will benefit from the current restrictions. The second group is still going to be beaten out by the owners who try harder, and they will still complain.


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> These reservations are available to owners. Even if rentals (by people who are _also owners_) are strongly curtailed, you're still not going to get that 4BR presidential unless you're on at midnight. There will still be a lowly run-of-the-mill owner who will beat you to it if you wait. And then you won't have the renters to blame.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the current restrictions Wyndham has added to prevent rentals, because it's Wyndham's ballgame and they make the rules. But it's always been the case that an owner who was willing to put in the work, either by planning ahead or diligently checking for cancellations, would generally be able to find the vacations they want, and owners that wait and or don't check often or don't learn and maximize their use of the system will not. This second group of owners (based on what I see on FB) complains a lot about renters, but it's the first group of owners who will benefit from the current restrictions. The second group is still going to be beaten out by the owners who try harder, and they will still complain.



For the FB post that started this whole thread - someone mentioned purchasing 130 GCs that received the now infamous cease and desist letter from Wyndham.  That was on top of their 30 free GCs as a Founders level VIP.  So in one year, they used 160 GCs, mostly for rentals from what we can assume.  Let's assume 150 of those GCs were rentals for sake of argument.  That means the first group of owners will enjoy 150 more available units and 150 more vacations vs 150 non-owners.  Wyndham also knows that there's a large enough block of VIP owners who rent - that consume a LOT of inventory within the 60 day discount window for commercial rentals.  These owners typically scour for availability in this window solely for the purpose of commercial renting activity at many of the most popular resorts, and often even the less popular resorts since they can offer much cheaper prices due to VIP discounts and still make a profit.  This subset of VIP owners is also being targeted in an effort to minimize rental activity and to maximize last minute inventory availability to address the second group of owners that you're referring to.  This is all speculation on my part to be clear, but it makes sense to me at least.  The only wildcard is Wyndham itself - since within 60 days they can also consume inventory for rentals directly through any avenues as they see fit.  Only time will tell how this all plays out in reality.


----------



## paxsarah

HitchHiker71 said:


> This subset of VIP owners is also being targeted in an effort to minimize rental activity and to maximize last minute inventory availability to address the second group of owners that you're referring to.


They still have to be willing to put in the work to catch those cancellations, and be willing to be a little flexible on where and when they want to go. If they do, then maybe they were in the first group of owners after all. 

I for one am not willing to put in that kind of work or deal with last-minute uncertainty, which is why I'm in the subset of the first group that books at 10 or 13 months whenever possible.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> For the FB post that started this whole thread - someone mentioned purchasing 130 GCs that received the now infamous cease and desist letter from Wyndham.  That was on top of their 30 free GCs as a Founders level VIP.  So in one year, they used 160 GCs, mostly for rentals from what we can assume.  Let's assume 150 of those GCs were rentals for sake of argument.  That means the first group of owners will enjoy 150 more available units and 150 more vacations vs 150 non-owners.  Wyndham also knows that there's a large enough block of VIP owners who rent - that consume a LOT of inventory within the 60 day discount window for commercial rentals.  These owners typically scour for availability in this window solely for the purpose of commercial renting activity at many of the most popular resorts, and often even the less popular resorts since they can offer much cheaper prices due to VIP discounts and still make a profit.  This subset of VIP owners is also being targeted in an effort to minimize rental activity and to maximize last minute inventory availability to address the second group of owners that you're referring to.  This is all speculation on my part to be clear, but it makes sense to me at least.  The only wildcard is Wyndham itself - since within 60 days they can also consume inventory for rentals directly through any avenues as they see fit.  Only time will tell how this all plays out in reality.


I agree and disagree. That 60-day window reduction, IMO, likely benefits Wyndham the most, not late to the game planners. My basis for this is that in that period Wyndham can do whatever they want with whatever inventory they want, as you mention. Restricting owners from renting it means Wyndham can rent it.
I also agree with you on the face of your first argument, however, it is extremely unlikely that all of the 150 GC were used at premium spots on premium dates. I would wager that, at the absolute most, it would be 1/3 of that, which means the other dates are likely ones that owners aren’t worrying about, rather Wyndham would like to use them.

At the end of the day, I would place money on the bet that after the unused covid points that were banked get used up (say 5 years) not only will owners NOT be able to rent but in the 60-day window there will still be slim pickings as Wyndham will eat those for their own revenue stream. (FYI if you use extraholidays you can’t rebook within the 60 day window and keep your original place in the queue, you go to the bottom of the line- less likely to get premium $ or even a booking at all.)


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> They still have to be willing to put in the work to catch those cancellations, and be willing to be a little flexible on where and when they want to go. If they do, then maybe they were in the first group of owners after all.
> 
> I for one am not willing to put in that kind of work or deal with last-minute uncertainty, which is why I'm in the subset of the first group that books at 10 or 13 months whenever possible.



Personally I hardly ever use ARP outright as I don't have enough ARP points to do so for our family vacations - I only own 210k CWA points annually - and these are the only points I could use for ARP since my other points are resale CWS at NH (no real need to book using ARP for NH IME), and PIC points which aren't ARP eligible.  Since I'm VIP - I typically use RARP at 11 months out for our annual family vacations, at which point I can use any/all of my standard use year points.  I've never had a problem finding what I want using RARP vs ARP to date - but I don't go looking for four bedroom units either (three bedrooms usually).  For all of our couples long weekend getaway trips - I almost always book one bedroom units using the 60 day discount window at resorts within driving distance or cheap flights where I can find last minute availability.  So I kinda fall into both the first and second groups.


----------



## am1

dgalati said:


> No shame in making the numbers public. The truth is Wyndham already has them on their radar and will eliminate them if they want to. Who cares if everyone knows your a mega renter? Most here already know who is or who isn't a mega renter. All anyone has to do is look at the TUG rentals to see who is actively renting points as a commercial business.


Not sure renters would want to rent from people who received the letter.  If was them I would be cancelling and looking elsewhere.


----------



## SueDonJ

dgalati said:


> No shame in making the numbers public. The truth is Wyndham already has them on their radar and will eliminate them if they want to. Who cares if everyone knows your a mega renter? Most here already know who is or who isn't a mega renter. All anyone has to do is look at the TUG rentals to see who is actively renting points as a commercial business.



It's not shame that would keep me from outing myself as a mega-renter. It's exposure. It increases the possibility that if Wyndham were to engage in every legal avenue open to them against mega-renters, any self-admissions by me that can be reasonably attributed to me could be used against me.

People who are receiving notice from Wyndham, PLEASE, consider your own best interests before considering those of TUGgers who might benefit from knowing your experience. Eventually, there might come a day when it'll be low- or no-risk for you to share publicly (and then I'll be as interested as anybody) but now is not that time IMO.

(I know, I'm not a Wyndham owner and some might think I should be minding my own business. Oh well.)


----------



## dayooper

SueDonJ said:


> It's not shame that would keep me from outing myself as a mega-renter. It's exposure. It increases the possibility that if Wyndham were to engage in every legal avenue open to them against mega-renters, any self-admissions by me that can be reasonably attributed to me could be used against me.
> 
> People who are receiving notice from Wyndham, PLEASE, consider your own best interests before considering those of TUGgers who might benefit from knowing your experience. Eventually, there might come a day when it'll be low- or no-risk for you to share publicly (and then I'll be as interested as anybody) but now is not that time IMO.
> 
> (I know, I'm not a Wyndham owner and some might think I should be minding my own business. Oh well.)



I‘m not a Wyndham owner either, but have been following this issue since early June.


----------



## SueDonJ

paxsarah said:


> These reservations are available to owners. Even if rentals (by people who are _also owners_) are strongly curtailed, you're still not going to get that 4BR presidential unless you're on at midnight. There will still be a lowly run-of-the-mill owner who will beat you to it if you wait. And then you won't have the renters to blame.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the current restrictions Wyndham has added to prevent rentals, because it's Wyndham's ballgame and they make the rules. But it's always been the case that an owner who was willing to put in the work, either by planning ahead or diligently checking for cancellations, would generally be able to find the vacations they want, and owners that wait and or don't check often or don't learn and maximize their use of the system will not. This second group of owners (based on what I see on FB) complains a lot about renters, but it's the first group of owners who will benefit from the current restrictions. The second group is still going to be beaten out by the owners who try harder, and they will still complain.



The question of why private rentals are available when owner intervals are not comes up frequently on every company's TUG forum. I'm honestly surprised that more companies haven't followed DVC's, and now Wyndham's, attempts to curtail what they deem mega-rental activity.

Although I agree with what you say, that owners still have to be willing and able to work the reservation system to get high-demand intervals at the earliest possible booking date, the difference that bothers most owners is not in who _obtains_ the intervals but in who _uses_ them. Most owners understand the availability metrics and aren't bothered so much by other owners beating them to the punch, but more by non-owners getting intervals (especially high-demand intervals) long after the reservation windows have opened.


----------



## 55plus

I only own with Wyndham and I don't want to have to rent a unit from someone when I should be able to reserve it with points 13 months out.


----------



## am1

In the end all the points ya e to be owned by someone.  Still the same limited prime availability.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> In the end all the points ya e to be owned by someone. Still the same limited prime availability.


You are correct. But having to rent it from another owner when you have the points to reserve it sucks, and that's the issue.


----------



## dgalati

SueDonJ said:


> It's not shame that would keep me from outing myself as a mega-renter. It's exposure. It increases the possibility that if Wyndham were to engage in every legal avenue open to them against mega-renters, any self-admissions by me that can be reasonably attributed to me could be used against me.
> 
> People who are receiving notice from Wyndham, PLEASE, consider your own best interests before considering those of TUGgers who might benefit from knowing your experience. Eventually, there might come a day when it'll be low- or no-risk for you to share publicly (and then I'll be as interested as anybody) but now is not that time IMO.
> 
> (I know, I'm not a Wyndham owner and some might think I should be minding my own business. Oh well.)


They have already been exposed by Wyndham. No self admissions on the facts/numbers as Wyndham already has this info (Points rented vs points owned, How many points bought developer and or resale, and number of GC'S used). The letter owners received has exposed them as commercial renters. At least in Wyndham's opinion. The only option they have now is to see what Wyndham is offering. It will be a lot less costly then if they try to lawyer up and fight corporate. Lawyering up vs settling may be a good topic for another thread.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> You are correct. But having to rent it from another owner when you have the points to reserve it sucks, and that's the issue.


It’s a dog eat dog world.  What people on here seem to want is charity. Maybe random lottery one can enter to be assigned a week or maybe Wyndham assigns weeks at random.


----------



## SueDonJ

dgalati said:


> They have already been exposed by Wyndham. No self admissions on the facts/numbers as Wyndham already has this info (Points rented vs points owned, How many points bought developer and or resale, and number of GC'S used). The letter owners received has exposed them as commercial renters. At least in Wyndham's opinion. The only option they have now is to see what Wyndham is offering. It will be a lot less costly if they try to lawyer up and fight corporate.



There are three active/open threads and one closed thread on this forum related to this issue, and in every one of them you have repeatedly asked for those receiving the letter from Wyndham to share the details of the letter as well as their history that led to their exposure. Obviously you and I will never agree on whether it's a good idea for them to share publicly. If it were me, I'd be sharing nothing at this point.

(If it matters I'm not saying this as a moderator on TUG, because that in itself doesn't confer any insight or validation. I'm saying it as a fellow timeshare owner, just like you and just like all of us.)


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> It’s a dog eat dog world.  What people on here seem to want is charity. Maybe random lottery one can enter to be assigned a week or maybe Wyndham assigns weeks at random.


I'm okay with that. I don't want to rent it from another owner who reserved it for profit, not personal use.


----------



## SueDonJ

am1 said:


> It’s a dog eat dog world.  What people on here seem to want is charity. Maybe random lottery one can enter to be assigned a week or maybe Wyndham assigns weeks at random.



I don't understand the comment about charity?

As for a lottery, be careful what you wish for. Marriott governing docs have specific lottery and other related language in them that would allow high-demand inventory to be apportioned year-over-year in such a way that every owner of a specific high-demand interval is eventually given access to it outside of the established reservation procedures. As someone who routinely uses my ownership to try to book the calendar weeks that straddle the high-demand Memorial Day weekend, and works the inventory release process as well as anybody, that would certainly impact me negatively. But on the other hand as an owner who is frustrated at seeing those intervals available for private rental long after the reservation windows have opened, I'd be in favor of Marriott restricting those private rentals despite knowing that how they choose to do that might negatively impact me.


----------



## troy12n

am1 said:


> It’s a dog eat dog world.  What people on here seem to want is charity. Maybe random lottery one can enter to be assigned a week or maybe Wyndham assigns weeks at random.



So how about you put some real skin in the game, and buy some real properties and play landlord with properties you OWN, or at least sort of own while you pay the real owner of the property (the bank)...

Playing wanna be landlord with second hand timeshare points you buy for pennies on the dollar and robbing other owners of availability is nothing better than the overfinanced slumlord renting a 1 BR tenement house with no working heat or air conditioning to a family of 12 immigrants (while being in foreclosure)

These timeshares are not for running a personal business. Period. Despite what some of the sales weasels might say. You are naïve, stupid or just downright disingenuous if you think or espouse otherwise.

You had your run, the game is over, last call... lights coming on. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here... I applaud Wyndham for taking this stance. Finally.


----------



## Rolltydr

SueDonJ said:


> It's not shame that would keep me from outing myself as a mega-renter. It's exposure. It increases the possibility that if Wyndham were to engage in every legal avenue open to them against mega-renters, any self-admissions by me that can be reasonably attributed to me could be used against me.
> 
> People who are receiving notice from Wyndham, PLEASE, consider your own best interests before considering those of TUGgers who might benefit from knowing your experience. Eventually, there might come a day when it'll be low- or no-risk for you to share publicly (and then I'll be as interested as anybody) but now is not that time IMO.
> 
> (I know, I'm not a Wyndham owner and some might think I should be minding my own business. Oh well.)


Aren’t they only looking out for their own interests now? That‘s why they’re searching for every loophole they can find, at best, every rule they can break and get away with, at worst.


----------



## SueDonJ

Rolltydr said:


> Aren’t they only looking out for their own interests now? That‘s why they’re searching for every loophole they can find, at best, every rule they can break and get away with, at worst.



It's weird, I know, and might seem contradictory but if the company is leaving loopholes in place that allow any certain usage then I don't fault owners for taking advantage of those loopholes. It's also contradictory that I will use a broker to rent high-demand Marriott inventory (although that's not my usual usage and not anywhere near on the scale of mega-renters) while at the same time wishing that Marriott would restrict it.

But protecting yourself against legal exposure is something altogether separate from that, it's an issue in and of itself, and to me it's the smart thing to do in any and every situation where a company has put you on notice.


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> So how about you put some real skin in the game, and buy some real properties and play landlord with properties you OWN, or at least sort of own while you pay the real owner of the property (the bank)...
> 
> Playing wanna be landlord with second hand timeshare points you buy for pennies on the dollar and robbing other owners of availability is nothing better than the overfinanced slumlord renting a 1 BR tenement house with no working heat or air conditioning to a family of 12 immigrants (while being in foreclosure)
> 
> These timeshares are not for running a personal business. Period. Despite what some of the sales weasels might say. You are naïve, stupid or just downright disingenuous if you think or espouse otherwise.
> 
> You had your run, the game is over, last call... lights coming on. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here... I applaud Wyndham for taking this stance. Finally.


That's pretty harsh. @am1 worked the system to his advantage just like most VIP owners do today. The difference between him and you is he took it to the extreme and profited off of the system at a very low cost and resale pricing. Don't begrudge someone that learned the system, hustled, and put the work in to profit off what Wyndham was selling. Wyndham changed the rules and he negotiated a way out which turned in to a blessing with what has transpired over the last 4 years.


----------



## dgalati

SueDonJ said:


> It's weird, I know, and might seem contradictory but if the company is leaving loopholes in place that allow any certain usage then I don't fault owners for taking advantage of those loopholes. It's also contradictory that I will use a broker to rent high-demand Marriott inventory (not my usual usage and not anywhere near on the scale of mega-renters) while at the same time wishing that Marriott would restrict it.
> 
> But protecting yourself against legal exposure is something altogether separate from that, it's an issue in and of itself, and to me it's the smart thing to do in any and every situation where a company has put you on notice.


There is no legal expose at risk. Wyndham already has the information that they would be posting. I have nothing to gain from this data as I never rented any on my points. But other owners that rent may find this info help full . Especially the ones that have millions of developer points and bought into the system being sold the idea that you can rent to pay maintenance fees may.


----------



## Rolltydr

SueDonJ said:


> It's weird, I know, and might seem contradictory but if the company is leaving loopholes in place that allow any certain usage then I don't fault owners for taking advantage of those loopholes. It's also contradictory that I will use a broker to rent high-demand Marriott inventory (although that's not my usual usage and not anywhere near on the scale of mega-renters) while at the same time wishing that Marriott would restrict it.
> 
> But protecting yourself against legal exposure is something altogether separate from that, it's an issue in and of itself, and to me it's the smart thing to do in any and every situation where a company has put you on notice.


I appreciate your position. OTOH, one of the main reasons new laws are constantly being added to the books is because criminals are constantly searching for loopholes, ambiguities, new methods and technologies, to exploit for their own gain. I protect myself by following the rules and laws. Have I ever gotten a speeding ticket? Yes, I’m guilty. But, I knew I was speeding and I paid the consequences. I didn’t blame someone else for setting a speed limit. To me, mega-renters know they are breaking the rules. If Wyndham decides to take action, they should pay the consequences and stop blaming Wyndham for having and enforcing the rule.


----------



## SueDonJ

dgalati said:


> There is no legal expose at risk. Wyndham already has the information that they would be posting. I have nothing to gain from this data as I never rented any on my points. But other owners that rent may find this info help full . Especially the ones that have millions of developer points and bought into the system being sold the idea that you can rent to pay maintenance fees may.



How do you know what's at risk?! How can any of us know? Even the people receiving these letters don't know the extent to which Wyndham might be willing to go to restrict owner rentals! A few letters have been shared on social media and the text does not answer ALL of the questions that the letters raise with respect to those ownerships going forward. Anybody who chooses to "out" themselves as having received one of these letters, anybody who doesn't consider that much more than their rental activity could be impacted, is taking a risk that I would not be willing to take. That's all I'm saying - that these owners shouldn't volunteer ANYTHING in the public sphere until/unless Wyndham's end result is made clear. Right now it's not advantageous for them to disclose anything no matter how much it helps the other owners who want to know where the line is and what constitutes stepping over it.


----------



## troy12n

Rolltydr said:


> I appreciate your position. OTOH, one of the main reasons new laws are constantly being added to the books is because criminals are constantly searching for loopholes, ambiguities, new methods and technologies, to exploit *for their own gain*. I protect myself by following the rules and laws. Have I ever gotten a speeding ticket? Yes, I’m guilty. But, I knew I was speeding and I paid the consequences. I didn’t blame someone else for setting a speed limit. *To me, mega-renters know they are breaking the rules*. If Wyndham decides to take action, they should pay the consequences and stop blaming Wyndham for having and enforcing the rule.



I'm of the opinion that if there are loopholes still in place, that an owner can use to benefit *themselves*, for *their* vacation needs, then fine. I don't own any resale points, but i'm not opposed to doing it at some point if I need more, and leveraging my (purchased) VIP benefits with those resale points. I will never own millions. I won't buy more points so I can rent them to cover part of my MF's. If someone wants to do that with a few hundred thousand of their points, i'm even ok with that. 

Where I draw the line is people exploiting these loopholes for personal financial gain, *at the expense of other owners*... to the tune of millions of points, even tens of millions of points, that's my issue. That's also most everyone else's issues with this.

And personal financial gain, I consider covering a high percentage of your MF... for instance, mega renters can't hide behind "covering their MF's" when they own *5 million or more RESALE POINTS*... Get out of here with that. You own those points, you *BOUGHT those points to rent*. Also, calling 130 GC's "childs play" or something of the sort, as I saw one Tugger here do, that doesn't really help your position.

That's the distinction, and saying otherwise is completely disingenuous... and insulting to our intelligence


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> So how about you put some real skin in the game, and buy some real properties and play landlord with properties you OWN, or at least sort of own while you pay the real owner of the property (the bank)...
> 
> Playing wanna be landlord with second hand timeshare points you buy for pennies on the dollar and robbing other owners of availability is nothing better than the overfinanced slumlord renting a 1 BR tenement house with no working heat or air conditioning to a family of 12 immigrants (while being in foreclosure)
> 
> These timeshares are not for running a personal business. Period. Despite what some of the sales weasels might say. You are naïve, stupid or just downright disingenuous if you think or espouse otherwise.
> 
> You had your run, the game is over, last call... lights coming on. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here... I applaud Wyndham for taking this stance. Finally.


I have 6 rental properties.  Thanks to a good run with timeshares. 

Usually rented to immigrants/ex pats.  

I just took what the sales person said at Bonnet Creek.  Did not buy retail started buying on eBay and stole ideas/locations from  others in the business.

My time was done 3 or years ago.


----------



## dioxide45

SueDonJ said:


> How do you know what's at risk?! How can any of us know? Even the people receiving these letters don't know the extent to which Wyndham might be willing to go to restrict owner rentals! A few letters have been shared on social media and the text does not answer ALL of the questions that the letters raise with respect to those ownerships going forward. Anybody who chooses to "out" themselves as having received one of these letters, anybody who doesn't consider that much more than their rental activity could be impacted, is taking a risk that I would not be willing to take. That's all I'm saying - that these owners shouldn't volunteer ANYTHING in the public sphere until/unless Wyndham's end result is made clear. Right now it's not advantageous for them to disclose anything no matter how much it helps the other owners who want to know where the line is and what constitutes stepping over it.


There are certainly risks outside of just Wyndham coming after these particular mega renters. If Wyndham forces cancellations, they have renters that may have prepaid certain travel expenses. That certainly can't be a good thing.


----------



## 55plus

dioxide45 said:


> There are certainly risks outside of just Wyndham coming after these particular mega renters. If Wyndham forces cancellations, they have renters that may have prepaid certain travel expenses. That certainly can't be a good thing.


I remember reading on TUG during COVID when Wyndham shutdown some complaining about having to reimburse renters.  One called COVID an act of God and didn't want to reimburse anyone. I don't know how that particular issue turned out.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> I remember reading on TUG during COVID when Wyndham shutdown some complaining about having to reimburse renters.  One called COVID an act of God and didn't want to reimburse anyone. I don't know how that particular issue turned out.


Just classless and a way to kill future business for all timeshare owners.


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> I remember reading on TUG during COVID when Wyndham shutdown some complaining about having to reimburse renters.  One called COVID an act of God and didn't want to reimburse anyone. I don't know how that particular issue turned out.



I remember that too, it's hard to complain when your unofficial business, that really isn't a commercial venture (**cough**), incurs an unexpected loss and you have to (**cough**) do the right thing by your (**cough**) customers... yeah, lots of side eye there. 

The cost of doing (**cough**) business...


----------



## HitchHiker71

SueDonJ said:


> Right now it's not advantageous for them to disclose anything no matter how much it helps the other owners who want to know where the line is and what constitutes stepping over it.



It's also not advantageous for Wyndham to disclose any specifics either, perhaps much to the shagrin of the small subset of owners who are engaged in commercial renting.  Since we all know that the practice of commercial renting is prohibited contractually - why would Wyndham ever provide explicit guidance as to where the defining lines are for a practice that is not contractually legal?  This would _only _benefit the subset of owners who are being targeted. I wouldn't if I was Wyndham. Doing so would only encourage those who are running commercial rental businesses to figure out exactly how to run just under the radar. I see no point in Wyndham providing this type of guidance for a business practice that is violation of terms of use in the first place.


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> I'm of the opinion that if there are loopholes still in place, that an owner can use to benefit *themselves*, for *their* vacation needs, then fine. I don't own any resale points, but i'm not opposed to doing it at some point if I need more, and leveraging my (purchased) VIP benefits with those resale points. I will never own millions. I won't buy more points so I can rent them to cover part of my MF's. If someone wants to do that with a few hundred thousand of their points, i'm even ok with that.
> 
> Where I draw the line is people exploiting these loopholes for personal financial gain, *at the expense of other owners*... to the tune of millions of points, even tens of millions of points, that's my issue. That's also most everyone else's issues with this.
> 
> And personal financial gain, I consider covering a high percentage of your MF... for instance, mega renters can't hide behind "covering their MF's" when they own *5 million or more RESALE POINTS*... Get out of here with that. You own those points, you *BOUGHT those points to rent*. Also, calling 130 GC's "childs play" or something of the sort, as I saw one Tugger here do, that doesn't really help your position.
> 
> That's the distinction, and saying otherwise is completely disingenuous... and insulting to our intelligence


Hoorah for me! As long as the loophole exists for my benefit. Such a self serving statement.  "As long as it benefits my travel needs!" Only a dingle berry would believe otherwise. Typical VIP statement since you paid developer prices you should be able to beat the system. Resale owners were better informed and paid what Wyndham pays when taking back Certified exit. Shame on resale buyers for paying less for same accommodations. SMH


----------



## dgalati

am1 said:


> I have 6 rental properties.  Thanks to a good run with timeshares.
> 
> Usually rented to immigrants/ex pats.
> 
> I just took what the sales person said at Bonnet Creek.  Did not buy retail started buying on eBay and stole ideas/locations from  others in the business.
> 
> My time was done 3 or years ago.


I became wealthy on rental houses at a early age. 1st house bought at 20. Attended 2 timeshare presentations on Honeymoon but didn't purchase because I knew what a real investment was .12k for control of 1week just didn't make sense to me knowing I could buy a single family home for 55k. I also would have 100% control and accelerated depreciation. Rent also covered mortgage even at 11.5% interest 30 year note. Refied 3 years later and borrowed at 8.5% 15 year at a lower payment.  God bless America!
Only mistake was not buying more. Flipping and stripping deeds for personal travel was a great way to travel at close to $0/1000 but as you know all good things come to a end. I still can travel for $3/1000 renting from a VIP that passes along discounts and free upgrades. Like I say learn the system and make it work for your travel needs!


----------



## Sandi Bo

55plus said:


> CO Skier hit it on the head. This is the major problem and complaint I, along with many others have. I can't book my home resort 13 months out unless I get up at midnight eastern time to book it. By 5AM the larger units are gone, but not forgotten. They end up for rent on Craigslist, etc. I love the new restrictions. It needs some tweaking (add some other timeframes).


Someone would have to own at that home resort. Maybe book 1 if not 2 big rooms?  I don't think I can be convinced that those rooms are being scooped up by megarenters.  People were getting up at 6am to call in and book those hard to book weeks before there was an online system. I think it's safe to say they have always sold out.

Did people cancel / rebook way back then, or did the website and technology bring these practices?  For sure with technology came more informed users. Wyndham really has to hate that. How many sales have they lost because people have found TUG? It really is hard to believe Wyndham can still sell developer points.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> It's also not advantageous for Wyndham to disclose any specifics either, perhaps much to the shagrin of the small subset of owners who are engaged in commercial renting.  Since we all know that the practice of commercial renting is prohibited contractually - why would Wyndham ever provide explicit guidance as to where the defining lines are for a practice that is not contractually legal?  This would _only _benefit the subset of owners who are being targeted. I wouldn't if I was Wyndham. Doing so would only encourage those who are running commercial rental businesses to figure out exactly how to run just under the radar. I see no point in Wyndham providing this type of guidance for a business practice that is violation of terms of use in the first place.


A few on TUG that openly rent have stated Wyndham knows who I am and knows how to contact me. Its Ironic now that some are in disbelief that Wyndham is contacting them and really know who they are renting to. The software to track GC'S or rentals is a little better then what IT has been giving us on the online reservation experiance.


----------



## 55plus

Sandi Bo said:


> Someone would have to own at that home resort. Maybe book 1 if not 2 big rooms?  I don't think I can be convinced that those rooms are being scooped up by megarenters.  People were getting up at 6am to call in and book those hard to book weeks before there was an online system. I think it's safe to say they have always sold out.
> 
> Did people cancel / rebook way back then, or did the website and technology bring these practices?  For sure with technology came more informed users. Wyndham really has to hate that. How many sales have they lost because people have found TUG? It really is hard to believe Wyndham can still sell developer points.


It's hard to believe that when multiple larger units during primetime time-frames turn up on numerous Craigslist posts by different individuals. This is all about greed and this crap needs to end. I applaud Wyndham for finally working to end this abuse of the club and its rules for personal financial gain at the expense of the owners.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Sandi Bo said:


> Someone would have to own at that home resort. Maybe book 1 if not 2 big rooms? I don't think I can be convinced that those rooms are being scooped up by megarenters. People were getting up at 6am to call in and book those hard to book weeks before there was an online system. I think it's safe to say they have always sold out.
> 
> Did people cancel / rebook way back then, or did the website and technology bring these practices? For sure with technology came more informed users. Wyndham really has to hate that. How many sales have they lost because people have found TUG? It really is hard to believe Wyndham can still sell developer points.



The vast majority of timeshare sales are still developer sales from what I’ve seen. The resale market is small potatoes in comparison. Here’s the Q1 2021 statement from Wyndham investor relations:



> Gross vacation ownership interest (VOI) sales of $236 million was 43% below the prior year. Tours were 53% lower year-over-year, offset in part by higher Volume Per Guest (VPG), which increased 34% to $2,847.



Note those numbers were down 43% compared to Q1 2020, due to COVID of course. The year prior VOI sales were up in the 450-500mm range. Wyndham measures VPG which is an average per guest that actually attends the updates as opposed to the average per contract sale price (this would be the number I would like to see). If we assume the average contract sale price is $25k - that would mean 9,440 contract sales in Q1 2021 alone. Double that under otherwise normal economic circumstances prior to COVID. 20,000 new developer contract owners per quarter. 

Let’s compare that to the number that TUG tracks for contract rescissions. Keep in mind the number TUG tracks is for all timeshares and cumulative in comparison. In Dec 2019 that tracker surpassed 1000 owners and 14mm. It’s probably a bit higher now - over 15mm IIRC. 

Wyndham adds 20k new owners and 450-500mm in developer VOI sales per quarter. All in TUG has tracked 1000 owners and approximately 15mm in rescissions, only a minority of which are Wyndham rescissions.   I’d estimate that the majority of rescissions aren’t actually attributed and/or reported via TUG in reality - but my overall point is that it’s David vs Goliath when we do the math. By all appearances, the vast majority of timeshares sold today are still developer driven. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rolltydr

55plus said:


> I remember reading on TUG during COVID when Wyndham shutdown some complaining about having to reimburse renters.  One called COVID an act of God and didn't want to reimburse anyone. I don't know how that particular issue turned out.


That member is now whining that Wyndham is changing the rules and it may negatively impact his commercial enterprise, uh, hobby.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> It's hard to believe that when multiple larger units during primetime time-frames turn up on numerous Craigslist posts by different individuals. This is all about greed and this crap needs to end. I applaud Wyndham for finally working to end this abuse of the club and its rules for personal financial gain at the expense of the owners.


Forget about Craigs list what about Tugs market place rentals or last minute rentals. Its so open and obvious who is renting and what is going on.


----------



## dgalati

Rolltydr said:


> That member is now whining that Wyndham is changing the rules and it may negatively impact his commercial enterprise, uh, hobby.


Cheese with your wine?


----------



## dgalati

am1 said:


> Just classless and a way to kill future business for all timeshare owners.


I actually had a rental for a trip I could not take during COVID  and the owner was ready to refund the $. I told her to keep it or pay it forward to someone in need. The pandemic did not affect my business or anyone in my family and just wanted to help someone else in need. I am a believer in paying it forward and helping some one else starting out. The struggle in my early years is hard to forget and I always try to help the guy starting out. The $100 or more will go farther in his pocket then it will in mine. I am blessed to have good fortune in my life but have worked for every bit of it. I also can appreciate the breaks some gave me along the way and want to do the same for others that are working as hard as I did.


----------



## Cyrus24

dgalati said:


> Forget about Craigs list what about Tugs market place rentals or last minute rentals. Its so open and obvious who is renting and what is going on.


I’m curious, if someone rents on the TUG last minute marketplace, would those relatively low dollar rentals be considered commercial rentals?  Or would those be considered just covering MF cost rentals?  Just looking for an opinion.


----------



## 55plus

I listed on TUG when my plans changed and it was past the 15 day cancellation drop dead date. I did it to recoup the cost of lost points.


----------



## VacayKat

Cyrus24 said:


> I’m curious, if someone rents on the TUG last minute marketplace, would those relatively low dollar rentals be considered commercial rentals?  Or would those be considered just covering MF cost rentals?  Just looking for an opinion.


If you call an owner renting out a vacation when they get money from someone else who stays in the unit commercial behaviour it does not matter the circumstances it occurs in. Therefore, if you have ever received payment for your timeshare when you had someone other than yourself staying there, it would be commercial. This, I think, is why so many people like myself are irritated at the Wyndham policy.


----------



## dioxide45

I doubt much of this has come down to owner complaints but more about Wyndham losing out on sales, either to owners who complain about not being able to get reservations or perhaps renters either not going through tour floors or turning down a sale because they say they can rent cheaper. I doubt Wyndham is just feeling all lovey to their owners and wanting them to have a better experience. It is all about them losing out on possible revenue, both with competing rentals and loss of sales.


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> I’m curious, if someone rents on the TUG last minute marketplace, would those relatively low dollar rentals be considered commercial rentals?  Or would those be considered just covering MF cost rentals?  Just looking for an opinion.


Asking for a freind?


----------



## Cyrus24

dgalati said:


> Asking for a freind?


Just looking for opinions.  I've put a couple (2, maybe 3) out there for personal reasons and I don't 'feel' like a commercial renter.  FWIW, I've not received any letters, so Wyndham must not view me as a commercial renter, at least not today.  I'm just curious how others view use of that forum.


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> If you call an owner renting out a vacation when they get money from someone else who stays in the unit commercial behaviour *it does not matter the circumstances it occurs in*. Therefore, if you have ever received payment for your timeshare when you had someone other than yourself staying there, it would be commercial. This, I think, is why so many people like myself are irritated at the Wyndham policy.




I disagree with this completely. *It depends on context completely*. Someone who rents an already booked, non-cancellable reservation to cover their potential loss would be fine in my book. 

Someone who does this with 80% of their portfolio, consistently, someone who has bought millions of resale points and using them to rent, that is what most of us have an issue with. All of these mega renters have *BOUGHT RESALE POINTS with the explicit intent to rent them*... 

Please, be honest with yourself, call a spade a spade... don't try to use dishonest straw man arguments here to try to support your position...


----------



## troy12n

Cyrus24 said:


> Just looking for opinions.  I've put a couple (2, maybe 3) out there for personal reasons and I don't 'feel' like a commercial renter.  FWIW, I've not received any letters, so Wyndham must not view me as a commercial renter, at least not today.  I'm just curious how others view use of that forum.




Ask yourself this, do you find yourself in this position often? Like, are the majority of your bookings "accidentally" rented to cover a potential loss? If not, you would be ok in my view. if there's a pattern to it, then yes, that would be to me problematic. 

In Wyndham's eyes? Who knows


----------



## SueDonJ

Cyrus24 said:


> Just looking for opinions.  I've put a couple (2, maybe 3) out there for personal reasons and I don't 'feel' like a commercial renter.  FWIW, I've not received any letters, so Wyndham must not view me as a commercial renter, at least not today.  I'm just curious how others view use of that forum.



Those forums confuse me. I read a Wanted once and was able to book the reservation and offer it for the forum's $ limit while still giving me a small profit, and the person just did not trust my offer because it was lower than all the others she'd received. It took a back-and-forth exchange with a complete explanation before we went ahead with the rental and then I got a very nice unexpected thank-you letter after the stay. What a lot of nonsense for something that I thought had clear parameters understood by everyone!

As for your question, I don't think Wyndham is going to care why owners are engaging in rental activity. It appears they're going to set the parameters (one way apparently being a limit on Guest Certs for certain intervals) and use those to restrict activity that they've deemed is a problem. The vague language in the docs that doesn't clearly define "commercial activity" gives them a lot of wiggle room.


----------



## 55plus

com·mer·cial | \ kə-ˈmər-shəl  \
*Definition of commercial*
1a(1)*: *occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commercea commercial artist
(2)*: *of or relating to commercecommercial regulationscommercial services
(3)*: *characteristic of commerce


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> com·mer·cial | \ kə-ˈmər-shəl  \
> *Definition of commercial*
> 1a(1)*: *occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commercea commercial artist
> (2)*: *of or relating to commercecommercial regulationscommercial services
> (3)*: *characteristic of commerce


Define Loophole.


----------



## 55plus

*loop·hole*
  (lo͞op′hōl′)
_n._
*1. *A way of avoiding or escaping a cost or legal burden that would otherwise apply by means of an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law.
*2. *A small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms may be fired.


----------



## 55plus

Commercial activity is creating commerce, meaning $$$. Not allowed under the club rules. No wiggle room or loopholes here.


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> I disagree with this completely. *It depends on context completely*. Someone who rents an already booked, non-cancellable reservation to cover their potential loss would be fine in my book.
> 
> Someone who does this with 80% of their portfolio, consistently, someone who has bought millions of resale points and using them to rent, that is what most of us have an issue with. All of these mega renters have *BOUGHT RESALE POINTS with the explicit intent to rent them*...
> 
> Please, be honest with yourself, call a spade a spade... don't try to use dishonest straw man arguments here to try to support your position...


You’re welcome to disagree, but in the act of receiving money for a good or service, you meet the definition of commerce. I am not debating whether someone can  feel better by telling themselves someone should use it. I’m simply stating the fact that receiving money for goods or services is the definition of commerce. 
*What Are Examples of Commercial Activity? *
Commercial activity is for-profit activity, such as selling furniture via a storefront or a restaurant. More broadly, commercial activity can include selling goods, services, food, or materials.


----------



## CO skier

VacayKat said:


> At the end of the day, I would place money on the bet that after the unused covid points that were banked get used up (say 5 years) not only will owners NOT be able to rent but in the 60-day window there will still be slim pickings as Wyndham will eat those for their own revenue stream.


Back when "cancel/rebook" was a thing, Wyndham could have captured boatloads of premium reservation cancellations within 60 days, but they must not have, because cancel/rebook was 90%+ successful.

If Wyndham wanted to "eat those [60-day reservations] for their own revenue stream, why did they not "eat" most of the premium reservations back in the day of cancel/rebook?  There is no question the 60-day cancellations now are less premium than they were during the heyday of cancel/rebook.


----------



## dioxide45

60 day reservations are usually there because no one wants them. Most often cash guests don't want them either.


----------



## tschwa2

Cyrus24 said:


> I’m curious, if someone rents on the TUG last minute marketplace, would those relatively low dollar rentals be considered commercial rentals?  Or would those be considered just covering MF cost rentals?  Just looking for an opinion.


My opinion is they don't care if you make money over your MF's or not or even if you are losing money vs your annual fees (not including buy in costs)  If on a given year you have over something like 2-3 million points  (which could be as little as 1-1.5 million annual points banked) and put guest certs on more than 3/4 of your points and/or have more than 100 guest certs including the included ones and can't prove that you didn't accept money for most of them, then Wyndham,  along with the average person would consider that some kind of commercial venture on your part is going on.   If on the other hand you could get sworn affidavits from everyone who received a vacation from you stating that it was a gift from a friend, family member or employer/business associate then you would be fine.  

Wyndham likes the extra hundreds of thousands that they make on guest certs every year but if they think it hurts their bottom line they will try to stop it.  They aren't going to track down every rental to verify how much profit was made on each one.


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> My opinion is they don't care if you make money over your MF's or not or even if you are losing money vs your annual fees (not including buy in costs)  If on a given year you have over something like 2-3 million points  (which could be as little as 1-1.5 million annual points banked) and put guest certs on more than 3/4 of your points and/or have more than 100 guest certs including the included ones and can't prove that you didn't accept money for most of them, then Wyndham,  along with the average person would consider that some kind of commercial venture on your part is going on.   If on the other hand you could get sworn affidavits from everyone who received a vacation from you stating that it was a gift from a friend, family member or employer/business associate then you would be fine.
> 
> Wyndham likes the extra hundreds of thousands that they make on guest certs every year but if they think it hurts their bottom line they will try to stop it.  They aren't going to track down every rental to verify how much profit was made on each one.


So I think the percentage of points used for guest certs might not be an accurate line in the sand. This next year we have family gatherings so will at most use 1/3 of our points for ourselves, the rest will be GC. With roll overs etc we are over the 4m point mark this year. And we will get $0 from family for their rooms.
In general, the way in which Wyndham identifies and targets people they think are abusing their ownership, IMO, is likely based on far simpler mechanisms. Such as- individuals representing to concierge/sales that they are renting their vacation (they have the owner info), disgruntled renters being upset with those they rented from, or possibly even owners who identify other owners as having rental listings and being upset they have to rent over book themselves. If they ran metrics, it is unlikely they would identify the right population aside from a handful of very obvious potential problems such as ‘over X number of GC’.


----------



## 55plus

VacayKat said:


> If you call an owner renting out a vacation when they get money from someone else who stays in the unit commercial behaviour it does not matter the circumstances it occurs in. Therefore, if you have ever received payment for your timeshare when you had someone other than yourself staying there, it would be commercial. This, I think, is why so many people like myself are irritated at the Wyndham policy.


I listed on TUG when my plans changed and it was past the 15 day cancellation drop dead date. I did it to cover the points I would lose. The reservation cost 77,000 points and I rented it for $700. Not much, if any profit there. If Wyndham didn't have the drop dead date I would have been able to reuse the points. Is this commercial activity? If I did this regularly and made a lot of profit, then yes, it would be a commercial activity. However, if someone has reservations listed for sale prior to the 15 day drop dead date, they are involved in commercial activity which is in direct violation of the policy spelled out in the Wyndham directory. In other words, any reservation for sale prior to the 15 day cancellation drop dead date is definitely commercial activity.


----------



## Sandy VDH

I manage the entire family's holdings.  But my family covers the cost of their own usage, as they reimburse me the costs as I am the one who paid for it IN ADVANCE.  So by the earlier post of "Commercial activity is creating commerce, meaning $$$"  so that statement is just too broad.  Family and friends does NOT make a commercial endeavor IMHO. 

I use my for my self, my family (all siblings and all their adult children & their families including Inlaw's), a lot of friends (sometimes they travel with me, sometimes they go alone), and often give to silent auctions for charities I am working with, or give a weekend away as gifts or rewards.  There is a lot of names used on GC on my account and they are all legit.   I more often than not have more GC point usage than my own personal usage, so in my case that would not be a good measure. 

Where exactly do you draw the line?  That could be a slippery slope.


----------



## tschwa2

55plus said:


> I listed on TUG when my plans changed and it was past the 15 day cancellation drop dead date. I did it to cover the points I would lose. The reservation cost 77,000 points and I rented it for $700. Not much, if any profit there. If Wyndham didn't have the drop dead date I would have been able to reuse the points. Is this commercial activity? If I did this regularly and made a lot of profit, then yes, it would be a commercial activity. However, if someone has reservations listed for sale prior to the 15 day drop dead date, they are involved in commercial activity which is in direct violation of the policy spelled out in the Wyndham directory. In other words, any reservation for sale prior to the 15 day cancellation drop dead date is definitely commercial activity.


I am looking at this from a "reasonable person" perspective.  A reasonable person isn't going to consider a handful of reservations commercial activity.  If you did this hundreds of times a year especially if it happened in more than one year than yes.  If you did it with millions of points but only a handful of reservations than likely someone would take a closer look to determine if you were violating the policy.    I personally don't think anyone with under 500,000 annual points per year has anything to worry about.  Someone with 300,000 points that rents out all 300,000 points using 1-4 guest certs a year still wouldn't be on the radar for commercial activity.  This isn't about scaring the little people and while someone with 3 million might consider themselves to be little people compared to the 50 million points owners, most people look at those with over a million who use 50+ guest cert a year more than little people.  I am not sure what the cut off is but it isn't just a few rentals here and there.


----------



## tschwa2

I agree it is a slippery slope and a few people might get cut down on the wrong side where most guest certs are non rentals.  It sounds like wyndham will force those owners to take a hard look at how many points they actually need so that they don't end up with extra points they need to rent out in addition to the 50+ that they use strictly for family and friends.  Perhaps they will encourage those members to give points to those friends and family members so they can manage their own vacations if we are talking 50-100+ a year perhaps without the benefit of your vip membership.  If multimillion points were bought retail perhaps they will work with you to split accounts an put family members who regularly use points on one of the memberships.


----------



## 55plus

Sandy VDH said:


> I manage the entire family's holdings.  But my family covers the cost of their own usage, as they reimburse me the costs as I am the one who paid for it IN ADVANCE.  So by the earlier post of "Commercial activity is creating commerce, meaning $$$"  so that statement is just too broad.  Family and friends does NOT make a commercial endeavor IMHO.
> 
> I use my for my self, my family (all siblings and all their adult children), a lot of friends (sometimes they travel with me, sometimes they go alone), and often give to silent auctions for charities I am working with, or give a weekend away as gifts or rewards.  There is a lot of names used on GC on my account and they are all legit.   I more often than not have more GC point usage than my own personal usage, so in my case that would not be a good measure.
> 
> Where exactly do you draw the line?  That could be a slippery slope.


Since you are not advertising reservations for sale and instead using them for friends and family then you are using the timeshare program for what it is designed for, guests and not commence. I do the same with friends and family. And we too donate to silent auctions for a couple local charities. I receive 30 guest confirmations annually and use about 10 of them each year.


----------



## Sandy VDH

55plus said:


> Since you are not advertising reservations for sale and instead using them for friends and family then you are using the timeshare program for what it is designed for, guests and not commence. I do the same with friends and family. And we too donate to silent auctions for a couple local charities. I receive 30 guest confirmations annually and use about 10 of them each year.



It varies for me on the number of GC, but I never paid for one since the took the unlimited GCs away.


----------



## 55plus

tschwa2 said:


> I am looking at this from a "reasonable person" perspective.  A reasonable person isn't going to consider a handful of reservations commercial activity.  If you did this hundreds of times a year especially if it happened in more than one year than yes.  If you did it with millions of points but only a handful of reservations than likely someone would take a closer look to determine if you were violating the policy.    I personally don't think anyone with under 500,000 annual points per year has anything to worry about.  Someone with 300,000 points that rents out all 300,000 points using 1-4 guest certs a year still wouldn't be on the radar for commercial activity.  This isn't about scaring the little people and while someone with 3 million might consider themselves to be little people compared to the 50 million points owners, most people look at those with over a million who use 50+ guest cert a year more than little people.  I am not sure what the cut off is but it isn't just a few rentals here and there.


I don't know what line there can be. Maybe any amount above the cost of points used could be considered commerce, but how do you prove one's not profiting. Either way, commerce is commerce whether or not there is a profit. If money, goods or service exchange hands in exchange for something of value, it commerce.


----------



## troy12n

Sandy VDH said:


> It varies for me on the number of GC, but I never paid for one since the took the unlimited GCs away.



I know my opinion does not matter, but my opinion is that what you are doing is clearly within the intent of what Wyndham has the GC's for... to use for friends and family. Yours is clearly not commercial intent

However this shakes out, I would think "the accused" would have the ability to talk this out with someone at Wyndham if they truly are wrongfully targeted... 

But people using 130 GC's aren't going to be able to hide behind the "friends and family" excuse


----------



## tschwa2

55plus said:


> I don't what line there can be. Maybe any amount above the cost of points used could be considered commerce, but how do you prove one's not profiting. Either way, commerce is commerce whether or not there is a profit. If money, goods or service exchange hands in exchange for something of value, it commerce.


They are not going to track down 100's of  guests or hundreds of thousands of guests to find out how much they paid.  My guess is the line will be % used for guests, number or guest certs per year and/or dedicated web site for rentals or a combination.  If you get a letter and want to fight it by all means they may allow you to track down those hundred people you gave guest certs to and get them to sign a sworn affidavit but Wyndham isn't going to go to that trouble.  The owners who are complaining that non owners are taking up space when they can't get it, would be just as mad that they are getting the rentals at or below their costs as they would for an owner making profit.


----------



## rickandcindy23

If inventory is there for platinum owners who are renting inventory, it's there for you.  There is no special window of opportunity at 60 days or less that isn't available to everyone.  It's a lot about jealousy.  It's also all about tenacity.  That is what BocaBum99 always said and he was right.  No one argued with him back then.  He didn't rub people the "wrong" way as I apparently I do.  People loved him.

I saw an obituary for what I believe might be BocaBum99, and I know he hasn't been here in a long time.  I saw a picture of a Jim with his last name on an obituary and met him one time on Oahu, where he lived, but it was 2007, so I assume it is him.  He hasn't been here on TUG for years.  If anyone knows if Jim is around, let me know.  He was young and a proud dad.  I hope he didn't succumb to cancer.


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> I am looking at this from a "reasonable person" perspective.  A reasonable person isn't going to consider a handful of reservations commercial activity.  If you did this hundreds of times a year especially if it happened in more than one year than yes.  If you did it with millions of points but only a handful of reservations than likely someone would take a closer look to determine if you were violating the policy.    I personally don't think anyone with under 500,000 annual points per year has anything to worry about.  Someone with 300,000 points that rents out all 300,000 points using 1-4 guest certs a year still wouldn't be on the radar for commercial activity.  This isn't about scaring the little people and while someone with 3 million might consider themselves to be little people compared to the 50 million points owners, most people look at those with over a million who use 50+ guest cert a year more than little people.  I am not sure what the cut off is but it isn't just a few rentals here and there.


When it is a corporation making the rules and not disclosing the rules, there is no reasonable person interpretation. The only interpretation is what does business law state. As I posted previously, business law says exchanging goods or services for compensation is commercial activity. Yes that is correct, if you hold a garage sale, list items for sale on craigslist or ebay and receive ANY compensation you are required by law to report that as income on your tax returns. So if you rent a timeshare vacation EVEN to recoup MF then you have to report it as income. How do you explain that income if it is not commercial activity? The bare minimum reasonable person interpretation based on American tax and business law is, if I receive compensation for securing a vacation for someone else EVEN if I intended to use it for myself originally, I’m engaging in commerce.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> When it is a corporation making the rules and not disclosing the rules, there is no reasonable person interpretation. The only interpretation is what does business law state. As I posted previously, business law says exchanging goods or services for compensation is commercial activity. Yes that is correct, if you hold a garage sale, list items for sale on craigslist or ebay and receive ANY compensation you are required by law to report that as income on your tax returns. So if you rent a timeshare vacation EVEN to recoup MF then you have to report it as income. How do you explain that income if it is not commercial activity? The bare minimum reasonable person interpretation based on American tax and business law is, if I receive compensation for securing a vacation for someone else EVEN if I intended to use it for myself originally, I’m engaging in commerce.



I'm sure reasonable minds can and do disagree on this, but believe that context is quite important to contract interpretation.  The only thing I would say I believe is a bare minimum reasonable interpretation is that reasonable people disagree all the time - if they didn't we wouldn't need a legal system to resolve things.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> If inventory is there for platinum owners who are renting inventory, it's there for you.  There is no special window of opportunity at 60 days or less that isn't available to everyone.  It's a lot about jealousy.  It's also all about tenacity.  That is what BocaBum99 always said and he was right.  No one argued with him back then.  He didn't rub people the "wrong" way as I apparently I do.  People loved him.
> 
> I saw an obituary for what I believe might be BocaBum99, and I know he hasn't been here in a long time.  I saw a picture of a Jim with his last name on an obituary and met him one time on Oahu, where he lived, but it was 2007, so I assume it is him.  He hasn't been here on TUG for years.  If anyone knows if Jim is around, let me know.  He was young and a proud dad.  I hope he didn't succumb to cancer.


I think you are missing the point. This is not about jealousy, This isn't high school. It's about rules. Wyndham Club rules spell out in print, no commercial activity, period. Whether you are VIP or not, and whether it's 13 months out, within 60 days out or one day out, commercial activity is not allowed. Many families don't have the flexibility as retirees do and can only plan when their vacations are approved by supervisors, etc. There are many time when my leave wasn't approved until 30 day out. Inventory is for owners and their guests personal travel, not commerce. The only Club approved commerce avenue for owners is Extra Holidays.


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> I listed on TUG when my plans changed and it was past the 15 day cancellation drop dead date. I did it to cover the points I would lose. The reservation cost 77,000 points and I rented it for $700. Not much, if any profit there. If Wyndham didn't have the drop dead date I would have been able to reuse the points. Is this commercial activity? If I did this regularly and made a lot of profit, then yes, it would be a commercial activity. However, if someone has reservations listed for sale prior to the 15 day drop dead date, they are involved in commercial activity which is in direct violation of the policy spelled out in the Wyndham directory. In other words, any reservation for sale prior to the 15 day cancellation drop dead date is definitely commercial activity.


Sounds commercial to me.  Unless you have extremely high MF’s, you made a profit.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> I think you are missing the point. This is not about jealousy, This isn't high school. It's about rules. Wyndham Club rules spell out in print, no commercial activity, period. Whether you are VIP or not, and whether it's 13 months out, within 60 days out or one day out, commercial activity is not allowed. Many families don't have the flexibility as retirees do and can only plan when their vacations are approved by supervisors, etc. There are many time when my leave wasn't approved until 30 day out. Inventory is for owners and their guests personal travel, not commerce. The only Club approved commerce avenue for owners is Extra Holidays.



And you and others miss the point about commercial activity in the legal documents.  But Wyndham can try to limit things they do not like.   

All this talk is about nothing as it does not matter what one things is what just what Wyndham wants and owners will allow.  

First the start at the top and by the end friends and family cannot use the reservations with the elimination of guest confirmations.


----------



## troy12n

I'm going to reply to this post piece by piece because it's so flawed...



rickandcindy23 said:


> If inventory is there for platinum owners who are renting inventory, it's there for you.



Inventory is there for everyone at either 13 or 10 months. This is a given.

What you seem to be (*intentionally or not*) omitting from your statement, is, it's clear mega renters are booking *HUGE* amounts of inventory right at the ARP date, be it 13 or 10 months.

Families, in general, don't make vacation plans at 13 months. In some cases they do. In a lot of times they don't. Now, obviously an expectation that you be able to book something 90 days or less out is a poor expectation, but I think one might have a reasonable expectation that they be able to make a booking 6-8 months out... and not be restricted to "midnight at the 13 or 10 months" mark...

Omitting this from your argument cheapens your position...



> There is no special window of opportunity at 60 days or less that isn't available to everyone. It's a lot about jealousy. It's also all about tenacity. That is what BocaBum99 always said and he was right. No one argued with him back then. He didn't rub people the "wrong" way as I apparently I do. People loved him.



Can't speak to why people loved him, i'm sure a percentage of people who loved him were renters who learned a lot from him...

But espousing a general idea that you need to book a vacation right at the ARP date or be completely out of luck is extremely flawed. Especially when less savy or small ownership users are locked out by mega renters with millions of points booking weeks they have no idea what they are even going to do with it at midnight of the ARP date... 

If you can't see the distinction, I feel sorry for you...


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> I'm sure reasonable minds can and do disagree on this, but believe that context is quite important to contract interpretation.  The only thing I would say I believe is a bare minimum reasonable interpretation is that reasonable people disagree all the time - if they didn't we wouldn't need a legal system to resolve things.


I guess what I don’t get is the futile exercise in attempting to determine on this forum what TUG folk think is or is not commercial. It is not, under any circumstances, going to make a difference whether we think it is ok to rent a reservation we missed the deadline to cancel versus a reservation that was intended to rent, both for the purposes of recouping timeshare costs. In my experience, courts come down to what is written in the contract and signed by both parties. If the contract says using the timeshare for commercial activity is prohibited, the strictest interpretation of commercial activity will prevail. Thus, did you receive any compensation, even at a loss, for use of the timeshare. So if you signed a contract that says no commercial activity and did not get in writing what that exactly meant, it defaults to the legal precedent.


----------



## 55plus

It's not spelled out on a contract. The contract basically states you will follow the club rules. The rules are spelled out in the club directory, which is subject to change.


----------



## tschwa2

VacayKat said:


> I guess what I don’t get is the futile exercise in attempting to determine on this forum what TUG folk think is or is not commercial. It is not, under any circumstances, going to make a difference whether we think it is ok to rent a reservation we missed the deadline to cancel versus a reservation that was intended to rent, both for the purposes of recouping timeshare costs. In my experience, courts come down to what is written in the contract and signed by both parties. If the contract says using the timeshare for commercial activity is prohibited, the strictest interpretation of commercial activity will prevail. Thus, did you receive any compensation, even at a loss, for use of the timeshare. So if you signed a contract that says no commercial activity and did not get in writing what that exactly meant, it defaults to the legal precedent.


While that could be true, I don't think Wyndham is trying to eliminate every single rental and won't be going after everyone who rents out a single week or more.  No one is complaining about someone renting out a few reservations because plans change and they won't be able to cancel or reuse the points before they expire.  They are going to start with those with a lot of guest certs used per year.  If that doesn't solve the problem in their opinion, Wyndham will keep going down the slope.  If someone wants to be safe than they shouldn't rent anything.  There is nothing wrong with speculating where this wave of cease and desist letters are going.  Its TUG, that's what we do.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> I guess what I don’t get is the futile exercise in attempting to determine on this forum what TUG folk think is or is not commercial. It is not, under any circumstances, going to make a difference whether we think it is ok to rent a reservation we missed the deadline to cancel versus a reservation that was intended to rent, both for the purposes of recouping timeshare costs. In my experience, courts come down to what is written in the contract and signed by both parties. *If the contract says using the timeshare for commercial activity is prohibited, the strictest interpretation of commercial activity will prevail*. Thus, did you receive any compensation, even at a loss, for use of the timeshare. So if you signed a contract that says no commercial activity and did not get in writing what that exactly meant, it defaults to the legal precedent.



I'm not really sure that's the case when there's an ambiguous term used in the contract and it's a form one that one party had no means to negotiate.









						Contra proferentem - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> While that could be true, I don't think Wyndham is trying to eliminate every single rental and won't be going after everyone who rents out a single week or more.  No one is complaining about someone renting out a few reservations because plans change and they won't be able to cancel or reuse the points before they expire.  They are going to start with those with a lot of guest certs used per year.  If that doesn't solve the problem in their opinion, Wyndham will keep going down the slope.  If someone wants to be safe than they shouldn't rent anything.  There is nothing wrong with speculating where this wave of cease and desist letters are going.  Its TUG, that's what we do.


So if that’s the goal, then speculate who they are going after, not what a reasonable person would expect. Reasonable person doesn’t factor into Wyndham’s approach.


----------



## Cyrus24

I'm not an attorney, but I have 2 in my family that I like to debate with.  .  Here a something to consider that potentially could affect all of us.  Any time a GC is done, there is the potential for it being considered a commercial activity.  Even when you place a family member of friend on the GC, it could be with financial compensation or for other considerations.  ALL GC's, regardless of if they are free or paid for could be considered a commercial venture.  Wyndham is going down a very slippery slope identifying some who use GC's while ignoring others who use GC's.  Unless they have irrefutable proof, ie, a record of the actual consideration given, they have nothing but circumstantial proof.  I'm just not sure that would hold up in court.

Let's hope they don't eliminate all GC's!!!  For me, not so much a problem since I am currently in the process of adding family members to my account.


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> I'm not an attorney, but I have 2 in my family that I like to debate with.  .  Here a something to consider that potentially could affect all of us.  Any time a GC is done, there is the potential for it being considered a commercial activity.  Even when you place a family member of friend on the GC, it could be with financial compensation or for other considerations.  ALL GC's, regardless of if they are free or paid for could be considered a commercial venture.  Wyndham is going down a very slippery slope identifying some who use GC's will ignoring others who use GC's.  Unless they have irrefutable proof, ie, a record of the actual consideration given, they have nothing but circumstantial proof.  I'm just not sure that would hold up in court.
> 
> Let's hope they don't eliminate all GC's!!!  For me, not so much a problem since I am currently in the process of adding family members to my account.


Adding family members or all the people you rent to seems like a great loophole to circumvent the system.


----------



## tschwa2

VacayKat said:


> So if that’s the goal, then speculate who they are going after, not what a reasonable person would expect. Reasonable person doesn’t factor into Wyndham’s approach.



but my speculation is that wyndham will expect the people who complain about the "mega rentals" are reasonable average people.  And they want to make the reasonable members happy.  So I think it will factor into Wyndhams approach.


----------



## Cyrus24

dgalati said:


> Adding family members or all the people you rent to seems like a great loophole to circumvent the system.


I'm not sure that a renter would want to be associated with an account.  Not sure a rentee would want renters on their accounts either.  Family members, not an issue in many families.


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> but my speculation is that wyndham will expect the people who complain about the "mega rentals" are reasonable average people.  And they want to make the reasonable members happy.  So I think it will factor into Wyndhams approach.


That’s pretty funny. I think Wyndham wants to make money. I don’t think they give a hoot about who they screw over in the process.


----------



## Eric B

Cyrus24 said:


> I'm not an attorney, but I have 2 in my family that I like to debate with.  .  Here a something to consider that potentially could affect all of us.  Any time a GC is done, there is the potential for it being considered a commercial activity.  Even when you place a family member of friend on the GC, it could be with financial compensation or for other considerations.  ALL GC's, regardless of if they are free or paid for could be considered a commercial venture.  Wyndham is going down a very slippery slope identifying some who use GC's while ignoring others who use GC's.  Unless they have irrefutable proof, ie, a record of the actual consideration given, they have nothing but circumstantial proof.  I'm just not sure that would hold up in court.
> 
> Let's hope they don't eliminate all GC's!!!  For me, not so much a problem since I am currently in the process of adding family members to my account.



Well, I do like a good debate.  The limitation in question is on page 270 of the 2018-2019 members' directory and reads "The Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes."  To me that is a limitation is one on engaging in rentals for commercial purposes, not on engaging in rentals as a favor to others or to cover your maintenance fees when you can't use all of your points yourself.  I happen to get enjoyment out of renting to people as favors, too, so that helps out, too....


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> I'm not really sure that's the case when there's an ambiguous term used in the contract and it's a form one that one party had no means to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra proferentem - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


But is it an ambiguous term? Or is it just that the people entering into these contracts aren’t versed in the case law defining it?
Also- you negotiate if you want, it just might be the other side has a take it or leave it attitude. You don’t sign a contract that you don’t agree to abide by. And if anything is unclear you seek legal counsel before you enter into the contract.


----------



## dgalati

VacayKat said:


> That’s pretty funny. I think Wyndham wants to make money. I don’t think they give a hoot about who they screw over in the process.


LOL!


----------



## Cyrus24

Eric B said:


> I happen to get enjoyment out of renting to people as favors, too, so that helps out, too....


As do I.  I just don't think Wyndham will be able to draw a reasonable line (your line is reasonable BTW) that will keep them out of court.


----------



## tschwa2

Cyrus24 said:


> As do I.  I just don't think Wyndham will be able to draw a reasonable line (your line is reasonable BTW) that will keep them out of court.


for anyone who wants to take it to court they will make an offer with a NDS.  That is what will likely keep them out of court.   That's what they did last time and even those that said they will fight seemed to take the deal.     I believe the last angle was using club benefits to the detriment of other members.  That was right around the time that cancel rebook stopped functioning easily and regularly for members.   The offers with the NDS happened after Wyndham discontinued unlimited free guest certs for platinum owners.  Wyndham has a bigger budget for legal than most owners.  Wyndham doesn't want to step inside of a court room.


----------



## dioxide45

tschwa2 said:


> Wyndham doesn't want to step inside of a court room.


They don't want to have to undergo discovery and have certain elements of their operation open to public (and competition) viewing.


----------



## Cyrus24

tschwa2 said:


> I believe the last angle was using club benefits to the detriment of other members.


Yep, like replacing the Credit Pool with this awful Deposit 'Feature' when they could have just stopped the multi-year stripping.  GC's are on the chopping block, IMHO, there is no line to be drawn on what can and can not be called commercial.  The only way to limit/reduce the renting is to limit/reduce GC's usage (free or paid).


----------



## tschwa2

Cyrus24 said:


> Yep, like replacing the Credit Pool with this awful Deposit 'Feature' when they could have just stopped the multi-year stripping.  GC's are on the chopping block, IMHO, there is no line to be drawn on what can and can not be called commercial.  The only way to limit/reduce the renting is to limit/reduce GC's usage (free or paid).


HICV did this by offering a certain number of guest certs and not allowing more than that allotment.  On top of that they created a new trust where resale owners are allowed zero guest certs.  I think wyndham likes the income that the fees bring in so I can't imagine them going to zero.  I could see them allowing another 1-10 or 20 over the allotment at the current fee structure and then going to a higher fee something like $500 or $1000 per guest cert over the limit.


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> com·mer·cial | \ kə-ˈmər-shəl  \
> *Definition of commercial*
> 1a(1)*: *occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commercea commercial artist
> (2)*: *of or relating to commercecommercial regulationscommercial services
> (3)*: *characteristic of commerce



Oh!  I get it!  Commercial is commerce.  Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.


----------



## jebloomquist

troy12n said:


> What you seem to be (*intentionally or not*) omitting from your statement, is, it's clear mega renters are booking *HUGE* amounts of inventory right at the ARP date, be it 13 or 10 months.



I think that troy12n is hitting on what is mainly bothering Wyndham. Mega renters reserve HUGE amounts of inventory and only release it at the 15 day mark. This limits the ability of other owners to even see what is being held until the cancellation at 15 days. For most owners, that is just too late to make plans. 

Wyndham might be looking at two statistics to develop the "commercial" list. 1) The number of reservations made in a period, say a year, and 2) the ration of cancelled reservation / to made reservations. If an owner is making 100s of reservations and then cancelling over 25% of them, something might be going on there. I would bet that Wyndham has trigger points on both of these statistics and uses them to develop the commercial owners list.

It is not some much of a problem that owners may rent , but that some owners reserve and hold availability from others, and then cancel at the 15 day mark.

So, what can Wyndham do about it.  Oh yes, lets pull out the no commercial activities clause. Send out a notice and scare the casual owners along with the mega-renters, and start a huge debate.

Now that's what I like about Wyndham. Always ready with a screw driver.


----------



## Cyrus24

jebloomquist said:


> So, what can Wyndham do about it. Oh yes, lets pull out the no commercial activities clause. Send out a notice and scare the casual owners along with the mega-renters, and start a huge debate.


I think 'scaring' is where it will end.


----------



## jebloomquist

Cyrus24 said:


> I think 'scaring' is where it will end.


Let's hope from your words to Wyndham's ears.


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> I think 'scaring' is where it will end.


Hopefully not. This is a way for Wyndham to obtain free inventory. The owners that are mega renters, and even other owners who have points dedicated for rental purpose will probably shed points verse paying fees on points that can't generate an income anymore.


----------



## Sandy VDH

I think in 25 years of ownership I have ARP'd maybe twice.  Generally find I just don't need to.


----------



## tschwa2

Cyrus24 said:


> I think 'scaring' is where it will end.


I think scaring owners that receive letters that reservations with guest certs could be cancelled at anytime for violating the commercial use clause could be pretty effective for a lot of owners.  The ones that it doesn't scare may have their accounts frozen and will get contacted by the legal department and the negotiation of their exit from wyndham will start. That's what they have done in the past.


----------



## Sandi Bo

Has anyone brought up things like acquiescence or laches (throwing it out there, ready to be eaten alive as I have no legal knowledge, other than knowing if I allow my neighbor to encroach on my property, and don't do anything, it's at some point gonna be his).  Just thinking along those same lines -- people have talked about this for years - for as long as I can remember - and the gist of it was, yeah it's in the contract or the directory, but Wyndham doesn't enforce it. Wyndham has happily received maintenance fees for all these years, taken money for guest certificates, added millions of points to accounts, not to mention sales promoting it.  Seems to me they've enabled this so they can't really cry foul too loudly. I understand they want it to stop now, and I don't doubt it will (as far as how rentals might typically run today). It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## bnoble

There might be all sorts of legal theories as to why Wyndham doesn't have a leg to stand on. But, they are just theories until someone takes them to court over it. As has been mentioned in this or a related thread, Wyndham is going to make that a very expensive proposition, to the point that nearly anyone rational would settle instead. And, while this is going on, Wyndham will have frozen the account but still charged MFs on it, further bleeding the owner dry.

It's their ball. If they want to take it and go home, they can.


----------



## 55plus

Wyndham has deep pockets and lawyers, and they know how to use them in the courts and passive aggressively as a deterrent.


----------



## Cyrus24

bnoble said:


> There might be all sorts of legal theories as to why Wyndham doesn't have a leg to stand on. But, they are just theories until someone takes them to court over it. As has been mentioned in this or a related thread, Wyndham is going to make that a very expensive proposition, to the point that nearly anyone rational would settle instead. And, while this is going on, Wyndham will have frozen the account but still charged MFs on it, further bleeding the owner dry.
> 
> It's their ball. If they want to take it and go home, they can.


I would agree with this except for the fact that SO many have used GCs in return for compensation.  And, it’s been allowed to go on, forever.  Stopping that could be a HUGE hurdle, nearly impossible.  I see GC limitations being the solution to commercial renting.  I mean, really, who needs 150+ GCs in a given year.


----------



## Worker

I feel like sueing Wyndham for allowing rentals and promoting owners to rent for more than 20 years , therefore not allowing me to use my timeshare,  that they knew I wouldn't be able to use to its full value.

Only now, does Wyndham attempt to take action. What about the past 20 or more years that my ownership has been affected by Wyndham's promotion of renting?


----------



## 55plus

I've been an owner for going on 30 years. It got bad at times, but not like it is now. Limiting the purchase of GCs a good start, but I don't think that's enough unless the CG restrictions become permanent.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

VacayKat said:


> That’s pretty funny. I think Wyndham wants to make money. I don’t think they give a hoot about who they screw over in the process.



Agree 
Same formula as Westgate


----------



## rickandcindy23

We never book anything 12 or 13 months out.  No need for what we do.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Worker said:


> I feel like sueing Wyndham for allowing rentals and promoting owners to rent for more than 20 years , therefore not allowing me to use my timeshare,  that they knew I wouldn't be able to use to its full value.
> 
> Only now, does Wyndham attempt to take action. What about the past 20 or more years that my ownership has been affected by Wyndham's promotion of renting?


That's an odd post.  You cannot use your timeshare?  Why is that?   Inventory is sitting online for the taking.  You aren't trying hard enough.  No, you might not be able to get a week at Waikiki Beach Walk at one month out, but you might be able to get it with tenacity and determination.


----------



## Worker

rickandcindy23 said:


> That's an odd post.  You cannot use your timeshare?  Why is that?   Inventory is sitting online for the taking.  You aren't trying hard enough.  No, you might not be able to get a week at Waikiki Beach Walk at one month out, but you might be able to get it with tenacity and determination.




Yes, I agree I can use my timeshare. Yes, inventory is sitting online for the taking. If Wyndham took these steps, such as restricting GC,  there would have been more inventory to choose from. The point is, with Wyndham's promotion of renting for the past 20 or more years,  my ownership was limited.


----------



## Cyrus24

Worker said:


> Yes, I agree I can use my timeshare. Yes, inventory is sitting online for the taking. If Wyndham took these steps, such as restricting GC,  there would have been more inventory to choose from. The point is, with Wyndham's promotion of renting for the past 20 or more years,  my ownership was limited.


Wyndham will still be promoting ‘renting’ via Extra Holidays.  Be sure to add that to your lawsuit.  Good luck, you will need luck AND deep pockets.


----------



## am1

Worker said:


> I feel like sueing Wyndham for allowing rentals and promoting owners to rent for more than 20 years , therefore not allowing me to use my timeshare,  that they knew I wouldn't be able to use to its full value.
> 
> Only now, does Wyndham attempt to take action. What about the past 20 or more years that my ownership has been affected by Wyndham's promotion of renting?


You have a case.  You may need some expert witnesses.


----------



## Worker

Cyrus24 said:


> Wyndham will still be promoting ‘renting’ via Extra Holidays.  Be sure to add that to your lawsuit.  Good luck, you will need luck AND deep pockets.


I Agree. So, everyone can focus their complaints on Renting at  " Wyndham ".  I hope Wyndham reads this.


----------



## dgalati

jebloomquist said:


> I think that troy12n is hitting on what is mainly bothering Wyndham. Mega renters reserve HUGE amounts of inventory and only release it at the 15 day mark. This limits the ability of other owners to even see what is being held until the cancellation at 15 days. For most owners, that is just too late to make plans.
> 
> Wyndham might be looking at two statistics to develop the "commercial" list. 1) The number of reservations made in a period, say a year, and 2) the ration of cancelled reservation / to made reservations. If an owner is making 100s of reservations and then cancelling over 25% of them, something might be going on there. I would bet that Wyndham has trigger points on both of these statistics and uses them to develop the commercial owners list.
> 
> It is not some much of a problem that owners may rent , but that some owners reserve and hold availability from others, and then cancel at the 15 day mark.
> 
> So, what can Wyndham do about it.  Oh yes, lets pull out the no commercial activities clause. Send out a notice and scare the casual owners along with the mega-renters, and start a huge debate.
> 
> Now that's what I like about Wyndham. Always ready with a screw driver.


Releasing reservations at the 15 day mark helps guys like me. I like the last minute travel deals. For my travel needs I have always counted on this inventory returning at the 15 day mark.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Cyrus24 said:


> I would agree with this except for the fact that SO many have used GCs in return for compensation. And, it’s been allowed to go on, forever. Stopping that could be a HUGE hurdle, nearly impossible. I see GC limitations being the solution to commercial renting. I mean, really, who needs 150+ GCs in a given year.



Much of the changes roughly align with the new CEO Michael Brown coming on board, and his bringing more of a customer experience focus, which admittedly is still very much a work in progress, to the Wyndham culture. I suspect he is the driving force behind many of the changes we have seen and are currently seeing. CEOs drive the vision - and therefore whatever was permitted in the past for however long is no longer relevant when new leadership is at the helm. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyrus24

HitchHiker71 said:


> CEOs drive the vision - and therefore whatever was permitted in the past for however long is no longer relevant when new leadership is at the helm.


May not be relevant to him, but a leadership change does not absolve companies of past sins.  I see GC limitations coming versus an out and out ban on renting.  The former is easy, the latter is problematic, IMHO.


----------



## ivywag

TravelTime said:


> I am reading this topic because it is interesting but I am not a Wyndham owner. Does anyone else who is reading this thread know if other timeshare companies like Marriott or Vistana also prohibit commercial use? How do timeshare companies define commercial use?


Hyatt also has that provision.  Renting takes good inventory out of the trade pool for other Club members.  Hyatt only allows you to rent out the unit/week that you own.


----------



## dayooper

ivywag said:


> Hyatt also has that provision.  Renting takes good inventory out of the trade pool for other Club members.  Hyatt only allows you to rent out the unit/week that you own.



Same with HGVC. People do rent their points, but it usually just those that can’t use their points in a year. I haven’t seen any for profit rental businesses at HGVC, but I’m sure some exist.


----------



## tstreetervp

If that letter is real that is ridiculous. I worked for all these companies for the last 20 years and it was even in training to tell people they could rent  out their timeshares as long as we DIDNT mention anything about price. 

What I think is happening is these companies are getting too greedy and they’re realizing how much money they’re making on the arbitrage between paying for peoples cruises, airfare, adventure items etc…. and getting their points for half of what they pay in maintenance. Then they are renting them out on their own site such as Wyndham extra holidays or Wymdham 
Hotels and they’re pocketing the difference which is giving them hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Thereby none of them want to share any of that profit and let the owners in on it.

my point is if they’re trying to keep out people of lower quality or ‘non owners’ from staying at the resorts so you only have a owners staying then they wouldn’t be doing the same thing on their own rental website. Because if you go to Wyndham extra holidays and calculate how much they are charging per night compared to the number of points in 70-80% plus of cases it’s not much more than the actual maintenance cost. The reason being is because they only pay you for cruises and things about half of the cost of your maintenance fee in actual cash value. Then they either sell those points to the sales department so they can use them as bonus points Or rent them on their own site. If you look at their numbers since they have figured out how profitable it is they don’t want anybody else to do it like most typical big corporations I don’t want any competition of any kind and it is  no way to help the owners at all. If this is real and they do do this there should be a major class action lawsuit against them because as a sales person I know over 70 to 80% of all sales people at least talk about rental otherwise you wouldn’t get a deal.

Wyndham also had sent a letter to Homeaway telling them to take all my ads down because they were the only ones to allow rentals at their property. Once I had my attorney write to their attorneys and ask them to provide proof of what they are talking about and documentation miraculously all my ads got turned back on. LOL

It may say that you can’t rent it in your  Wyndham contract commercially but I guarantee they have their own account of sorts that they are doing that exact same thing. I am building up all the evidence in case they keep going down this route and even though I loathe people that sue people and I have never done that before ever I think this would be necessary to do. They should have to prove in court how they rent out those points that they take from people. They promise all this great value and they actually only give them about half of their maintenance fee and cash value. Then they are  selling people in the sales presentation that they’re getting 3 to 5 times plus more than they actually are.

as with most things they are just trying to push the little guy down. When I started at one company and I won’t mention them because they are the best by far but even they from the year I started to three years later they did not build one property or add any other resorts and their profits went up hundreds of millions of dollars. I then read the article by the CEO saying how unbelievably well they’re doing on the arbitrage between the points they get from owners and renting them on their website.

we need to start suing these companies if they keep going down this route I for one have a several cases ready and built and Have been keeping track of it for years with evidence. They sure were clapping awfully loud when we were selling 70 year olds five and seven weeks at a time. Lol it’s time to hold their feet to the fire.
How does it hurt anybody in these timeshare  clubs when they’re the same points the owners would have used?

and if you’re an owner worried about a ‘lower class’ of people It’s not doing that because they rent them out for even cheaper than most owners win


----------



## am1

tstreetervp said:


> If that letter is real that is ridiculous. I worked for all these companies for the last 20 years and it was even in training to tell people they could rent  out their timeshares as long as we DIDNT mention anything about price.
> 
> What I think is happening is these companies are getting too greedy and they’re realizing how much money they’re making on the arbitrage between paying for peoples cruises, airfare, adventure items etc…. and getting their points for half of what they pay in maintenance. Then they are renting them out on their own site such as Wyndham extra holidays or Wymdham
> Hotels and they’re pocketing the difference which is giving them hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Thereby none of them want to share any of that profit and let the owners in on it.
> 
> my point is if they’re trying to keep out people of lower quality or ‘non owners’ from staying at the resorts so you only have a owners staying then they wouldn’t be doing the same thing on their own rental website. Because if you go to Wyndham extra holidays and calculate how much they are charging per night compared to the number of points in 70-80% plus of cases it’s not much more than the actual maintenance cost. The reason being is because they only pay you for cruises and things about half of the cost of your maintenance fee in actual cash value. Then they either sell those points to the sales department so they can use them as bonus points Or rent them on their own site. If you look at their numbers since they have figured out how profitable it is they don’t want anybody else to do it like most typical big corporations I don’t want any competition of any kind and it is  no way to help the owners at all. If this is real and they do do this there should be a major class action lawsuit against them because as a sales person I know over 70 to 80% of all sales people at least talk about rental otherwise you wouldn’t get a deal.
> 
> Wyndham also had sent a letter to Homeaway telling them to take all my ads down because they were the only ones to allow rentals at their property. Once I had my attorney write to their attorneys and ask them to provide proof of what they are talking about and documentation miraculously all my ads got turned back on. LOL
> 
> It may say that you can’t rent it in your  Wyndham contract commercially but I guarantee they have their own account of sorts that they are doing that exact same thing. I am building up all the evidence in case they keep going down this route and even though I loathe people that sue people and I have never done that before ever I think this would be necessary to do. They should have to prove in court how they rent out those points that they take from people. They promise all this great value and they actually only give them about half of their maintenance fee and cash value. Then they are  selling people in the sales presentation that they’re getting 3 to 5 times plus more than they actually are.
> 
> as with most things they are just trying to push the little guy down. When I started at one company and I won’t mention them because they are the best by far but even they from the year I started to three years later they did not build one property or add any other resorts and their profits went up hundreds of millions of dollars. I then read the article by the CEO saying how unbelievably well they’re doing on the arbitrage between the points they get from owners and renting them on their website.
> 
> we need to start suing these companies if they keep going down this route I for one have a several cases ready and built and Have been keeping track of it for years with evidence. They sure were clapping awfully loud when we were selling 70 year olds five and seven weeks at a time. Lol it’s time to hold their feet to the fire.
> How does it hurt anybody in these timeshare  clubs when they’re the same points the owners would have used?
> 
> and if you’re an owner worried about a ‘lower class’ of people It’s not doing that because they rent them out for even cheaper than most owners win


Although true you probably will not get much support here.


----------



## TravelTime

ivywag said:


> Hyatt also has that provision.  Renting takes good inventory out of the trade pool for other Club members.  Hyatt only allows you to rent out the unit/week that you own.



I would assume people can only rent the unit and week they own at Wyndham too. How can a Wyndham owner rent something he does not own?


----------



## TravelTime

dayooper said:


> Same with HGVC. People do rent their points, but it usually just those that can’t use their points in a year. I haven’t seen any for profit rental businesses at HGVC, but I’m sure some exist.



Marriott Vacation Club allows owners to rent points or make a reservation and rent the days booked. Marriott, Vistana and Four Seasons (the places I own) allow owners to rent their units for any price we want. I do not see why Wyndham is different.


----------



## dayooper

TravelTime said:


> I would assume people can only rent the unit and week they own at Wyndham too. How can a Wyndham owner rent something he does not own?



I think that’s the point of this debate. The multiple threads on this topic indicate that there are some that bought an extraordinary amount of deeds/points (some developer and some resale) and use them to run a for profit business. The language in the contract is very ambiguous when it states that you can’t run a commercial business out their resorts. Does that include renting? If someone that rate a web developer business took their computer and did some work from their room, would that be considered a commercial venture? Would them using a lot of bandwidth for their effect other guests that are trying to use the wi-fI for personal reasons? I’m not saying I agree with that, but it’s an extreme example.


----------



## tschwa2

TravelTime said:


> Marriott Vacation Club allows owners to rent points or make a reservation and rent the days booked. Marriott, Vistana and Four Seasons (the places I own) allow owners to rent their units for any price we want. I do not see why Wyndham is different.


 It isn't about renting 2-3 weeks or even 20 reservations.  The people who have been targeted so far are ones with more than hundred reservations in other people's names. And it isn't about the "lower class of people" brought in as another poster claimed.  Because so many people couldn't use their points last year, this is an especially difficult time when so many wyndham owners are trying to use up their accumulated points, which leads to both more people trying to rent out their reservations before their points expire and people trying to book longer and bigger and better vacations to use up their points but in some cases not finding the availability and blaming it on those that use their points for rentals.


----------



## 55plus

tschwa2 said:


> It isn't about renting 2-3 weeks or even 20 reservations.  The people who have been targeted so far are ones with more than hundred reservations in other people's names. And it isn't about the "lower class of people" brought in as another poster claimed.  Because so many people couldn't use their points last year, this is an especially difficult time when so many wyndham owners are trying to use up their accumulated points, which leads to both more people trying to rent out their reservations before their points expire and people trying to book longer and bigger and better vacations to use up their points but in some cases not finding the availability and blaming it on those that use their points for rentals.


The whole point is that mega renters and other owner-renters are taking inventory early on, as early as 10-13 months out to use as commerce for profit while other owner who want to vacation don't know that early when there vacation schedule will be approved. Some are mega renters who grab everything they have points for and other owner-renters who may just grab a few reservations to rent. When owners do get an approved vacation schedule the choice locations and timeframes are gone, with a lot of it available for rent online, whether by mega renters or other owner-renters. That's the problem, not to mention that Wyndham's club rules spelled out in the directory that commercial activity is prohibited.


----------



## 55plus

To add to my point above. I'm retired and have flexibility and can travel as I desire. But there was a time early on when I couldn't and didn't know when my leave would be approved, if at all. I remember at times knowing my leave dates six months out and not finding availability at numerous locations, but able to find those dates and many others for rent on eBay. I can identify with these other owners who can't use the club as promised or as advertise.


----------



## jebloomquist

If Wyndham really wanted to stop the mega renter from holding reservations hoping to rent them, it could easily do the following without effecting other owners.

Here I go again. Why I would want to give Wyndham this advice, I am not sure. It is just a thought that occurred to me.

*Limit the number of free cancellations* that an owner can make. Currently, booking and cancelling are free and unlimited for most mega renter. However, if after a Wyndham determind cancellation limit (for example, 10 or at the same level as guest certificates, which ever is greater) has been exhausted, a $100 cost is imposed per cancellation, mega renters may be reluctant to just fill an account with as many reservations as the points will allow. In addition, what if after a certain number of paid cancellations, say 50 at $100 per, the account would not be allowed to make any more? If a reservation is not rented, the mega renter would forfeit the points in the reservation. Mega renters might reduce the number of reservations they hold.

Just some random thoughts if I were holding the screw driver..


----------



## dannybaker

we Vacation usually 30 weeks a year and fifteen weeks a year we are in a Wyndham resort,the other 15 were in Marriott, Hyatt, Welk, DVC. We have been on the edge of buying into Wyndham for years. When we read the hundreds of TUG members unhappy with Wyndham it definitely puts a stop to purchasing. We usually rent six plus weeks a year on tug usually last minute reservation at a incredible savings to my family. As all things timeshare we use was works and zig and zag as changes occur. We have bought and sold timeshare weeks when they benefited my family. I would assume Wyndham will do what’s best for Wyndham in the end, it appears like the elephant in the tent will eventually push out the renters. It amuses me that people think Wyndham actually cares about timeshare owners, they believe Wyndham is doing this to benefit the owners who can’t get the weeks they want. It’s a lie and a money grab period, it might benefit you but at the expense of others not Wyndham. It should upset everyone that the sales staff lie and talk about renting while the corporate office sends out letters warning against renting. It’s just wrong!


----------



## TravelTime

dayooper said:


> I think that’s the point of this debate. The multiple threads on this topic indicate that there are some that bought an extraordinary amount of deeds/points (some developer and some resale) and use them to run a for profit business. The language in the contract is very ambiguous when it states that you can’t run a commercial business out their resorts. Does that include renting? If someone that rate a web developer business took their computer and did some work from their room, would that be considered a commercial venture? Would them using a lot of bandwidth for their effect other guests that are trying to use the wi-fI for personal reasons? I’m not saying I agree with that, but it’s an extreme example.



If they bought it, then they own it. Wyndham should not have sold it to them if they will not allow them to rent it.


----------



## Sandy VDH

TravelTime said:


> I would assume people can only rent the unit and week they own at Wyndham too. How can a Wyndham owner rent something he does not own?



There are pure points for sale at Wyndham, with NO underlying weeks.  These are called CWA contracts, and there is no specific unit, week or even resort that you own at.  MF are a blended average of all those unit and points, averaged out. No SA either, if a resort has a special assessment, it is averaged out over all of CWA point ownership.  So in that situation they own POINTS, so why can't they rent want they own.


----------



## TravelTime

55plus said:


> The whole point is that mega renters and other owner-renters are taking inventory early on, as early as 10-13 months out to use as commerce for profit while other owner who want to vacation don't know that early when there vacation schedule will be approved. Some are mega renters who grab everything they have points for and other owner-renters who may just grab a few reservations to rent. When owners do get an approved vacation schedule the choice locations and timeframes are gone, with a lot of it available for rent online, whether by mega renters or other owner-renters. That's the problem, not to mention that Wyndham's club rules spelled out in the directory that commercial activity is prohibited.



I always book what I might possibly want to use early. If my vacation plans change, I cancel it. Not a big deal. I do not wait to find out when I can vacation.


----------



## TravelTime

Sandy VDH said:


> There are pure points for sale at Wyndham, with NO underlying weeks.  These are called CWA contracts, and there is no specific unit, week or even resort that you own at.  MF are a blended average of all those unit and points, averaged out. No SA either, if a resort has a special assessment, it is averaged out over all of CWA point ownership.  So in that situation they own POINTS, so why can't they rent want they own.



I agree. I think points owners are owners. I think they should be allowed to rent their points or points reservations. Wyndham should not sell large amount of points to the same person if they do not want people to rent them.


----------



## troy12n

Sandy VDH said:


> I think in 25 years of ownership I have ARP'd maybe twice.  Generally find I just don't need to.





tschwa2 said:


> It isn't about renting 2-3 weeks or even 20 reservations.  The people who have been targeted so far are ones with more than *hundred reservations in other people's names*. And it isn't about the "lower class of people" brought in as another poster claimed.  Because so many people couldn't use their points last year, this is an especially difficult time when so many wyndham owners are trying to use up their accumulated points, which leads to both more people trying to rent out their reservations before their points expire and people trying to book longer and bigger and better vacations to use up their points but in some cases not finding the availability and blaming it on those that use their points for rentals.



This is what the mega renters, and the people defending them here purposely fail to recognize... 

Wyndham timeshares exist for people to vacation, not for a handfull of you wanna-be landlords to play poor man's wanna be VRBO and try to make money at other people's expenses...


----------



## tschwa2

troy12n said:


> This is what the mega renters, and the people defending them here purposely fail to recognize...
> 
> Wyndham timeshares exist for people to vacation, not for a handfull of you wanna-be landlords to play poor man's wanna be VRBO and try to make money at other people's expenses...


On the other hand that 6 million point owner might get redistributed to 15-20 or so regular own, and while some of those new owners may be looking to travel to Williamsburg and off season Myrtle Beach most will be looking for popular resorts at popular times  so it isn't going to free up that much inventory.  6 million points of inventory will still be used and those that can't plan early or can't be super flexible if they couldn't book early will still be out of luck.


----------



## troy12n

tschwa2 said:


> On the other hand that 6 million point owner might get redistributed to 15-20 or so regular own, and while some of those new owners may be looking to travel to Williamsburg and off season Myrtle Beach most will be looking for popular resorts at popular times  so it isn't going to free up that much inventory.  6 million points of inventory will still be used and those that can't plan early or can't be super flexible if they couldn't book early will still be out of luck.



It's a safe assumption that they won't be booking at ARP... whereas mega renters outlay millions of points at ARP, and almost exclusively large units.


----------



## tschwa2

troy12n said:


> It's a safe assumption that they won't be booking at ARP... whereas mega renters outlay millions of points at ARP, and almost exclusively large units.


I think most renters rely on the 60 day rental discounts more than ARP with the exception of some event weeks which have already been cut off from using with guest certificates.  They aren't making ten 500,000 point reservations to get to 5 million.  They are making a hundreds of 60,000-150,000k point reservations.


----------



## troy12n

tschwa2 said:


> I think most renters rely on the 60 day rental discounts more than ARP with the exception of some event weeks which have already been cut off from using with guest certificates.  They aren't making ten 500,000 point reservations to get to 5 million.  They are making a hundreds of 60,000-150,000k point reservations.



A large percentage of Mega Renters lay down huge points for multiple units at locations with big events... think Daytona for Bike Week and Nascar races, Midtown 45 for new Years, San Francisco for Conventions, etc. Also they book places like Newport RI which never have much availability in the summer, and Glacier Canyon, etc

There is certainly a subset of them that book "whatever's left" at 60 days, but they make their biggest money on weeks in locations where overall room inventory is tight, they don't need the VIP discounts to break even or make a little change.


----------



## CO skier

tschwa2 said:


> On the other hand that 6 million point owner might get redistributed to 15-20 or so regular own, and while some of those new owners may be looking to travel to Williamsburg and off season Myrtle Beach most will be looking for popular resorts at popular times  so it isn't going to free up that much inventory.  6 million points of inventory will still be used and those that can't plan early or can't be super flexible if they couldn't book early will still be out of luck.


With more "regular owners" booking to stay in the units themselves, it will be less likely that "those who can't plan early" will see the dates that they want, but are not available to book online, advertised on the internet.  That is what owners, understandably, find particularly galling.

I think that will be the main result of the crackdown on commercial renting.  There will still be some instances and complaints, due to the two unrestricted guest certificates, but it will defintely be less than now.


----------



## Rolltydr

jebloomquist said:


> If Wyndham really wanted to stop the mega renter from holding reservations hoping to rent them, it could easily do the following without effecting other owners.
> 
> Here I go again. Why I would want to give Wyndham this advice, I am not sure. It is just a thought that occurred to me.
> 
> *Limit the number of free cancellations* that an owner can make. Currently, booking and cancelling are free and unlimited for most mega renter. However, if after a Wyndham determind cancellation limit (for example, 10 or at the same level as guest certificates, which ever is greater) has been exhausted, a $100 cost is imposed per cancellation, mega renters may be reluctant to just fill an account with as many reservations as the points will allow. In addition, what if after a certain number of paid cancellations, say 50 at $100 per, the account would not be allowed to make any more? If a reservation is not rented, the mega renter would forfeit the points in the reservation. Mega renters might reduce the number of reservations they hold.
> 
> Just some random thoughts if I were holding the screw driver..


Or, what if Wyndham forces the mega-renters out of business by enforcing the terms of the contract which states the timeshares can’t be used for a commercial enterprise? Pretty simple concept without the need for additional “what if’s”.


----------



## jebloomquist

Rolltydr said:


> Or, what if Wyndham forces the mega-renters out of business by enforcing the terms of the contract which states the timeshares can’t be used for a commercial enterprise? Pretty simple concept without the need for additional “what if’s”.


If "enforcing the terms of the contract" were a pretty simple concept, Wyndham would have done it.


----------



## Cyrus24

jebloomquist said:


> If "enforcing the terms of the contract" were a pretty simple concept, Wyndham would have done it.


Agree 100% with this statement.  They will limit renting by changing a benefit versus enforcing the contract.  GCs will see more usage limits.


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> Agree 100% with this statement.  They will limit renting by changing a benefit versus enforcing the contract.  GCs will see more usage limits.


Removing GC's on resale points used with VIP benefits and free upgrades would free up double the amount of points.


----------



## Eric B

My guess is that Wyndham will do what’s right for Wyndham.  Some years that may include selling someone 130 GCs for $13K.  They do manage to preserve their options by not clearing up the ambiguity of what commercial purposes are.


----------



## Rolltydr

Eric B said:


> My guess is that Wyndham will do what’s right for Wyndham.


As will every other for profit company if they want to stay a for profit company.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Rolltydr said:


> As will every other for profit company if they want to stay a for profit company.



- in the TS world that would be ALL of the major players - [including Westgate]


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> Agree 100% with this statement.  They will limit renting by changing a benefit versus enforcing the contract.  GCs will see more usage limits.


Limit VIPs to only what is allotted per developer points per VIP level. If a VIP has a lot of resale points and want GCs for them, establish another account for resale points and allow them to purchase X number of GCs depending on the number of points in the account. Something like, maybe 1 to 3 GCs for every 500,000 points. That will help with owner personal usage availability if Wyndham won't prohibit commercial activity. 

Or quadruple the cost of GCs as a  deterrent after X number have been purchased, because no one uses as many GCs for friends and family that many owners purchase.

Wyndham, are you reading this? Are you listening to us? We need your help out here.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Limit VIPs to only what is allotted per developer points per VIP level. If a VIP has a lot of resale points and want GCs for them, establish another account for resale points and allow them to purchase X number of GCs depending on the number of points in the account. Something like, maybe 1 to 3 GCs for every 500,000 points. That will help with owner personal usage availability if Wyndham won't prohibit commercial activity.
> 
> Or quadruple the cost of GCs as a  deterrent after X number have been purchased, because no one uses as many GCs for friends and family that many owners purchase.
> 
> Wyndham, are you reading this? Are you listening to us? We need your help out here.




You want owners to pay more fees to Wyndham?  What is wrong with every owner has the right to use their points how they see fit?


----------



## Cyrus24

am1 said:


> You want owners to pay more fees to Wyndham?  What is wrong with every owner has the right to use their points how they see fit?


55plus moved pretty far toward a compromise.  I have to applaud him for that.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> You want owners to pay more fees to Wyndham?  What is wrong with every owner has the right to use their points how they see fit?


I wouldn't mind owners using their points as they see fit as long as they follow the club rules, which includes no commercial activity.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> I wouldn't mind owners using their points as they see fit as long as they follow the club rules, which includes no commercial activity.


There has been a lot of VIP owners that are renting who have called out people for using loopholes. Now that Wyndham has come knocking at their door renting isn't a loophole. We all know that this loophole was never a benefit but was sold as a way to cover maintenance fees but it has been abused to the point Wyndham must take action. The way they squeezed out mega renters and eliminated cancel and rebook unlimited GC's will also be. Resale points being used with VIP benefits and discounts also should be eliminated especially if a GC is attached. Wyndham knows who you are and knows how to find you when you cross their moving goal posts.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> I wouldn't mind owners using their points as they see fit as long as they follow the club rules, which includes no commercial activity.



That is not what it means in the contract or wherever it is written.  It means the timeshare unit is a place to sleep not to run a business out of.  But if you want to bury your head in the sand have at it.


----------



## SueDonJ

am1 said:


> That is not what it means in the contract or wherever it is written.  It means the timeshare unit is a place to sleep not to run a business out of.  But if you want to bury your head in the sand have at it.



What makes you so sure? Do you have the documents, and can you post the exact language that clearly states the definition means only what you say it means?

Disney was able to preserve owners' rights to rent their ownerships but still curtail mega-rental activity by limiting the number of Guest Certs in owner accounts, and when they implemented the restrictions years ago they specifically referred to the anti-"commercial activity" language in their documents despite it not being clearly defined.

The same could be implemented by Marriott considering that owners' rights to rent are expressly stated in the docs but anti-"commercial activity" is also stated. The language in Marriott's docs is as vague as Disney's so that no Marriott owner could state definitively, or more importantly claim in any Court proceeding, that "commercial activity" means only running a business out of a timeshare unit and that it doesn't mean private owner rentals. In Marriott's docs the language is supported by sections which state clearly some version of what's in one of my SurfWatch docs: _"Purchaser should purchase a time sharing interest as a vacation experience and for his or her personal use and enjoyment. Purchaser should not purchase a time sharing interest an an investment or for profit upon its rental or resale."_

What do the Wyndham docs say? I don't mean only the individual deeds/contracts for purchase, I mean the Timesharing Declaration, Master Deed, Management Agreement, etc that underlie every interval. Chances are very good that every doc has relevant language.


----------



## am1

SueDonJ said:


> What makes you so sure? Do you have the documents, and can you post the exact language that clearly states the definition means only what you say it means?
> 
> Disney was able to preserve owners' rights to rent their ownerships but still curtail mega-rental activity by limiting the number of Guest Certs in owner accounts, and when they implemented the restrictions years ago they specifically referred to the anti-"commercial activity" language in their documents despite it not being clearly defined.
> 
> The same could be implemented by Marriott considering that owners' rights to rent are expressly stated in the docs but anti-"commercial activity" is also stated. The language in Marriott's docs is as vague as Disney's so that no Marriott owner could state definitively, or more importantly claim in any Court proceeding, that "commercial activity" means only running a business out of a timeshare unit and that it doesn't mean private owner rentals. In Marriott's docs the language is supported by sections which state clearly some version of what's in one of my SurfWatch docs: _"Purchaser should purchase a time sharing interest as a vacation experience and for his or her personal use and enjoyment. Purchaser should not purchase a time sharing interest an an investment or for profit upon its rental or resale."_
> 
> What do the Wyndham docs say? I don't mean only the individual deeds/contracts for purchase, I mean the Timesharing Declaration, Master Deed, Management Agreement, etc that underlie every interval. Chances are very good that every doc has relevant language.



"Should not" just means that one accepts being scammed by the developer and most likely there will be no return on investment from the purchase no matter what the sales person said.  

I do not have the specific language for Wyndham or where that is even written but know what is allowed and not allowed.  Sure these letters are a new wrinkle but not based off on no commerical activity clause.


----------



## dgalati

SueDonJ said:


> What makes you so sure? Do you have the documents, and can you post the exact language that clearly states the definition means only what you say it means?
> 
> Disney was able to preserve owners' rights to rent their ownerships but still curtail mega-rental activity by limiting the number of Guest Certs in owner accounts, and when they implemented the restrictions years ago they specifically referred to the anti-"commercial activity" language in their documents despite it not being clearly defined.
> 
> The same could be implemented by Marriott considering that owners' rights to rent are expressly stated in the docs but anti-"commercial activity" is also stated. The language in Marriott's docs is as vague as Disney's so that no Marriott owner could state definitively, or more importantly claim in any Court proceeding, that "commercial activity" means only running a business out of a timeshare unit and that it doesn't mean private owner rentals. In Marriott's docs the language is supported by sections which state clearly some version of what's in one of my SurfWatch docs: _"Purchaser should purchase a time sharing interest as a vacation experience and for his or her personal use and enjoyment. Purchaser should not purchase a time sharing interest an an investment or for profit upon its rental or resale."_
> 
> What do the Wyndham docs say? I don't mean only the individual deeds/contracts for purchase, I mean the Timesharing Declaration, Master Deed, Management Agreement, etc that underlie every interval. Chances are very good that every doc has relevant language.


Yea but most VIP owners that rent don't want to see that information. They have convinced themselves it is their right to rent. Most VIP owners feel they payed for the priveledge of working the system. The only thing they want to believe is what sales told them "buy more points & rent them to pay all maintenance fees".  Unfortunately the abuse of renting has become out of hand and  VIP owners have themselves to blame for the closing of this loophole.


----------



## SueDonJ

am1 said:


> "Should not" just means that one accepts being scammed by the developer and most likely there will be no return on investment from the purchase no matter what the sales person said.
> 
> I do not have the specific language for Wyndham or where that is even written but know what is allowed and not allowed.  Sure these letters are a new wrinkle but not based off on no commerical activity clause.



One of the letters was posted to Facebook and then copied to Post #9 in this thread:

_"... Recently we have identified commercial use in connection with your Account. The CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS Member's Directory and Program Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provides that the "Program is for a Members' own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes" (the "Commercial Use Prohibitions"). As further stated in the Club Windham Plus Directory, Wyndham "reserves the right at its sole and reasonable discretion to restrict CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS program services/access to members who engage in behaviors that negatively impact the CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS program, its members and resort guests, its resort properties and/or Wyndham employees". ..."_

This thread relates the experiences of several people who posted to Facebook and at least one TUGger posted his/her experience before rethinking the decision to post publicly, and all of them say that it's their rental activity which generated Wyndham's actions. Wyndham says explicitly that they're invoking "commercial use" limitations! What else could it be?


----------



## dgalati

SueDonJ said:


> One of the letters was posted to Facebook and then copied to Post #9 in this thread:
> 
> _"... Recently we have identified commercial use in connection with your Account. The CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS Member's Directory and Program Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provides that the "Program is for a Members' own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes" (the Commercial Use Prohibitions"). As further stated in the Club Windham Plus Directory, Wyndham "reserves the right at its sole and reasonable discretion to restrict CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS program services/access to members who engage in behaviors that negatively impact the CLUB WYNDHAM PLUS program, its members and resort guests, its resort properties and/or Wyndham employees". ..."_
> 
> This thread relates the experiences of several people who posted to Facebook and at least one TUGger posted his/her experience before rethinking the decision to post publicly, and all of them say that it's their rental activity which generated Wyndham's actions. Wyndham says explicitly that they're invoking "commercial use" limitations! What else could it be?


Its called a rug pull. It happened with cancel and re book and it looks to be happening with renting to cover maintenace fees now. I wonder what sales strategy is next?


----------



## dgalati

am1 said:


> "Should not" just means that one accepts being scammed by the developer and most likely there will be no return on investment from the purchase no matter what the sales person said.
> 
> I do not have the specific language for Wyndham or where that is even written but know what is allowed and not allowed.  Sure these letters are a new wrinkle but not based off on no commerical activity clause.


Wyndham will allow rentals and owners also have the option of renting without a GC. Its called EH with a 60/40 split.


----------



## SueDonJ

dgalati said:


> Its called a rug pull. It happened with cancel and re book and it looks to be happening with renting to cover maintenace fees now. I wonder what sales strategy is next?



Yes, but I'm not concerned with how sales people present the product because for all intents and purposes that info is immaterial to a legal challenge (or at least it's a very high hurdle to jump successfully.) My focus is on whatever rights Wyndham might have, by virtue of the governing docs, to restrict any activity regardless of what's presented by the sales people.


----------



## jmkhager

SilverLeafOwner said:


> So, the following was posted on a Wyndham Facebook User Group:
> 
> 
> For those who cannot read it, the poster writes:
> 
> "Hey Everyone,
> I am very concerned. I have rented out some units this year to help cover maintenance expenses as we wernt able to vacation as much due to covid.
> My friend just messaged me that he received a certified mail from wyndham telling his that he had been identified as renting for commercial purposes. He was told he had to cancel all his reservations or else they would delete this account.
> Is for real ??? Or is this a scam letter? Its certified mail able to be scammed?  He said it looked legit.
> The sales rep told us to rent in my account so I would buy into VIP for times when we didnt use all our points such as this past year....
> Am I at risk as well ? How can I find out? what is wyndham doing? Seems like if its for real another lawsuit might happen I am so scared. I need these rental this year especially  after the turmoil of covid."
> 
> I have heard from another friend that she also received a similar letter two days ago which leads me to believe this letter is real.  I have rented about 2 dozen guest rentals this year to get rid of points from last year and this year.  And while I have not received a letter, I do have a few questions:
> 
> 1. Has anyone else received this or dealt with this?
> 
> 2. What is meant by commercial use?
> (e.g., if we are trying to recover our maintenance fees via things like VRBO, EBAY, Booking.com or Airbnb...is the act of listing on those sites at all commercial use)
> (e.g., what is allowed:  Friends and Family?)
> 
> 3. There are literally over a hundred people listing Wyndham rentals on those sites I mentioned above, are they all in violation?
> 
> 4. Who at Wyndham can we talk to about this matter?
> 
> 5. Any other thoughts you may have on this matter?



First,  there are people renting to others to gain M.F. and income.  I believe that people (members) should have purchased what they would be using. If you purchased more than needed, that person had something else in mind rather than enjoying vacation time for themselves and family. That is a shame.


----------



## troy12n

quoted wrong post, sorry


----------



## 55plus

The sentence two posts above, "I need these rental this year especially after the turmoil of covid" is a selfish statement. What about those who need to use their points they accumulated last year due to COVID for personal travel. You lock them out and put them in a bind. And don't say they can go someplace else.


----------



## troy12n

jmkhager said:


> First,  there are people renting to others to gain M.F. and income.  I believe that people (members) should have purchased what they would be using. If you purchased more than needed, that person had something else in mind rather than enjoying vacation time for themselves and family. That is a shame.



I have said it before and I will say it again. People renting some of their points to partially cover MF's is one thing. Sales has actully pushed this in "updates". This is chump change and truth be known, Wyndham doesn't care about this. 

What they absolutely cannot, and do not condone is people going out, buying millions more resale points for pennies on the dollar, racking up 200+ paid GC's and running a business. And at the same time, negatively affecting room availability for "regular owners"... this is the side of things the mega renters never talk about in their arguments, and why they have no credibility in my eyes...


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> You *CLEARLY* have a conflict of interest... so anything you say in this thread is tainted by that... of course you don't want Wyndham cutting into your profits
> 
> When it was revealed that the person who started this mess used 130 (paid) GC's, one of the first comments from you was something to the effects of "that's childs play"... insinuating that you regularly use many more than that
> 
> That clearly shows you have picked a side, and have a vested interest in keeping this as-is... you have a position and we know it. Not sure how you can credibly come back from that.


You need to get YOUR facts straight.  You are referencing something said by another and assigning that statement to me.  Get you facts straight before making accusatory statements. For the record, I do support a limited amount of rentals when renting at cost.  I believe I said at one point, who needs 150 GCs.

I’ve reported you to the powers that be for making outlandish and incorrect statements about me.


----------



## troy12n

You are right, I thought I was replying to AM1, I am going to fix that, sorry


----------



## 55plus

Mike Brown from Wyndham replied to another email:

Mr. XXXXXXX,

It is good to hear from you again, and even better you are seeing more opportunities to use your ownership. We are seeing the same on our side and are happy our fulfillment of requests is increasing.

We will keep working hard to make ownership more and more beneficial!

Have a great weekend.

Mike


----------



## troy12n

am1 said:


> You want owners to pay more fees to Wyndham?  What is wrong with every owner has the right to use their points how they see fit?




You *CLEARLY* have a conflict of interest... so anything you say in this thread is tainted by that... of course you don't want Wyndham cutting into your profits

When it was revealed that the person who started this mess used 130 (paid) GC's, one of the first comments from you was something to the effects of "that's childs play"... insinuating that you regularly use many more than that (in the process of running your illegal business)

That clearly shows you have picked a side, and have a vested interest in keeping this as-is... you have a position and we know it. Not sure how you can credibly come back from that.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> You are right, I thought I was replying to AM1, I am going to fix that, sorry


As well you should.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> Mike Brown from Wyndham replied to another email:
> 
> Mr. XXXXXXX,
> 
> It is good to hear from you again, and even better you are seeing more opportunities to use your ownership. We are seeing the same on our side and are happy our fulfillment of requests is increasing.
> 
> We will keep working hard to make ownership more and more beneficial!
> 
> Have a great weekend.
> 
> Mike


Next time you write to Mike mention that the elimination of millions of resale points with VIP benefits and free upgrades is a good way to help availability for owners to book for personal use.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> Next time you write to Mike mention that the elimination of millions of resale points with VIP benefits and free upgrades is a good way to help availability for owners to book for personal use.


My concern is following the rules currently spelled out in the directory so everyone can use the program as designed, not ask to make new rules and policies.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> My concern is following the rules currently spelled out in the directory so everyone can use the program as designed, not ask to make new rules and policies.


Yeah but what about creating availability for owners use? Eliminating resale points with VIP benefits and free upgrades would eliminate a lot of cheap rentals. These cheap rentals are robbing owners of availability to make reservations and memories of a lifetime. That's unless you have resale points that you use with VIP benefits.


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> I have said it before and I will say it again. People renting some of their points to partially cover MF's is one thing. Sales has actully pushed this in "updates". This is chump change and truth be known, Wyndham doesn't care about this.
> 
> *What they absolutely cannot, and do not condone is people going out, buying millions more resale points for pennies on the dolla*r, racking up 200+ paid GC's and running a business. And at the same time, negatively affecting room availability for "regular owners"... this is the side of things the mega renters never talk about in their arguments, and why they have no credibility in my eyes...



There are an awful lot of positive, categorical statements in this thread about what Wyndham can and can't do that amount to nothing more than opinions and speculation.  This is one of them.  Perhaps Wyndham cannot or does not condone this behavior but Wyndham definitely has not done anything to prevent it.  Might that failure to act for years be considered tacit approval?

How hard would it have been for Wyndham to refuse to accept the resale contracts that resulted in a ten million point account?  Since Wyndham hasn't done that, maybe we should look for motivations on Wyndham's part other than concern for the "little guy."

Also, repetition does not make one's argument any stronger or more convincing.


----------



## dandjane1

MikeandLisaR said:


> How many guest GC's does an owner get? Does it change with VIP status? This year I have two for 536k points, odd year, plus 224k transfer points from last year. 659k even years until my new resale contract shows up in my account. Never have used one so I haven't paid much attention to them. Secondly, last November we stayed at Palme -Aire and sales kept tracking my wife down trying to get us to go to an owner update, every time she walked through the lobby she tried  giving her something different as incentive, stating that there were only  four or five owners on the whole property. Are rentals not a good lead generator or, do they mostly stick to existing owners for additional sales? I do remember they really didn't want another couple that was with us coming to the update several years ago.



I get 15 GCs per million points.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> Yeah but what about creating availability for owners use? Eliminating resale points with VIP benefits and free upgrades would eliminate a lot of cheap rentals. These cheap rentals are robbing owners of availability to make reservations and memories of a lifetime. That's unless you have resale points that you use with VIP benefits.


Halting all rentals will solve that problem. Enforce the rules under threat of being locked out of their account for a timeframe or indefinitely it that behavior continued. Wyndham can do that if you violate the club rules


----------



## dgalati

dandjane1 said:


> I get 15 GCs per million points.


15 GC's per million points is more then generous. It would be a average of 1 GC for every 66,666 point reservation.


----------



## 55plus

Someone IMed me about my letter to Wyndham. Here it is:


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> You *CLEARLY* have a conflict of interest... so anything you say in this thread is tainted by that... of course you don't want Wyndham cutting into your profits
> 
> When it was revealed that the person who started this mess used 130 (paid) GC's, one of the first comments from you was something to the effects of "that's childs play"... insinuating that you regularly use many more than that (in the process of running your illegal business)
> 
> That clearly shows you have picked a side, and have a vested interest in keeping this as-is... you have a position and we know it. Not sure how you can credibly come back from that.



No conflict of interest. I have been out of the game for a little over 4 years. Research a little before trying to run your mouth and try to grab at  straws.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Someone IMed me about my letter to Wyndham. Here it is:


Wyndham Extra Holidays.  Says it all.


----------



## dgalati

I wonder what the break even time will be if GC'S and rentals are eliminated


am1 said:


> Wyndham Extra Holidays.  Says it all.


Bingo! You may be on to them now.


----------



## 55plus

If all GCs are eliminated I'd put my niece and nephew on my account. Then I wouldn't need GCs. My sister and brother-in-law already on my account. If I go somewhere with a friend, I might have to put that reservation in my wife's name for check-in purposes and she'd have to check-in. But I don't believe Wyndham would go that far.


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> If all GCs are eliminated I'd put my niece and nephew on my account. Then I wouldn't need GCs. My sister and brother-in-law already on my account. If I go somewhere with a friend, I might have to put that reservation in my wife's name for check-in purposes and she'd have to check-in. But I don't believe Wyndham would go that far.


You reference mega renters but don’t mention the person who has an occasional need for a GC.  Almost all of us on here have received compensation for a GC, yourself included, at one time or another.  Put limits on the GC’s but don’t eliminate them.  Share that with Michael Brown.


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> You reference mega renters but don’t mention the person who has an occasional need for a GC.  Almost all of us on here have received compensation for a GC, yourself included, at one time or another.  Put limits on the GC’s but don’t eliminate them.  Share that with Michael Brown.


Wyndham won't eliminate GCs, but maybe on those who continue to abuse them.


----------



## troy12n

I can't see them completely eliminating GC's, but I could see them certainly putting a limit on them. 

GC's serve a legitimate purpose in the timesharing system (friends and family use). 

I don't see how anyone could, with a straight face, try to legitimize the use of 130 of them... period.


----------



## dandjane1

Tank said:


> They can , and do move the goal posts as needed to benefit themselves
> Unannounced
> Without notice


*EXACTLY! When WynSham foisted CWA onto we UDI owners of Oceanwalk in the dark of night in 2007, 
as a lever to buy more points lest we "be left behind", the goal posts were moved, and again when the "new" website was 
"improved", and when the requirement to add a guest name within 48 hours or risk cancellation of a reservation was added.
It remains to be seen what will happen with the "Travel+ Leisure" rebranding will accomplish....................*


----------



## troy12n

chapjim said:


> There are an awful lot of positive, categorical statements in this thread about what Wyndham can and can't do that amount to nothing more than opinions and speculation.  This is one of them.  Perhaps Wyndham cannot or does not condone this behavior but Wyndham definitely has not done anything to prevent it.  Might that failure to act for years be considered tacit approval?
> 
> How hard would it have been for Wyndham to refuse to accept the resale contracts that resulted in a ten million point account?  Since Wyndham hasn't done that, maybe we should look for motivations on Wyndham's part other than concern for the "little guy."
> 
> Also, repetition does not make one's argument any stronger or more convincing.



Certainly none of this knows anything for fact, but you would have to be pretty obtuse to think that Wyndham even condones or sanctions buying points of any type on the resale market. Let alone using those points to book and re-rent for personal profit. 

If they could put a stop to reselling them completely they probably would. I'm guessing the reason why they have not is because at some level it's considered real property. But I'm not a lawyer. 

Have they been turning a blind eye for years? Maybe, maybe not. 

There was another post somewhere in here that said Wyndham wouldn't want to give up the revenue stream that GC's provide. I'm going to speculate that this revenue stream is relatively small and the amount of negative sentiment caused by the "availability issue" we are currently seeing certainly outweighs any sort of profit that GC's generate. 

Pure speculation on my part, but I feel it's a good hunch...


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> Wyndham won't eliminate GCs, but maybe on those who continue to abuse them.



Here's an idea... limit use of GC's to only retail purchased points. Kind of like you can't book using club pass with resale... the mechanics are already there for them to implement this. 

I know i'm just making tons of fans right now...


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> Here's an idea... limit use of GC's to only retail purchased points. Kind of like you can't book using club pass with resale... the mechanics are already there for them to implement this.
> 
> I know i'm just making tons of fans right now...


I can support this idea.


----------



## paxsarah

troy12n said:


> Here's an idea... limit use of GC's to only retail purchased points. Kind of like you can't book using club pass with resale... the mechanics are already there for them to implement this.
> 
> I know i'm just making tons of fans right now...


So right now I get 2 free GCs, but you’re suggesting that if I get zero it will stick it to the megarenters?


----------



## DannyTS

If the issue of mega renting ever goes to court, I would be curious to see how the developers would explain that they are themselves the biggest renters on the market. To make things worse, they also have the ability to book effortlessly the best weeks of the year at the best resorts thus making the most profit from their own inventory. Kind of like calling the kettle black.


----------



## tschwa2

DannyTS said:


> If the issue of mega renting ever goes to court, I would be curious to see how the developers would explain that they are themselves the biggest renters on the market. To make things worse, they also have the ability to book effortlessly the best weeks of the year at the best resorts thus making the most profit from their own inventory. Kind of like calling the kettle black.


It's very unlikely to go to court.  The same way it didn't go to court when they took away unlimited free guest certificates from platinum owners and when they changed the system so you could no longer cancel/rebook.


----------



## troy12n

DannyTS said:


> If the issue of mega renting ever goes to court, I would be curious to see how the developers would explain that they are themselves the biggest renters on the market. To make things worse, *they also have the ability to book effortlessly the best weeks of the year at the best resorts thus making the most profit from their own inventor*y. Kind of like calling the kettle black.



My understanding is that actually is not what happens. They rent through Extra Vacations weeks and stays which owners *give* them to sell (for them), and then also they have the ability to take any inventory left at the 60 (or 90?) day mark. They aren't taking prime weeks out of inventory to sell on Extra Vacations, and they aren't depositing any prime weeks at high demand resorts into RCI... there's a number of resorts which never get any inventory deposited into RCI.

Unless you are describing something else that maybe I don't know about...

Also, if push comes to shove, it's *THEIR *inventory. Theirs to do with as they see fit. If they abused the system via Extra Vacations, there would be uproar from owners. To date, that really has not been the case to my knowledge. It was speculated that the whole blackout dates thing was some giant conspiracy to allow Wyndham to sell those weeks. That has been proven false.

It would be against their best interests to do something like that. 

Look at all the shady stuff some other timeshare systems have pulled (like Westgate, and others) which have made them the laughing stock of the timeshare community. Wyndham has it in their best interests to keep "the brand" name good.


----------



## DannyTS

troy12n said:


> My understanding is that actually is not what happens. They rent through Extra Vacations weeks and stays which owners *give* them to sell (for them), and then also they have the ability to take any inventory left at the 60 (or 90?) day mark. They aren't taking prime weeks out of inventory to sell on Extra Vacations, and they aren't depositing any prime weeks at high demand resorts into RCI... there's a number of resorts which never get any inventory deposited into RCI.
> 
> Unless you are describing something else that maybe I don't know about...
> 
> Also, if push comes to shove, it's *THEIR *inventory. Theirs to do with as they see fit. If they abused the system via Extra Vacations, there would be uproar from owners. To date, that really has not been the case to my knowledge. It was speculated that the whole blackout dates thing was some giant conspiracy to allow Wyndham to sell those weeks. That has been proven false.
> 
> It would be against their best interests to do something like that.
> 
> Look at all the shady stuff some other timeshare systems have pulled (like Westgate, and others) which have made them the laughing stock of the timeshare community. Wyndham has it in their best interests to keep "the brand" name good.



Developers own a number of weeks (or points in a trust if the case), the same like regular folks. They use that inventory to sell to new buyers, they typically have 12-24 months of estimated sales. They continuously use buy back programs, repossessions etc to replenish the inventory that they sell. The inventory is not empty, they pay maintenance fees and rent it out. Without renting it out, they would be at a huge loss, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These are the weeks that you typically see in on the online travel platforms like Expedia, Hotels.com etc. 
I do not own Wyndham so I do not know intimately their model. It should not be that different than Marriott though and these are public companies so their inventory and renting activities are mentioned in their public disclosures. This is why it seems to me pretty self serving to crack down on any renting activity.


----------



## DannyTS

tschwa2 said:


> It's very unlikely to go to court.  The same way it didn't go to court when they took away unlimited free guest certificates from platinum owners and when they changed the system so you could no longer cancel/rebook.



I agree it will probably not go to court but for the mega renters this is a much bigger issue than the two instances you mentioned. It does not just cut their profit or restrict how they can operate , this can completely wipe out their businesses.


----------



## tschwa2

DannyTS said:


> I agree it will probably not go to court but for the mega renters this is a much bigger issue than the two instances you mentioned. It does not just cut their profit or restrict how they can operate , this can completely wipe out their businesses.



Even though the issues weren't as big, there were several big owners and owners with multiple large accounts who were forced into negotiating an out after an account freeze that in some cases lasted almost a year while an audit of their accounts took place last time. 

And if Wyndham freezes their accounts this time for 4-6 months while their $2000-$4000+ a month MF's continues to accrue when they can't make reservations and threatens to immediately cancel all of their current guest reservations unless they start talking settlement with or without the assistance of a lawyer, it will likely take care of the bigger fish and the family run accounts that started with a million and added another 1-4 million will probably buckle even earlier with just the threat of having 20-50 upcoming guest reservations cancelled and will probably voluntarily divest of the resale points as long as they can keep their current reservations and may take just the regular certified exit options to get out all the way.


----------



## CO skier

DannyTS said:


> I agree it will probably not go to court but for the mega renters this is a much bigger issue than the two instances you mentioned. It does not just cut their profit or restrict how they can operate , this can completely wipe out their businesses.


You, obviously, do not understand how dependent many megarenter businesses were on the cancel/rebook and point stripping scams.  When automatic upgrades were introduced, it eliminated the predictability of cancelling a premium reservation and a studio or 1 bedroom, then immediately rebooking the premium reservation at half the cost of the studio or 1 bedroom.

One of the largest operators that offered "VIP benefits" to anyone who purchased into their program had to limit their members' booking to whatever was available in the 60-day discount window, and soon after ceased operations.

Many other megarenter businesses were wiped-out by the introduction of automatic upgrades and the Points Deposit feature.  Probably many more than will succumb to the crackdown on "commercial" renting.

Eliminating "book-book-cancel-cancel-rebook-upgrade" was "The Big One" for the megarenters.


----------



## jules54

dgalati said:


> No shame in making the numbers public. The truth is Wyndham already has them on their radar and will eliminate them if they want to. Who cares if everyone knows your a mega renter? Most here already know who is or who isn't a mega renter. All anyone has to do is look at the TUG rentals to see who is actively renting points as a commercial business.



This statement is not accurate. If you would compare my posts on the LMR board from the last 15 months to the prior 15 years I’ve belonged to Tug and owned Wyndham pts you would see on your spread sheet that my many postings in the last 15 months are totally Covid fallout related. Lots of points not a lot of travelers.
Im sure you also consider someone is renting these reservations, more than the points owner is receiving a benefit.

BTW I have never stayed awake till midnight to take advantage of my 13 month ARP. Even for Daytona 500, Daytona  Bike Week or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. I guess everyone has different experiences and unfortunately some folks just don’t know what the  their talking about.


----------



## lost patience

55plus said:


> Someone IMed me about my letter to Wyndham. Here it is:






Have you used Extra Holidays? 

You suggest that using Extra Holidays is a viable answer.    An owner books a reservation - typically 3 to 7 nights.  EH agrees to accept it. 

Extra Holidays might sell only 3 nights of a 7 night reservation.  The owner receives 60% of the 3 nights stay.  Seems viable if the owner booked a 3 night.  Not so great if the owner booked a 7 night.

But wait- The person that reserved those 3 nights cancels 73 hours prior to travel.  In this case the owner gets ZERO. 

Or, if the person that reserved those 3 nights cancels the day of?  The owner gets 60% of 1 night. 

I have chosen to not use Extra Holidays with these terms and conditions.  I assume many other owners as well.


----------



## CO skier

lost patience said:


> Have you used Extra Holidays?
> 
> You suggest that using Extra Holidays is a viable answer.    An owner books a reservation - typically 3 to 7 nights.  EH agrees to accept it.
> 
> Extra Holidays might sell only 3 nights of a 7 night reservation.  The owner receives 60% of the 3 nights stay.  Seems viable if the owner booked a 3 night.  Not so great if the owner booked a 7 night.
> 
> But wait- The person that reserved those 3 nights cancels 73 hours prior to travel.  In this case the owner gets ZERO.
> 
> Or, if the person that reserved those 3 nights cancels the day of?  The owner gets 60% of 1 night.
> 
> I have chosen to not use Extra Holidays with these terms and conditions.  I assume many other owners as well.


fyi - Without quoting the entire post you are responding to, your response reads as a non-sequitur, because there is no reference or context.

I paged back a couple of pages (more than most people would) and could not find the fragment of a post you quoted from 55plus.

In other words, do not truncate a post more than 2 pages in the past, because the meaning of your response is completely lost.  (I have no idea what your quoted post is supposed to mean.)


----------



## Cyrus24

Interesting conversation regarding real world 'commercial' activity with this facebook post.  It's going to be a real balancing act for Wyndham to slow down mega-renting activity without hurting the small account owners who sometimes engage in 'commercial' activities.  









						Club Wyndham Timeshare - Owners helping owners | Facebook
					

The only Wyndham timeshare owner-centric group that will help you on all fronts regarding your ownership.  Moderation is limited so please be respectful.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> If all GCs are eliminated I'd put my niece and nephew on my account. Then I wouldn't need GCs. My sister and brother-in-law already on my account. If I go somewhere with a friend, I might have to put that reservation in my wife's name for check-in purposes and she'd have to check-in. But I don't believe Wyndham would go that far.


Which is against the rules. Whoever checks into the room has to be physically staying in the room. I mean if Wyndham suddenly eliminates GC why wouldn’t they also unwaveringly enforce this as well? 
It always flabbergasts me when folks want one rule clamped down on but believe the one they break should be leniently enforced.


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> My understanding is that actually is not what happens. They rent through Extra Vacations weeks and stays which owners *give* them to sell (for them), and then also they have the ability to take any inventory left at the 60 (or 90?) day mark. They aren't taking prime weeks out of inventory to sell on Extra Vacations, and they aren't depositing any prime weeks at high demand resorts into RCI... there's a number of resorts which never get any inventory deposited into RCI.
> 
> Unless you are describing something else that maybe I don't know about...
> 
> Also, if push comes to shove, it's *THEIR *inventory. Theirs to do with as they see fit. If they abused the system via Extra Vacations, there would be uproar from owners. To date, that really has not been the case to my knowledge. It was speculated that the whole blackout dates thing was some giant conspiracy to allow Wyndham to sell those weeks. That has been proven false.
> 
> It would be against their best interests to do something like that.
> 
> Look at all the shady stuff some other timeshare systems have pulled (like Westgate, and others) which have made them the laughing stock of the timeshare community. Wyndham has it in their best interests to keep "the brand" name good.


If you speak to Extra holidays, the inventory is held by them but Wyndham lists it on many many many sites. Think travelocity, kayak etc.
However, as you state later in the post, if it is inventory that Wyndham owns, wouldn’t the same ring true for any individual who buys their timeshare, pays the MF and then books weeks and rents them? Same logic should prevail.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> Whoever checks into the room has to be physically staying in the room.



Can you provide the location where I can find this rule?  Just curious as I've never had anyone check to be sure I'm physically staying in a room I've checked into and accepted responsibility for.

It always flabbergasts me when folks assume that their expectations are actually rules that everyone must follow and that the authorities must enforce.


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> fyi - Without quoting the entire post you are responding to, your response reads as a non-sequitur, because there is no reference or context.
> 
> I paged back a couple of pages (more than most people would) and could not find the fragment of a post you quoted from 55plus.
> 
> In other words, do not truncate a post _more than 2 pages in the past_, because the meaning of your response is completely lost.  (I have no idea what your quoted post is supposed to mean.)



Then you didn't look hard enough - we're on page 15, the post in question is on page 14, exactly one page in the past. The reason it was truncated is because the remainder of 55plus's post was a screenshot image of text. If anyone it should be scolded (although as adults, I don't think we need to be scolding people like we're small children, do you?), it should be 55plus for posting screenshotted text in an image without alt text that makes it accessible for screenreaders.

EDIT: For future reference, every quoted post has a little arrow in the header, and clicking on that arrow will take you to the quoted post. That would have eliminated the need for this scolding entirely.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> Can you provide the location where I can find this rule?  Just curious as I've never had anyone check to be sure I'm physically staying in a room I've checked into and accepted responsibility for.
> 
> It always flabbergasts me when folks assume that their expectations are actually rules that everyone must follow and that the authorities must enforce.


Page 250 in the directory ‘and staying in the unit’

pretty clear for those of us who read the rules.


----------



## dgalati

VacayKat said:


> Page 250 in the directory ‘and staying in the unit’
> 
> pretty clear for those of us who read the rules.


Some VIP owners believe the rules were not made for them. Especially if they are running a commercial rental business.  Its almost comical   reading posts about what is or isn't considered a commercial business. Wyndham knows who they are and knows where and how to find them.


----------



## VacayKat

paxsarah said:


> EDIT: For future reference, every quoted post has a little arrow in the header, and clicking on that arrow will take you to the quoted post. That would have eliminated the need for this scolding entirely.


internetting is hard. [also apparently so are emojis. Pretend there are cry laughing emojis before and after that comment]


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> Page 250 in the directory ‘and staying in the unit’
> 
> pretty clear for those of us who read the rules.



Touche, but let's explore the bounds of this rule.  If it works the way you are advocating for, a member must physically stay in the unit for the duration covered by the check in.  There are some resorts that have minimum stay requirements of 7 days and all the resorts have minimum stay requirements of 2 or 3 days depending on when the reservation was made.  If I, as a member, need to stay in a location for a single night and choose to use my Wyndham ownership to make a 2-night reservation, I must therefore physically stay in the unit for the entire two nights, or at least for some portion of them.  If I do not physically stay in the unit for the period of my reservation, I should have gotten a guest confirmation.  Either that, or the rules of the program are not written with all eventualities in mind, which is a much more likely thing.

Similarly, when someone like @55plus books a pair of units for a family vacation and has their spouse, who is on the account, personally check in for one of the units, must the spouse physically stay in the unit their name is on at any specific time during each day/night of the booking?  Is it necessary for the spouse to sleep in the unit during the night, or can the spouse merely take a nap there during the day?  Or is it possible that this eventuality was not considered in drafting the rules?  My money is on that interpretation.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> Touche, but let's explore the bounds of this rule.  If it works the way you are advocating for, a member must physically stay in the unit for the duration covered by the check in.  There are some resorts that have minimum stay requirements of 7 days and all the resorts have minimum stay requirements of 2 or 3 days depending on when the reservation was made.  If I, as a member, need to stay in a location for a single night and choose to use my Wyndham ownership to make a 2-night reservation, I must therefore physically stay in the unit for the entire two nights, or at least for some portion of them.  If I do not physically stay in the unit for the period of my reservation, I should have gotten a guest confirmation.  Either that, or the rules of the program are not written with all eventualities in mind, which is a much more likely thing.
> 
> Similarly, when someone like @55plus books a pair of units for a family vacation and has their spouse, who is on the account, personally check in for one of the units, must the spouse physically stay in the unit their name is on at any specific time during each day/night of the booking?  Is it necessary for the spouse to sleep in the unit during the night, or can the spouse merely take a nap there during the day?  Or is it possible that this eventuality was not considered in drafting the rules?  My money is on that interpretation.


Hold on- first I’m not advocating the rules. I simply pointed out that one can not advocate a crack down on the rule they want enforced but leniency on a rule they bend. Do not under any circumstances take my pointing out what wyndham requires as advocating them in any way. I personally have said many times here that even though I paid for an ownership, I consider that ownership more of a cash cow that wyndham tries to milk. I do not delude myself that I am an ‘owner’ with any real rights.

I would argue that for the second case you speak of, family vacation with two rooms booked under both spouse names, where there are guests in the second room is exactly why Wyndham put the caveat of ‘staying in the unit’. I mean, come on, if they can get you for a hundred bucks, don’t you think they will?????


----------



## 55plus

DannyTS said:


> I agree it will probably not go to court but for the mega renters this is a much bigger issue than the two instances you mentioned. It does not just cut their profit or restrict how they can operate , this can completely wipe out their businesses.


Business? That's the issue. These so called businesses are cheating other owners out of their time at the nicer resorts. Owning a Wyndham timeshare is not to be a business according to what is spelled out in Wyndham's directory. It goes against the rules. What's so hard about mega renters understanding that? It's in black and white. Unfortunately, these mega renters not only took away prime inventory for many years for commerce purposes, they cause Wyndham to apply resorts and timeframe usage restrictions on all owners.


----------



## 55plus

Eric B said:


> Similarly, when someone like @55plus books a pair of units for a family vacation and has their spouse, who is on the account, personally check in for one of the units, must the spouse physically stay in the unit their name is on at any specific time during each day/night of the booking?  Is it necessary for the spouse to sleep in the unit during the night, or can the spouse merely take a nap there during the day?  Or is it possible that this eventuality was not considered in drafting the rules?  My money is on that interpretation.


Fortunately, I was able to book a 2 bedroom lockoff in Wyndham Smoky Mountains for the first week in October so my friend and his wife can stay in the same, but sperate unit with us. I'd rather they have a larger condo, but this will work and is within the rules. Anyone going to be in Sevierville TN the first week in October? Meetup for some moonshine?


----------



## HitchHiker71

troy12n said:


> My understanding is that actually is not what happens. They rent through Extra Vacations weeks and stays which owners *give* them to sell (for them), and then also they have the ability to take any inventory left at the 60 (or 90?) day mark. They aren't taking prime weeks out of inventory to sell on Extra Vacations, and they aren't depositing any prime weeks at high demand resorts into RCI... there's a number of resorts which never get any inventory deposited into RCI.
> 
> Unless you are describing something else that maybe I don't know about...
> 
> Also, if push comes to shove, it's *THEIR *inventory. Theirs to do with as they see fit. If they abused the system via Extra Vacations, there would be uproar from owners. To date, that really has not been the case to my knowledge. It was speculated that the whole blackout dates thing was some giant conspiracy to allow Wyndham to sell those weeks. That has been proven false.
> 
> It would be against their best interests to do something like that.
> 
> Look at all the shady stuff some other timeshare systems have pulled (like Westgate, and others) which have made them the laughing stock of the timeshare community. Wyndham has it in their best interests to keep "the brand" name good.



I've written this in the past, but here goes again just for the sake of edification.  There are three buckets of inventory that EH uses:

Wyndham owned inventory that sits outside of CWP.  Yes, there's inventory that _never _existed within CWP and likely _never will exist _within CWP that Wyndham owns and rents. If you read the founding trust documents, this is perfectly legal and legitimate. So Wyndham can and will list inventory from this bucket regardless of whatever changes occur that impact the CWP system (the Club Wyndham timeshare system).
Wyndham owned inventory that sits inside of CWP.  There's inventory that _does _exist within CWP that Wyndham currently owns and rents. This is inventory that Wyndham can hold back for whatever reason they so desire - since they are the developer and own the system in entirety. Inventory comes from Certified Exit, holdbacks, and other sources. Wyndham has chosen, at least for now, to honor the same restrictions that they are placing upon CWP owners.
CWP owner inventory that is given to EH.  Per the T&Cs for the EH program for CWP owners - this is the third (and largest) bucket of inventory that everyone generally knows about and talks about.  
For example, back many years ago now - Wyndham held a bucket of rooms/inventory that was only for use by the sales and marketing division - inventory that was _never _used by owners. Using these rooms was a perk for employees who travelled between the resorts. This perk was killed off and the associated inventory was put into either of the first two buckets listed above. I could never get an answer as to which bucket this inventory actually sits in - but I'd guess #1 above.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly given this thread, there is no way to determine from which bucket the inventory in question is being drawn (unless an owner posts explicitly about something rented via EH on their behalf - and even then - it's not necessarily very easy to connect the dots.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> I've written this in the past, but here goes again just for the sake of edification.  There are three buckets of inventory that EH uses:
> 
> Wyndham owned inventory that sits outside of CWP.  Yes, there's inventory that _never _existed within CWP and likely _never will exist _within CWP that Wyndham owns and rents. If you read the founding trust documents, this is perfectly legal and legitimate. So Wyndham can and will list inventory from this bucket regardless of whatever changes occur that impact the CWP system (the Club Wyndham timeshare system).
> Wyndham owned inventory that sits inside of CWP.  There's inventory that _does _exist within CWP that Wyndham currently owns and rents. This is inventory that Wyndham can hold back for whatever reason they so desire - since they are the developer and own the system in entirety. Inventory comes from Certified Exit, holdbacks, and other sources. Wyndham has chosen, at least for now, to honor the same restrictions that they are placing upon CWP owners.
> CWP owner inventory that is given to EH.  Per the T&Cs for the EH program for CWP owners - this is the third (and largest) bucket of inventory that everyone generally knows about and talks about.
> For example, back many years ago now - Wyndham held a bucket of rooms/inventory that was only for use by the sales and marketing division - inventory that was _never _used by owners. Using these rooms was a perk for employees who travelled between the resorts. This perk was killed off and the associated inventory was put into either of the first two buckets listed above. I could never get an answer as to which bucket this inventory actually sits in - but I'd guess #1 above.
> 
> Lastly, and perhaps most importantly given this thread, there is no way to determine from which bucket the inventory in question is being drawn (unless an owner posts explicitly about something rented via EH on their behalf - and even then - it's not necessarily very easy to connect the dots.



I would add a fourth bucket (perhaps a subset of bucket 3), inventory that is granted to Wyndham through the PIC program, the WorldMark Exchange Plus program, and the RCI Points for Deposit program.  A lot of that inventory is outside of the CWP resorts, but there is some overlap and the inventory may be used in EH or wherever Wyndham wants to use it.


----------



## HitchHiker71

lost patience said:


> View attachment 37681
> 
> Have you used Extra Holidays?
> 
> You suggest that using Extra Holidays is a viable answer.    An owner books a reservation - typically 3 to 7 nights.  EH agrees to accept it.
> 
> Extra Holidays might sell only 3 nights of a 7 night reservation.  The owner receives 60% of the 3 nights stay.  Seems viable if the owner booked a 3 night.  Not so great if the owner booked a 7 night.
> 
> But wait- The person that reserved those 3 nights cancels 73 hours prior to travel.  In this case the owner gets ZERO.
> 
> Or, if the person that reserved those 3 nights cancels the day of?  The owner gets 60% of 1 night.
> 
> I have chosen to not use Extra Holidays with these terms and conditions.  I assume many other owners as well.



This issue with EH is my chief/number one complaint when I attend updates.  I'm like a broken record at updates whenever they ask for feedback.  Using EH has too much risk/variability as outlined above.  Granted, there's risks in direct points rentals as well since the owner is ultimately responsible if the renter damages property - but I've repeatedly emphasized to Wyndham that they have to figure out a way to either rent exactly what is given to them - or don't rent it at all - and to enhance the 60/40 to something like 75/25 or 70/30 - enough such that the owner is getting somewhere between $6-8/1000 - which is what most owners get from outside points managers historically.  If Wyndham could streamline the program such that owners could get from EH the same amount that most points managers hand out - and eliminate the variability/risk of losing points by allowing only a subset of the deposited points to be rented - then I think many more owners would consider using EH - myself included.


----------



## Sandy VDH

I booked 2 Worldmark unit through RCI for the same dates.  So yes Worldmark, Wyndham and RCI are all the same basic ownership. When I called to ask if the units could be located together, they said hey you can't book two units for yourself.   They forced me to buy a GC through RCI.  They claimed I couldn't be staying in both rooms.  Then they wouldn't let me check in for both rooms either, and they wouldn't tell what room was assigned for that other room.  Annoying.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> and to enhance the 60/40 to something like 75/25 or 70/30 - enough such that the owner is getting somewhere between $6-8/1000 - which is what most owners get from outside points managers historically.  If Wyndham could streamline the program such that owners could get from EH the same amount that most points managers hand out - and eliminate the variability/risk of losing points by allowing only a subset of the deposited points to be rented - then I think many more owners would consider using EH - myself included.


That is the only way to limit the rentals by VIP owners. Would VIP discounts and free upgrades apply using EH in the 60 day window? If so Wyndham would have to plug that loophole especially if a VIP owner is using resale points with the VIP discounts and free upgrade.


----------



## troy12n

Thank you for clarifying that. I did not know all that, and it makes sense now. 

But to some renters complaining about "how can wyndham rent the inventory and we cant"...

They *OWN* it. 

We, don't. We are basically renting the ability to use the inventory. Even if we own points, we don't own anything. Even old fixed week deeded owners don't actually own a given unit. At best some of those old style contracts could be considered at best a fractional ownership or long term sublettor.


----------



## Worker

troy12n said:


> Thank you for clarifying that. I did not know all that, and it makes sense now.
> 
> But to some renters complaining about "how can wyndham rent the inventory and we cant"...
> 
> They *OWN* it.
> 
> We, don't. We are basically renting the ability to use the inventory. Even if we own points, we don't own anything. Even old fixed week deeded owners don't actually own a given unit. At best some of those old style contracts could be considered at best a fractional ownership or long term sublettor.




I wonder why Wyndham used a deed, and not another type of document to show Wyndham ownership/membership.

I am not a lawyer, but what type of limitations can you put on deeded ownership?


----------



## Ty1on

troy12n said:


> Thank you for clarifying that. I did not know all that, and it makes sense now.
> 
> But to some renters complaining about "how can wyndham rent the inventory and we cant"...
> 
> They *OWN* it.
> 
> We, don't. We are basically renting the ability to use the inventory. Even if we own points, we don't own anything. Even old fixed week deeded owners don't actually own a given unit. At best some of those old style contracts could be considered at best a fractional ownership or long term sublettor.



The natural counter argument would be, "I own my contracts too.  Why can't I rent out what I OWN?"

Now the other side of the coin that I don't see being discussed.  There is a lot of banter here and other threads about Wyndham taking contracts free to them via Ovation, foreclosure, deed in lieu, ROFR.  There is a cost to those transactions, but they are minimal compared to weasel pricing.  The real cost to Wyndham that no one has brought up (at least that I've seen) is that Wyndham is responsible for ongoing maintenance fee payments to the resort association for any contract they take under their ownership by any means.  I dare say it would be silly for any of us to think that Wyndham is going to take on the liability of all those maintenance fees and not endeavor to mitigate them by monetizing through rentals.  I don't think they are, or should be, treating them like personal use contracts and finding an employee who wants to use that time.  Now if the resort association takes back the deed and Wyndham rents it out for them, that rental income goes straight to your association's budget to offset the MF you pay...MF that are increased by the fact that fees are no longer collected on them once the association takes them in.  I'm sure Wyndham makes a clean percent of rentals it conducts on behalf of associations as well.

So in a nutshell, if Wyndham takes the points under their ownership, they pay maintenance fees to the association and rent out to recoup those fees (and maybe some profit).  Owners benefit because Wyndham is paying MF on contracts were (or were going to become) delinquent, and bad debt comes directly out of the pockets of those who pay their MF.  If an association takes the points back, the association may rent them out through various other means and the proceeds less cost of TA commissions etc would directly benefit the association (you), or they may rent through EH and the proceeds less Wyndham's percentage would directly benefit the association (you).


----------



## Ty1on

Worker said:


> I wonder why Wyndham used a deed, and not another type of document to show Wyndham ownership/membership.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but what type of limitations can you put on deeded ownership?



A deed is how the industry was born.  The industry has been moving toward a trust-based system where you own rights to points within the trust and the trust holds all the deeds.  This actually gives the developer more power to set limitations, and specifically, developers don't need to go through a legal foreclosure process to cancel contracts in a trust based system.  Club Wyndham Access and Worldmark are trust based systems.


----------



## troy12n

Ty1on said:


> The natural counter argument would be, "I own my contracts too.  Why can't I rent out what I OWN?"



Because they have put some language in the contracts or directory which say they can't be used for commercial purposes. 

Just like when you rent an apartment, often times, but not always, the rental lease you sign  may contain verbiage prohibiting you from subleasing


----------



## Worker

Ty1on said:


> A deed is how the industry was born.  The industry has been moving toward a trust-based system where you own rights to points within the trust and the trust holds all the deeds.  This actually gives the developer more power to set limitations, and specifically, developers don't need to go through a legal foreclosure process to cancel contracts in a trust based system.  Club Wyndham Access and Worldmark are trust based systems.



I am not a lawyer, but as you noted "The industry has been moving toward a trust-based system " giving the developer more power to set limitations.

I wonder if the deeded Wyndham ownership points prevents Wyndham from enforcing certain controls/limitations ? Especially if A Wyndham owner has a mix of Deeded and CWA Points?


----------



## Ty1on

Worker said:


> I am not a lawyer, but as you noted "The industry has been moving toward a trust-based system " giving the developer more power to set limitations.
> 
> I wonder if the deeded Wyndham ownership points prevents Wyndham from enforcing certain controls/limitations ? Especially if A Wyndham owner has a mix of Deeded and CWA Points?



As far as I know, they can be treated in part.  Let's say you own a Fixed Week Converted to Club, a non-converted club contract, and a CWA contract:  And let's say you have gone over a year delinquent.  This would be the timeline:

1.  Fixed Week is removed from club participation.  You no longer will be billed with your Club Wyndham charges, but the resort will bill you until it forecloses at some point.  You are still billed for the other two contracts and the club fees associated with only those points (or minimum club fee, whichever is higher).

2.  Your Access contract will be cancelled.  You will still be billed for the non-converted contract and the club fees associated with those points (or minimum club fee, whichever is higher).

3.  Your non-converted contract will be foreclosed and your membership will be closed.  Even if they were to start this process at the same time as the Access cancellation, it seems like this will actually happen last because of the extra steps necessary.

ETA:  The biggest benefit for Wyndham I can see in the trust system is that members of that system vote for the board of that trust only, and cannot vote on the boards where the underlying deeds are held.  This gives Wyndham a real and significant power to control resort association boards.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Ty1on said:


> The natural counter argument would be, "I own my contracts too.  Why can't I rent out what I OWN?"
> 
> Now the other side of the coin that I don't see being discussed.  There is a lot of banter here and other threads about Wyndham taking contracts free to them via Ovation, foreclosure, deed in lieu, ROFR.  There is a cost to those transactions, but they are minimal compared to weasel pricing.  The real cost to Wyndham that no one has brought up (at least that I've seen) is that Wyndham is responsible for ongoing maintenance fee payments to the resort association for any contract they take under their ownership by any means.  I dare say it would be silly for any of us to think that Wyndham is going to take on the liability of all those maintenance fees and not endeavor to mitigate them by monetizing through rentals.  I don't think they are, or should be, treating them like personal use contracts and finding an employee who wants to use that time.  Now if the resort association takes back the deed and Wyndham rents it out for them, that rental income goes straight to your association's budget to offset the MF you pay...MF that are increased by the fact that fees are no longer collected on them once the association takes them in.  I'm sure Wyndham makes a clean percent of rentals it conducts on behalf of associations as well.
> 
> So in a nutshell, if Wyndham takes the points under their ownership, they pay maintenance fees to the association and rent out to recoup those fees (and maybe some profit).  Owners benefit because Wyndham is paying MF on contracts were (or were going to become) delinquent, and bad debt comes directly out of the pockets of those who pay their MF.  If an association takes the points back, the association may rent them out through various other means and the proceeds less cost of TA commissions etc would directly benefit the association (you), or they may rent through EH and the proceeds less Wyndham's percentage would directly benefit the association (you).



Thanks for bringing up this point.  I used to also bring up the fact that Wyndham pays MFs on any/all points that they own within CWP at least.  It's embedded as an assumption for me at this point - but it's good to call it out on these newer threads since not everyone may understand how the system really works behind the scenes.  I'm not sure how this applies to the first bucket I outlined above - though I suspect Wyndham still has to pay some type of maintenance fees even on inventory owned outside of CWP since the HOA likely still has to maintain those units and there are costs involved in doing so just like any other resort unit.  The flip side of the argument is that if Wyndham is entitled to rent any/all inventory owned to offset MFs, then why should owners be limited via the changes being discussed in this thread?  I'm not indicating a preference either way - I'm simply indicating that I understand both sides of the argument.


----------



## Ty1on

HitchHiker71 said:


> Thanks for bringing up this point.  I used to also bring up the fact that Wyndham pays MFs on any/all points that they own within CWP at least.  It's embedded as an assumption for me at this point - but it's good to call it out on these newer threads since not everyone may understand how the system really works behind the scenes.  I'm not sure how this applies to the first bucket I outlined above - though I suspect they still have to pay some type of maintenance fees even on inventory owned outside of CWP since the HOA likely still has to maintain those units and there are costs involved in doing so just like any other resort unit.  The flip side of the argument is that if Wyndham is entitled to rent any/all inventory owned to offset MFs, then why should owners be limited via the changes being discussed in this thread?  I'm not indicating a preference either way - I'm simply indicating that I understand both sides of the argument.



It seems like a great number of the intervals they've taken back over the last few years have been ceded directly to the CWA trust.  I think that's why we saw the precipitous MF rate increase starting 3 years ago (?).


----------



## HitchHiker71

Worker said:


> I am not a lawyer, but as you noted "The industry has been moving toward a trust-based system " giving the developer more power to set limitations.
> 
> I wonder if the deeded Wyndham ownership points prevents Wyndham from enforcing certain controls/limitations ? Especially if A Wyndham owner has a mix of Deeded and CWA Points?



My general understanding is that CWS UDI contracts are also "right to use" contracts even though they are still deed based.  So the same concept applies if the CWS contract is UDI.  I own a mix of CWA, CWS, and PIC contracts myself.  Or what the sales folks often affectionately call "hybrid ownership".


----------



## Ty1on

HitchHiker71 said:


> My general understanding is that CWS UDI contracts are also "right to use" contracts even though they are still deed based.  So the same concept applies if the CWS contract is UDI.  I own a mix of CWA, CWS, and PIC contracts myself.  Or what the sales folks often affectionately call "hybrid ownership".



They are deed based in the sense that you are deeded a specific share of a finite number of club points.  Because it's still a deed, legal foreclosure requirements apply.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> Or what the sales folks often affectionately call "hybrid ownership".







__





						Heterosis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Gives you a good reason to tell them your ownership is in a good place....


----------



## Ty1on

Eric B said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heterosis - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gives you a good reason to tell them your ownership is in a good place....


I agree 100% with not putting all your eggs in one basket.


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> Thank you for clarifying that. I did not know all that, and it makes sense now.
> 
> But to some renters complaining about "how can wyndham rent the inventory and we cant"...
> 
> They *OWN* it.
> 
> We, don't. We are basically renting the ability to use the inventory. Even if we own points, we don't own anything. Even old fixed week deeded owners don't actually own a given unit. At best some of those old style contracts could be considered at best a fractional ownership or long term sublettor.


Unless it's in Hawaii. According to a real estate agent, I was told timeshares there need to be tied to physical properties. Some sort of state law to my understanding. [that said, doesn't make it much different, other than you have a deeded physical property you own for a certain portion] Even the pooled Shell properties that were Hawaii, you owned a certain part of one (or maybe all?) of the properties.
But to your point, the reason why timeshares are poor resales is, in part due to what you state. And tangentially, why no bank will take over the loan that they say you can refinance after signing the papers then and there with the sales sharks.


----------



## jumoe

deleted


----------



## dioxide45

troy12n said:


> Thank you for clarifying that. I did not know all that, and it makes sense now.
> 
> But to some renters complaining about "how can wyndham rent the inventory and we cant"...
> 
> They *OWN* it.
> 
> We, don't. We are basically renting the ability to use the inventory. Even if we own points, we don't own anything. Even old fixed week deeded owners don't actually own a given unit. At best some of those old style contracts could be considered at best a fractional ownership or long term sublettor.


If you own deeded timeshare, you do indeed own a slice of that resort unit. Usually 1/52 or 1/51 share of a unit. All timeshare is really fractional ownership. It is deeded ownership. YOu do own a week in a unit at the resort. If the timeshare structure goes away, you now own that unit with 52 other owners as tenants in common. Same as traditional real estate, only the usage rights are different. How Club Wyndham can restrict rentals is that they run all reservations through an exchange company. Really not much different than RCI points. Want to be able to exchange for other resorts using your points, you agree to the rules of the exchange company. If you won an fixed week that isn't in the club, then there should be no restrictions on rentals because this is a week you own and you are not encumbered by the club rules against rentals.


----------



## tschwa2

Just because you own a property doesn't mean that the HOA can't place restrictions.  You can't bring pets into your deeded unit timeshare unit.
A quick google search about HOA restricting rentals of your owned (non timeshare) property seems to say that HOA's can add "reasonable restrictions" and limiting rentals to no more than once a year has been determined as a reasonable restriction.


----------



## dioxide45

tschwa2 said:


> Just because you own a property doesn't mean that the HOA can't place restrictions.  You can't bring pets into your deeded unit timeshare unit.
> A quick google search about HOA restricting rentals of your owned (non timeshare) property seems to say that HOA's can add "reasonable restrictions" and limiting rentals to no more than once a year has been determined as a reasonable restriction.


Very true. Though do many of the older fixed week contracts have commercial use restrictions?


----------



## tschwa2

dioxide45 said:


> Very true. Though do many of the older fixed week contracts have commercial use restrictions?


I don't know and perhaps if you own many converted fixed weeks you could test that with dozens and dozens of reservations booking your home weeks, but I don't think that is where most of the commercial activity is taking place.


----------



## troy12n

tschwa2 said:


> I don't know and perhaps if you own many converted fixed weeks you could test that with dozens and dozens of reservations booking your home weeks, *but I don't think that is where most of the commercial activity is taking place.*



Exactly right, and it's really telling that people are already looking for fringe use cases to try to defend their current or future actions regarding this activity... if it's not plainly clear of the events of the last week, Wyndham isn't rolling over on this. And as locutus would say... "resistance is futile"


----------



## tschwa2

troy12n said:


> Exactly right, and it's really telling that people are already looking for fringe use cases to try to defend their current or future actions regarding this activity... if it's not plainly clear of the events of the last week, Wyndham isn't rolling over on this. And as locutus would say... "resistance is futile"


but on the other hand it could be hard for wyndham to say limited rentals benefit the HOA and are a reasonable restriction so therefore should be a rule when they rent out thousands of unit nights at those same resorts.  

Obviously I have no bone in this fight and am just pointing out my observations.


----------



## Eric B

dioxide45 said:


> How Club Wyndham can restrict rentals is that they run all reservations through an exchange company.



This is the main point for me that does justify restricting rentals in CWP.  In WorldMark, the terms specifically allow members to rent out stays, but there isn't a deeded ownership involved typically.


----------



## HitchHiker71

dioxide45 said:


> If you own deeded timeshare, you do indeed own a slice of that resort unit. Usually 1/52 or 1/51 share of a unit. All timeshare is really fractional ownership. It is deeded ownership. YOu do own a week in a unit at the resort. If the timeshare structure goes away, you now own that unit with 52 other owners as tenants in common. Same as traditional real estate, only the usage rights are different. How Club Wyndham can restrict rentals is that they run all reservations through an exchange company. Really not much different than RCI points. Want to be able to exchange for other resorts using your points, you agree to the rules of the exchange company. If you won an fixed week that isn't in the club, then there should be no restrictions on rentals because this is a week you own and you are not encumbered by the club rules against rentals.



This isn't necessarily accurate with respect to UDI deeds.  Just because a deed exists doesn't mean it's an actual fractional ownership.  I say this here because I've run into _many _owners who think that just because they hold a CWS deed that they somehow own real estate in some kind of fractional ownership system.  

Here's the legal definition of UDI deeded ownerships:



> What is Undivided Interest?
> 
> *Definition* from Nolo's Plain-English Law *Dictionary*
> 
> Ownership right to use and possess property that *is* shared by two or more co-owners. No individual co-owner has an exclusive right to any portion of the property.



UDI is "Right to Use", it's not fractional ownership.  In terms of attempting to compare it to older fractional ownership weeks based deeds, it's a float week at best.  I agree with the exchange analysis though - since CWP is in point of fact an exchange.  Many folks don't understand that CWP is exactly like RCI - only it's limited to Wyndham resorts.  When you own a UDI contract from a particular resort - you can "trade" your right-to-use points at your CWS resort via CWP for available inventory at other resorts that also belong to the CWP exchange.  Similar to RCI - which assigns points for trading power - so do the Wyndham resorts.  A week that you own for a two bedroom unit at your resort - may be more or less points than a week for a two bedroom at another resort.


----------



## paxsarah

HitchHiker71 said:


> When you own a UDI contract from a particular resort - you can "trade" your right-to-use points at your CWS resort via CWP for available inventory at other resorts that also belong to the CWP exchange.


And this is why the confluence of a couple of things in the mockups/language of the new update that don't display any ARP benefits on resale points doesn't worry me too much (yet. hopefully.). If anything, it seems they could reduce resale to _only_ the ARP location while minimizing its access to other locations, not the other way around.


----------



## troy12n

Also, regardless, timeshares, deeded or not, do not enjoy the same legal rights in terms of taxes that real property does. UDI or otherwise. So it stands to reason they would not enjoy the same protections real property does.


----------



## Eric B

paxsarah said:


> And this is why the confluence of a couple of things in the mockups/language of the new update that don't display any ARP benefits on resale points doesn't worry me too much (yet. hopefully.). If anything, it seems they could reduce resale to _only_ the ARP location while minimizing its access to other locations, not the other way around.



That would be the equivalent of dumping it out of CWP, which would cost them the right to charge the program fee.  If a particular CWS ownership was limited to the location it was deeded at, there wouldn't be a need to go through Wyndham to reserve/use it.  This type of thing does happen in other systems (e.g., Vistana voluntary resorts).

There would also be a few other issues regarding deeds that have specific RARP attached to them, as well as deeds that include the rights for RARP or ARP at other locations (e.g., Outrigger, Myrtle Beach resorts, Club Wyndham Preferred, and a few others).


----------



## dioxide45

HitchHiker71 said:


> This isn't necessarily accurate with respect to UDI deeds. Just because a deed exists doesn't mean it's an actual fractional ownership. I say this here because I've run into _many _owners who think that just because they hold a CWS deed that they somehow own real estate in some kind of fractional ownership system.


SInce I don't understand all the terms; CWS=???


----------



## Eric B

dioxide45 said:


> CWS=



Club Wyndham Select = deeded at a particular resort rather than part of a trust like Club Wyndham Access (CWA) or Club Wyndham Preferred

(N.B., if you own CWS and go to an update the sales folks will tell you how bad it is and how much better off you would be owning CWA.  On the other hand, if you own CWA and go to an update the sales folks will offer to fix all the horrible problems owning that causes by selling you CWS.  Best off having a hybrid account with both so you can point out that you've got it covered....)


----------



## dioxide45

Eric B said:


> Club Wyndham Select = deeded at a particular resort rather than part of a trust like Club Wyndham Access (CWA) or Club Wyndham Preferred
> 
> (N.B., if you own CWS and go to an update the sales folks will tell you how bad it is and how much better off you would be owning CWA.  On the other hand, if you own CWA and go to an update the sales folks will offer to fix all the horrible problems owning that causes by selling you CWS.  Best off having a hybrid account with both so you can point out that you've got it covered....)


So it is still a trust set up, but deeded points at an actual resort? Kind of like DVC?


----------



## Eric B

dioxide45 said:


> So it is still a trust set up, but deeded points at an actual resort? Kind of like DVC?



It depends.  Some are deed as undivided interest (UDI) ownerships, which are more like a trust set up where you have so many points.  Some are deeded as fixed weeks (and floating weeks) that have been converted into points, more like the way things work in RCI points or Vistana where you own a multiple or fraction of a week, not just a chunk of points.  There are a lot of variations because Wyndham bought up a lot of smaller resorts/systems over the years, which results in situations where there are deeded weeks at Club Wyndham resorts that aren't in Club Wyndham as well.


----------



## dioxide45

Eric B said:


> It depends.  Some are deed as undivided interest (UDI) ownerships, which are more like a trust set up where you have so many points.  Some are deeded as fixed weeks (and floating weeks) that have been converted into points, more like the way things work in RCI points or Vistana where you own a multiple or fraction of a week, not just a chunk of points.  There are a lot of variations because Wyndham bought up a lot of smaller resorts/systems over the years, which results in situations where there are deeded weeks at Club Wyndham resorts that aren't in Club Wyndham as well.


Converted to points just means that it is "enrolled" in Club Wyndham? So the underlying deeded interest in the timeshare is there, you just now make all reservations through the club (aka exchange company).


----------



## Ty1on

dioxide45 said:


> Converted to points just means that it is "enrolled" in Club Wyndham? So the underlying deeded interest in the timeshare is there, you just now make all reservations through the club (aka exchange company).



In the case of CWA, you don't own a deed.  The trust owns all deeds and you own a point share of the trust.


----------



## dioxide45

Ty1on said:


> In the case of CWA, you don't own a deed.  The trust owns all deeds and you own a point share of the trust.


Yes, I think I understand CWA. Much the same as other trust based systems where the trust owns weeks or units from multiple resorts. Marriott DC, Westin Flex and Sheraton Flex programs are like this. I am trying to understand CWS. If I understand it correctly, it seems like DVC or even Westin Nanea where the trust only owns weeks/units from a single resort and sells interests in the form of points that are only good at that resort. Though you can also use the points to book other resorts through the exchange company.


----------



## Ty1on

dioxide45 said:


> Yes, I think I understand CWA. Much the same as other trust based systems where the trust owns weeks or units from multiple resorts. Marriott DC, Westin Flex and Sheraton Flex programs are like this. I am trying to understand CWS. If I understand it correctly, it seems like DVC or even Westin Nanea where the trust only owns weeks/units from a single resort and sells interests in the form of points that are only good at that resort. Though you can also use the points to book other resorts through the exchange company.



Club Wyndham Select is the name for the overarching club.  That club includes:

Margaritaville Vacation Club, a trust. ARP for any member resort
Club Wyndham Access, a trust.  ARP for any CWA held inventory.
Fixed Week Conversions, interval ownerships (as opposed to UDI) that are converted to points use in the club.  ARP for home resort, I'm not sure whether it's for any period or just home unit type and week as I've never used ARP.  These contracts are separable from the club.
Undivided Interest (UDI) contracts that are inseparable from the club and confer ARP in that resort (and in some cases reciprocal resorts).  The member actually owns the deed, but it is for a point share in the total points pool of the association, not for a unit and week.
Converted Shell contracts are a new thing.  Shell itself is entirely interval-based (meaning no UDI contracts), but members can enroll their Shell Club membership in Club Wyndham for CWS points.  They get ARP in their home Shell Club.  There are Shell Interval owners who are not club members, and they can also enroll in CWS with those intervals.
PIC points are the conferral of CWS points to members for giving Wyndham control of intervals outside Wyndham (but within RCI's roster of resorts).  There is no ARP for these, and an owner can annually opt to use their underlying interval instead of points, I believe.  The major draw of PIC is that those points count toward VIP status and benefits.
Presidential Reserve is its own animal that confers ARP for Presidential units.  This ARP is unavailable to non-PR members, even VIP.

I'm sure I missed something here.  VIP membership is an entirely different dimension that changes some of the features above (like reciprocal ARP) but like every system, isn't an ownership type in and of itself.


----------



## Eric B

dioxide45 said:


> Converted to points just means that it is "enrolled" in Club Wyndham? So the underlying deeded interest in the timeshare is there, you just now make all reservations through the club (aka exchange company).



That's how I would look at it.



dioxide45 said:


> I am trying to understand CWS. If I understand it correctly, it seems like DVC or even Westin Nanea where the trust only owns weeks/units from a single resort and sells interests in the form of points that are only good at that resort. Though you can also use the points to book other resorts through the exchange company.



That would be my interpretation of CWS that is deeded as UDI - you have XXX points specifically in that single resort similar to HomeOptions at Nanea.


----------



## Eric B

Here's what it says about CWS in the directory on page 228:

*CLUB WYNDHAM® Select

CLUB WYNDHAM® Select*
CLUB WYNDHAM Select Members have a deeded ownership interest at a “select” resort or own points at a “select” resort. As a Select Member you receive priority reservations at this “select” resort, which is your “home” resort during the Advance Reservation Priority (ARP) window. Additionally, you’re able to experience a multitude of other vacation choices within the CLUB WYNDHAM® Plus program.

*Advance Reservation Priority*
For CLUB WYNDHAM Select Members, Advance Reservation Priority allows you to confirm reservations at your “home” resort 13 to 10 months prior to your desired check-in date. This is up to 3 months before it becomes available to all CLUB WYNDHAM Plus Members!
When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest.

*Important Information*
• Undivided Interest (UDI) – Reserve a reservation using your points at the resort where your ownership interest is located (“home” resort).
• Fixed Week – Reserve use of the specific unit and week assigned to the CLUB WYNDHAM Plus program.
• Float Week – Request a reservation at your “home” resort in the season and unit type allocated to your ownership interest.
• Aliate Ownership – Reserve use of the specific unit and week assigned to the program from your aliated “home” resort.


----------



## Ty1on

Eric B said:


> Here's what it says about CWS in the directory on page 228:
> 
> *CLUB WYNDHAM® Select
> 
> CLUB WYNDHAM® Select*
> CLUB WYNDHAM Select Members have a deeded ownership interest at a “select” resort or own points at a “select” resort. As a Select Member you receive priority reservations at this “select” resort, which is your “home” resort during the Advance Reservation Priority (ARP) window. Additionally, you’re able to experience a multitude of other vacation choices within the CLUB WYNDHAM® Plus program.
> 
> *Advance Reservation Priority*
> For CLUB WYNDHAM Select Members, Advance Reservation Priority allows you to confirm reservations at your “home” resort 13 to 10 months prior to your desired check-in date. This is up to 3 months before it becomes available to all CLUB WYNDHAM Plus Members!
> When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest.
> 
> *Important Information*
> • Undivided Interest (UDI) – Reserve a reservation using your points at the resort where your ownership interest is located (“home” resort).
> • Fixed Week – Reserve use of the specific unit and week assigned to the CLUB WYNDHAM Plus program.
> • Float Week – Request a reservation at your “home” resort in the season and unit type allocated to your ownership interest.
> • Aliate Ownership – Reserve use of the specific unit and week assigned to the program from your aliated “home” resort.



Wow, kind of embarrassing that they can't spell Affiliate.

It is also oversimplified, as CWS also contains all other ways to own points in Club Wyndham, with differing ARP conditions than they explain (for example, systemwide ARP in the two trusts.  Perhaps they mean to change their historic definition of CWS to distinguish from Margaritaville, CWA, and PR ownership.  Also while on the vein of bad technical writing, 

"When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest." should read,

"When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest *in the resort you are confirming.*" when applied to the way they are defining CWS rather than my definition above.


----------



## Eric B

Ty1on said:


> Wow, kind of embarrassing that they can't spell Affiliate.
> 
> It is also oversimplified, as CWS also contains all other ways to own points in Club Wyndham, with differing ARP conditions than they explain (for example, systemwide ARP in the two trusts.  Perhaps they mean to change their historic definition of Fairshare Plus/CWS to distinguish from Margaritaville, CWA, and PR ownership.  Also while on the vein of bad technical writing, "When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest." should read "When confirming an ARP reservation you may use up to the amount of points owned on contract(s) associated with your CLUB WYNDHAM Select ownership interest *in the resort you are confirming.*"



I suspect that they don't have their legal department review what they put in the directory despite the fact that it forms the basis for how the program is supposed to work.  I also suspect they don't use technical editors.

There are so many oddities in how things are deeded and the additional programs that it's not all that simple to keep things straight.  I wouldn't include CWA as a part of CWS; it's really a part of CWP instead, which includes the other trust-based ownerships like Club Wyndham Prefer (converted Shell Vacation Club ownerships that were trusts).  I thought that PR, Margaritaville and the other odd ones with additional ARP rights were deeded as single resort ownership (and therefore are rightly CWS) rather than trusts owning multiple resorts.  I know that's how the Outrigger Resort Club ones like Bali Hai work.  There are also the Myrtle Beach ones where the ARP applies to all the resorts there although they are deeded individually.  That's getting a bit into the weeds on things, though.


----------



## paxsarah

Ty1on said:


> as CWS also contains all other ways to own points in Club Wyndham


CWP (Club Wyndham Plus) is all of the ways to own points in Club Wyndham. CWS is only deeded ownerships (under the umbrella of CWP just as CWA and the other specialty ownerships are).


----------



## Ty1on

Eric B said:


> I suspect that they don't have their legal department review what they put in the directory despite the fact that it forms the basis for how the program is supposed to work.  I also suspect they don't use technical editors.
> 
> There are so many oddities in how things are deeded and the additional programs that it's not all that simple to keep things straight.  I wouldn't include CWA as a part of CWS; it's really a part of CWP instead, which includes the other trust-based ownerships like Club Wyndham Prefer (converted Shell Vacation Club ownerships that were trusts).  I thought that PR, Margaritaville and the other odd ones with additional ARP rights were deeded as single resort ownership (and therefore are rightly CWS) rather than trusts owning multiple resorts.  I know that's how the Outrigger Resort Club ones like Bali Hai work.  There are also the Myrtle Beach ones where the ARP applies to all the resorts there although they are deeded individually.  That's getting a bit into the weeds on things, though.



PR is definitely not a trust, and you might be right on Margaritaville.  I was just thinking while heating my nachos that I might be suffering Mandela affect, or I have misunderstood a description given to me years ago.  I do think I was wrong and the scope of CWS excludes CWA.  I believe Margaritaville would be excluded because it is not universally available to all members at standard reservation period, and PR would be excluded because it has different ARP than the rest of the CWP world.

So then CWS would be the body of "vanilla" ownerships that have membership in Club Wyndham, whether it is through UDI, converted fixed week, PIC/Affiliate.  Shell is not a trust, by the way.  Members own underlying deeds.

Edited to remove Prefer from CWS because its ARP schema is unique.


----------



## Eric B

Ty1on said:


> Shell is not a trust, by the way. Members own underlying deeds.



Is that true for all the varieties, including the groupings?  Just curious, really, and only in a passing way.


----------



## Ty1on

Eric B said:


> Is that true for all the varieties, including the groupings?  Just curious, really, and only in a passing way.


Yes, every Shell Club contract can be traced to a specific resort interval, though that resort interval has no meaning at all to the member beyond the club points it conveys.  They pay maintenance fees based on total points owned in the club independently of where the underlying deeds are located (this is quite different than CWP and why it could be mistaken for a trust).  There are some direct members in Whistler and Mexico, and there are deeded members in various Shell resorts that utilize their deeded weeks without Club membership.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Ty1on said:


> Club Wyndham Select is the name for the overarching club.  That club includes:
> 
> Margaritaville Vacation Club, a trust. ARP for any member resort
> Club Wyndham Access, a trust.  ARP for any CWA held inventory.
> Fixed Week Conversions, interval ownerships (as opposed to UDI) that are converted to points use in the club.  ARP for home resort, I'm not sure whether it's for any period or just home unit type and week as I've never used ARP.  These contracts are separable from the club.
> Undivided Interest (UDI) contracts that are inseparable from the club and confer ARP in that resort (and in some cases reciprocal resorts).  The member actually owns the deed, but it is for a point share in the total points pool of the association, not for a unit and week.
> Converted Shell contracts are a new thing.  Shell itself is entirely interval-based (meaning no UDI contracts), but members can enroll their Shell Club membership in Club Wyndham for CWS points.  They get ARP in their home Shell Club.  There are Shell Interval owners who are not club members, and they can also enroll in CWS with those intervals.
> PIC points are the conferral of CWS points to members for giving Wyndham control of intervals outside Wyndham (but within RCI's roster of resorts).  There is no ARP for these, and an owner can annually opt to use their underlying interval instead of points, I believe.  The major draw of PIC is that those points count toward VIP status and benefits.
> Presidential Reserve is its own animal that confers ARP for Presidential units.  This ARP is unavailable to non-PR members, even VIP.
> 
> I'm sure I missed something here.  VIP membership is an entirely different dimension that changes some of the features above (like reciprocal ARP) but like every system, isn't an ownership type in and of itself.



Close - Club Wyndham Select is a type of ownership.  Club Wyndham Plus is the overarching club that contains the various different types of ownership contracts, that break down as follows:

Club Wyndham Select (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-select)
Club Wyndham Access (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-access)
Club Wyndham Prefer West (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-west)
Club Wyndham Prefer Hawaii (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-hawaii)
Presidential Reserve (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...e/resources/club-wyndham-presidential-reserve)
Margaritaville Vacation Club (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...urces/margaritaville-vacation-club-by-wyndham)
Discovery Membership
Embedded contract types:

UDI (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/undivided-interest-contract)
Converted weeks (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/float-flex-week-converted)
Affiliate contracts (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/affiliate-ownership)
PIC Plus (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-plus-points)
PIC Express (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-express)
Bonus Points (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/bonus-points)
My general understanding regarding the converted Shell inventory is that it is allocated primarily to the Club Wyndham Prefer West trust, but I could be mistaken.  So when Shell owners convert over to CWP contracts - I believe most are converted to the Prefer West trust.  That said, I know some Shell owners, particularly early on, converted to CWA - so there may still be deeds from Shell resorts that were subsumed into the CWA trust as well.  I'm not sure how easily Wyndham can move deeds between the trusts.  I'm guessing there may also be an option to convert to a CWS contract for the specific Shell resort as well - if the owner doesn't want to purchase a trust based CWP contract, but I'm not certain.

PIC contracts stand alone as a specific contract type per above.  PIC Express contracts don't confer any points at all - they only apply point values toward CWP account status (currently VIP) and only for a five year time period.  PIC Plus contracts count toward account status and can also confer points transfer provided the weeks based RCI integrated timeshare is deposited into the RCI system and then converted to points by Wyndham in return for use of the deposited week for rental purposes to help offset the cost of the points grant.  The points grant process is an opt-in process - meaning the owner must take the steps necessary to facilitate the RCI deposits and the points deposits with Wyndham.  PIC Plus contract length is either five years (called Limited Edition - for a fee - almost never mentioned by sales either - but it's in the actual contract as an option) or when coupled with a qualifying developer points purchase - indefinite as long as Wyndham chooses to honor PIC Plus contracts as developer points or unless the underlying weeks based timeshare falls out of the RCI networks or the timeshare system converts from RCI weeks to points.  PIC contracts aren't tried to any trust and/or deed.  This is why PIC points cannot provide ARP.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Close - Club Wyndham Select is a type of ownership.  Club Wyndham Plus is the overarching club that contains the various different types of ownership contracts, that break down as follows:
> 
> Club Wyndham Select (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-select)
> Club Wyndham Access (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-access)
> Club Wyndham Prefer West (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-west)
> Club Wyndham Prefer Hawaii (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-hawaii)
> Presidential Reserve (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...e/resources/club-wyndham-presidential-reserve)
> Margaritaville Vacation Club (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...urces/margaritaville-vacation-club-by-wyndham)
> Discovery Membership
> Embedded contract types:
> 
> UDI (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/undivided-interest-contract)
> Converted weeks (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/float-flex-week-converted)
> Affiliate contracts (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/affiliate-ownership)
> PIC Plus (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-plus-points)
> PIC Express (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-express)
> Bonus Points (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/bonus-points)
> My general understanding regarding the converted Shell inventory is that it is allocated primarily to the Club Wyndham Prefer West trust, but I could be mistaken.  So when Shell owners convert over to CWP contracts - I believe most are converted to the Prefer West trust.  That said, I know some Shell owners, particularly early on, converted to CWA - so there may still be deeds from Shell resorts that were subsumed into the CWA trust as well.  I'm not sure how easily Wyndham can move deeds between the trusts.  I'm guessing there may also be an option to convert to a CWS contract for the specific Shell resort as well - if the owner doesn't want to purchase a trust based CWP contract, but I'm not certain.
> 
> PIC contracts stand alone as a specific contract type per above.  PIC Express contracts don't confer any points at all - they only apply point values toward CWP account status (currently VIP) and only for a five year time period.  PIC Plus contracts count toward account status and can also confer points transfer provided the weeks based RCI integrated timeshare is deposited into the RCI system and then converted to points by Wyndham in return for use of the deposited week for rental purposes to help offset the cost of the points grant.  The points grant process is an opt-in process - meaning the owner must take the steps necessary to facilitate the RCI deposits and the points deposits with Wyndham.  PIC contracts aren't tried to any trust and/or deed.  This is why PIC points cannot provide ARP.


Prefer west and prefer Hawaii to be precise. The contracts actually come in as UDI. Not technically a conversion, more of an enrollment. Sales used conversion- but when you go to change the contract - say add a family member - they send you to shell.
Also they aren’t converted to CWA, that was the gateway purchase. Multiple contracts ensued.


----------



## Ty1on

HitchHiker71 said:


> Close - Club Wyndham Select is a type of ownership.  Club Wyndham Plus is the overarching club that contains the various different types of ownership contracts, that break down as follows:
> 
> Club Wyndham Select (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-select)
> Club Wyndham Access (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-access)
> Club Wyndham Prefer West (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-west)
> Club Wyndham Prefer Hawaii (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/club-wyndham-prefer-hawaii)
> Presidential Reserve (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...e/resources/club-wyndham-presidential-reserve)
> Margaritaville Vacation Club (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinat...urces/margaritaville-vacation-club-by-wyndham)
> Discovery Membership
> Embedded contract types:
> 
> UDI (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/undivided-interest-contract)
> Converted weeks (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/float-flex-week-converted)
> Affiliate contracts (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/affiliate-ownership)
> PIC Plus (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-plus-points)
> PIC Express (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/pic-express)
> Bonus Points (https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/owner-guide/resources/bonus-points)
> My general understanding regarding the converted Shell inventory is that it is allocated primarily to the Club Wyndham Prefer West trust, but I could be mistaken.  So when Shell owners convert over to CWP contracts - I believe most are converted to the Prefer West trust.  That said, I know some Shell owners, particularly early on, converted to CWA - so there may still be deeds from Shell resorts that were subsumed into the CWA trust as well.  I'm not sure how easily Wyndham can move deeds between the trusts.  I'm guessing there may also be an option to convert to a CWS contract for the specific Shell resort as well - if the owner doesn't want to purchase a trust based CWP contract, but I'm not certain.
> 
> PIC contracts stand alone as a specific contract type per above.  PIC Express contracts don't confer any points at all - they only apply point values toward CWP account status (currently VIP) and only for a five year time period.  PIC Plus contracts count toward account status and can also confer points transfer provided the weeks based RCI integrated timeshare is deposited into the RCI system and then converted to points by Wyndham in return for use of the deposited week for rental purposes to help offset the cost of the points grant.  The points grant process is an opt-in process - meaning the owner must take the steps necessary to facilitate the RCI deposits and the points deposits with Wyndham.  PIC Plus contract length is either five years (called Limited Edition - for a fee - almost never mentioned by sales either - but it's in the actual contract as an option) or when coupled with a qualifying developer points purchase - indefinite as long as Wyndham chooses to honor PIC Plus contracts as developer points or unless the underlying weeks based timeshare falls out of the RCI networks or the timeshare system converts from RCI weeks to points.  PIC contracts aren't tried to any trust and/or deed.  This is why PIC points cannot provide ARP.



This is a great detail, and you are correct.  I was corrected by several people, including myself, above.


----------



## ladawgfan

The various posts above all contain excellent information regarding the various ownership types, but do little for those of us who rent our excess points and are concerned about “commercial activity” Can anyone simplify what the arguments are for defending the right to rent these points under each ownership type? I’m not interested in whether someone should or should not be able to do this. I’m only interested in why Wyndham should not be able to preclude an owner from renting under the various contract types.


----------



## troy12n

ladawgfan said:


> I’m only interested in why Wyndham should not be able to preclude an owner from renting under the various contract types.



I think it's clear that if they want to, they can preclude any owner from renting, regardless of ownership type... the general consensus is that if you are just doing a couple rentals a year, you will likely fly under the radar and not have anything to worry about.


----------



## bnoble

ladawgfan said:


> I’m only interested in why Wyndham should not be able to preclude an owner from renting under the various contract types.


They aren't interested in "precluding from renting." They are interested in preventing "commercial activity," and believe they are in their rights to do so. There is no easy definition of "commercial activity."

If I were in a position to _routinely_ have excess points that I needed to dispose of (as opposed to _once in a while)_, I would probably try to trim my ownership sooner rather than later.


----------



## 55plus

I see an uptick in rentals at Glacier Canyon on Craigslist. Might be renters' push to use up points before Wyndham separates them next month. One last money grab before the good times end.


----------



## HitchHiker71

55plus said:


> I see an uptick in rentals at Glacier Canyon on Craigslist. Might be renters' push to use up points before Wyndham separates them next month. One last money grab before the good times end.



As @dgalati also mentioned, I’ve seen an uptick in the volume of eBay resale listings this week. There are also currently several 1mm+ point resale contracts on eBay for auction. Historically I’ve only seen contracts this large occasionally here and there. To see several contracts this large at once is unusual IME. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ty1on

HitchHiker71 said:


> As @dgalati also mentioned, I’ve seen an uptick in the volume of eBay resale listings this week. There are also currently several 1mm+ point resale contracts on eBay for auction. Historically I’ve only seen contracts this large occasionally here and there. To see several contracts this large at once is unusual IME.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


One Ebayer named Sue appears to be unloading 4.7M of her own contracts (all pretty sizeable)


----------



## am1

Do we know if Wyndham pays maintenance fees as soon as they take possession or when needed?  On foreclosures who pays the lawyers fees and past due debts?  Wyndham or HOA? Then Wyndham buys them for a $1 when needed?


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

am1 said:


> Do we know if Wyndham pays maintenance fees as soon as they take possession or when needed?  On foreclosures who pays the lawyers fees and past due debts?  Wyndham or HOA? Then Wyndham buys them for a $1 when needed?



Good questions / but the answers may be in the sausage recipe that only  Wyndham knows.


----------



## 55plus

Ty1on said:


> One Ebayer named Sue appears to be unloading 4.7M of her own contracts (all pretty sizeable)


There is a mega renter from Orlando who goes by the name, Suzy. She eats up a lot of Glacier Canyon summer timeframes and Daytona Bike Week units. If it's her then Bike Week should free up. She also runs a spray tanning business. I research mega renters through their phone numbers if they provide it in their listing.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> Do we know if Wyndham pays maintenance fees as soon as they take possession or when needed?  On foreclosures who pays the lawyers fees and past due debts?  Wyndham or HOA? Then Wyndham buys them for a $1 when needed?


I was the first HOA president at Glacier Canyon. I had to sign sign documents to start the foreclosure process. As for past due maintenance fees on foreclosures, the HOA and Wyndham split them, with Wyndham having access to use the points during the foreclosure process. That was then, this is now so I don't know if things changed.


----------



## CO skier

am1 said:


> Do we know if Wyndham pays maintenance fees as soon as they take possession or when needed?  On foreclosures who pays the lawyers fees and past due debts?  Wyndham or HOA? Then Wyndham buys them for a $1 when needed?


At my home resort, Wyndham pays up to $2,000 of the foreclosure costs plus all the past due maintenance fees.


----------



## CO skier

HitchHiker71 said:


> As @dgalati also mentioned, I’ve seen an uptick in the volume of eBay resale listings this week. There are also currently several 1mm+ point resale contracts on eBay for auction. Historically I’ve only seen contracts this large occasionally here and there. To see several contracts this large at once is unusual IME.


There were quite a few large contracts last March.









						eBay Sales Featuring 1,000,000+ Point Contracts
					

The Club Wyndham resale market never recovered from the Great Recession in 2008.  It seems to run in cycles.  No 1,000,000 point contracts for months, then a bunch at one time.  It is late in the seasonal cycle for Club Wyndham bargains, but I notice a fair number of 1,000,000+ point contracts...




					tugbbs.com


----------



## rickandcindy23

Ty1on said:


> Yes, every Shell Club contract can be traced to a specific resort interval, though that resort interval has no meaning at all to the member beyond the club points it conveys.  They pay maintenance fees based on total points owned in the club independently of where the underlying deeds are located (this is quite different than CWP and why it could be mistaken for a trust).  There are some direct members in Whistler and Mexico, and there are deeded members in various Shell resorts that utilize their deeded weeks without Club membership.


I don't have deeds with Shell.  I have pieces of paper that are fancy looking.  No deeds that I can see.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> They aren't interested in "precluding from renting." They are interested in preventing "commercial activity," and believe they are in their rights to do so. There is no easy definition of "commercial activity."
> 
> If I were in a position to _routinely_ have excess points that I needed to dispose of (as opposed to _once in a while)_, I would probably try to trim my ownership sooner rather than later.


I agree.  I believe their intent is well within their rights.  I just want to get out gracefully.  I don't know what this will entail.  I am hoping they send more information specific to our account.


----------



## chapjim

Ty1on said:


> One Ebayer named Sue appears to be unloading 4.7M of her own contracts (all pretty sizeable)



She has over 6 million points listed.  In another time, I might have been interested in one or two of these contracts.  (In another time, they weren't for sale.)  She's selling for the same reason I'm not buying.

CWA - 1,130,000
Smoky Mountains - 1,000,000
Grand Desert - 1,308,000
Grand Desert - 350,000
Royal Vista - 703,000
Nashville - 1,116,000
Bonnet Creek - 613,000


----------



## Ty1on

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't have deeds with Shell.  I have pieces of paper that are fancy looking.  No deeds that I can see.


Your pieces of paper are backed by specific intervals.


----------



## spackler

chapjim said:


> She has over 6 million points listed.  In another time, I might have been interested in one or two of these contracts.  (In another time, they weren't for sale.)  She's selling for the same reason I'm not buying.
> 
> CWA - 1,130,000
> Smoky Mountains - 1,000,000
> Grand Desert - 1,308,000
> Grand Desert - 350,000
> Royal Vista - 703,000
> Nashville - 1,116,000
> Bonnet Creek - 613,000



Ugh, a million points at Nashville?  I can't imagine anyone wanting that for free, the maintenance fees are atrocious.   The other ones have a sliver of value I suppose.


----------



## dgalati

spackler said:


> Ugh, a million points at Nashville?  I can't imagine anyone wanting that for free, the maintenance fees are atrocious.   The other ones have a sliver of value I suppose.


I wonder if Certified exit may have been a better option? Even in better times I would only offer $100 all in including closing and resort transfer fee for the 350,000 Grand Desert. Not sure what its worth now but I wouldn't offer $100.


----------



## dioxide45

dgalati said:


> I wonder if Certified exit may have been a better option? Even in better times I would only offer $100 all in including closing and resort transfer fee for the 350,000 Grand Desert. Not sure what its worth now but I wouldn't offer $100.


I suspect the plan is to try to sell off as much as possible to perhaps make some money before going certified exit. Kind of like having a garage sale before dumping everything at Goodwill.


----------



## Ty1on

dgalati said:


> I wonder if Certified exit may have been a better option? Even in better times I would only offer $100 all in including closing and resort transfer fee for the 350,000 Grand Desert. Not sure what its worth now but I wouldn't offer $100.



The bid for the 350K Grand Desert is at $1,000.  Her 1.308M Grand Desert is at $510.

I think it's a wise move from her to beat the rush and get those contract sold while there is a Summer market.


----------



## HitchHiker71

dioxide45 said:


> I suspect the plan is to try to sell off as much as possible to perhaps make some money before going certified exit. Kind of like having a garage sale before dumping everything at Goodwill.



Given outside contract transfers on average take about twice as long as Wyndham Certified Exit - I'm doubtful she will make much of anything given it's unlikely she will see enough of a price difference to offset the large MFs on those large contracts and having to pay those MFs for twice as long during contract transition.  To me it wouldn't be worth the additional hassle - but that's me.


----------



## dioxide45

HitchHiker71 said:


> Given outside contract transfers on average take about twice as long as Wyndham Certified Exit - I'm doubtful she will make much of anything given it's unlikely she will see enough of a price difference to offset the large MFs on those large contracts and having to pay those MFs for twice as long during contract transition.  To me it wouldn't be worth the additional hassle - but that's me.


Perhaps more of just sticking it to Wyndham and not letting them have the contracts back to resell?


----------



## dgalati

dgalati said:


> I wonder if Certified exit may have been a better option?





HitchHiker71 said:


> Given outside contract transfers on average take about twice as long as Wyndham Certified Exit - I'm doubtful she will make much of anything given it's unlikely she will see enough of a price difference to offset the large MFs on those large contracts and having to pay those MFs for twice as long during contract transition.  To me it wouldn't be worth the additional hassle - but that's me.


I agree it has to cost more especially if Wyndham drags the process out. Certified exit takes 4-5 weeks from star to finish. What's transfer time now on a third party resale? 12-16 weeks wad the norm about 3 years ago.


----------



## chapjim

dioxide45 said:


> Perhaps more of just sticking it to Wyndham and not letting them have the contracts back to resell?



How much is it worth to "stick it to Wyndham?"


----------



## 55plus

chapjim said:


> How much is it worth to "stick it to Wyndham?"


If this person was a mega renter (signs indicate that this person is/was) then this person probably has been sticking it to Wyndham for many years by applying VIP benefits to resale points.


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> If this person was a mega renter (signs indicate that this person is/was) then this person probably has been sticking it to Wyndham for many years by applying VIP benefits to resale points.



Well, that's not the point and you know it.  Totally different topic.


----------



## dioxide45

chapjim said:


> How much is it worth to "stick it to Wyndham?"


To some it might be worth a lot. Not so much for others.


----------



## lost patience

I have to share my call to certified exit.  I have 3 or 4 small resale with higher MF.  It is time to return them to Wyndham.  My conversation went something like this
Me:  I would like to return contracts 1, 2, 3, and 4.  
CE rep:  It takes between 6 and 7 months to complete the process and if you are illegible you have to have all your 2021 and 2022 points available.
Me:  If I'm "illegible"?  
CE rep:  Yes, if you have all your 2021 and 2022 points then I will check to see if your contracts are illegible.  
Me:  Oh, you are saying you have to check to see if my contracts are "eligible" for certified exit.   You are pronouncing "eligible" as "illegible" and it was confusing me.  Illegible means you can not read it.  
CE rep:  Yes, I will look to see if they are illegible.
Me:  It is pronounced "eligible"  not "illegible"...    
Me:  OK.  back up to the 2021 points.  6 months from now is Jan 2022.  Why would I need to have all 2021 points intact if the process won't finalize until 2022.
CE rep:  I'm confused.  Let me read my script
pause
CE rep:  ok.  You just need to have 2022 points if your contract is illegible.  
Me:  I have plenty of 2022 points to 100% cover these contracts.  How do you determine if they are eligible.  
CE rep:  I can look them up
Me:  Please do
CE rep:  Contracts 1 and 2 are illegible.  3 and 4 are not illegible.  I can send you documents to get the process started.
....  The email she sent me states it will be 9 - 12 weeks before I even get the forms that I will need to complete and notarize.   Followed by 8 to 12 weeks for Wyndham to process them after receipt.  Those combine to  17 to 24 weeks.


----------



## dioxide45

lost patience said:


> I have to share my call to certified exit.  I have 3 or 4 small resale with higher MF.  It is time to return them to Wyndham.  My conversation went something like this
> Me:  I would like to return contracts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> CE rep:  It takes between 6 and 7 months to complete the process and if you are illegible you have to have all your 2021 and 2022 points available.
> Me:  If I'm "illegible"?
> CE rep:  Yes, if you have all your 2021 and 2022 points then I will check to see if your contracts are illegible.
> Me:  Oh, you are saying you have to check to see if my contracts are "eligible" for certified exit.   You are pronouncing "eligible" as "illegible" and it was confusing me.  Illegible means you can not read it.
> CE rep:  Yes, I will look to see if they are illegible.
> Me:  It is pronounced "eligible"  not "illegible"...
> Me:  OK.  back up to the 2021 points.  6 months from now is Jan 2022.  Why would I need to have all 2021 points intact if the process won't finalize until 2022.
> CE rep:  I'm confused.  Let me read my script
> pause
> CE rep:  ok.  You just need to have 2022 points if your contract is illegible.
> Me:  I have plenty of 2022 points to 100% cover these contracts.  How do you determine if they are eligible.
> CE rep:  I can look them up
> Me:  Please do
> CE rep:  Contracts 1 and 2 are illegible.  3 and 4 are not illegible.  I can send you documents to get the process started.
> ....  The email she sent me states it will be 9 - 12 weeks before I even get the forms that I will need to complete and notarize.   Followed by 8 to 12 weeks for Wyndham to process them after receipt.  Those combine to  17 to 24 weeks.


I hope you can read the forms when you do get them...


----------



## Cyrus24

lost patience said:


> Contracts 1 and 2 are illegible. 3 and 4 are not illegible.


Was there an explanation as to what determined eligibility (or should I say illegibility)?  Just curious.  I have a small resale that I might be interested in returning someday.


----------



## Eric B

Cyrus24 said:


> Was there an explanation as to what determined eligibility (or should I say illegibility)?  Just curious.  I have a small resale that I might be interested in returning someday.



Sometimes it’s due to coffee stains on them.


----------



## chapjim

dioxide45 said:


> To some it might be worth a lot. Not so much for others.



Losing money for the psychic pleasure of "sticking it to Wyndham" makes no sense.  It's totally irrational and stupid.  For one thing, Wyndham won't even notice the contracts are being withheld.


----------



## Eric B

chapjim said:


> Losing money for the psychic pleasure of "sticking it to Wyndham" makes no sense.  It's totally irrational and stupid.  For one thing, Wyndham won't even notice the contracts are being withheld.



If we were all totally rational all the time, there wouldn’t be as great a need for TUG.


----------



## chapjim

Eric B said:


> If we were all totally rational all the time, there wouldn’t be as great a need for TUG.



True, but here we are.  So, you think it's okay to chase bad money with more bad money?


----------



## dioxide45

chapjim said:


> True, but here we are.  So, you think it's okay to chase bad money with more bad money?


I am only trying to explain the possible rationale, not that it is rational. Their reasoning for going the EBay route may be completely different.


----------



## paxsarah

I could see a Tugger selling/giving away a modest contract to stick it to the man rather than using Ovation/Certified Exit. I have a hard  time envisioning an eBay renter with millions in points doing the same for the same reason.


----------



## Eric B

chapjim said:


> True, but here we are.  So, you think it's okay to chase bad money with more bad money?



Nope, but I recognize that I’m the only reasonable man in existence.  All kidding aside, the desire to stick it to Wyndham is a likely motivating factor whether or not it’s a rational one.


----------



## MaryBella7

I gave away one contract to a TUGer and did ovations with one. The ovations was faster, and I did have to pay a couple of months of MF for the giveaway one more than the Ovations one, but I was happy that someone was going to enjoy the points at a bargain compared to Wyndham selling them. It wasn’t so much about sticking it to Wyndham as it was helping someone else.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Why would they not take back anything and everything? I thought that was the purpose of Ovations?


----------



## 55plus

I don't think Wyndham wants the older resorts back. I expect them to shed them down the road.


----------



## Ty1on

rickandcindy23 said:


> Why would they not take back anything and everything? I thought that was the purpose of Ovations?



There has always been a list of eligible associations.


----------



## dgalati

Ty1on said:


> There has always been a list of eligible associations.


I have never seen a list of eligible resorts. You would always have to call to see if your ownership qualified. Wyndham likes a moving target as its harder for it to be manipulated. It is also easier to change it if they need more or less inventory.


----------



## Ty1on

dgalati said:


> I have never seen a list of eligible resorts. You would always have to call to see if your ownership qualified. Wyndham likes a moving target as its harder for it to be manipulated. It is also easier to change it if they need more or less inventory.



I never said they share the list.  They have a list they consult when an owner calls to inquire on deedback.


----------



## dgalati

Ty1on said:


> I never said they share the list.  They have a list they consult when an owner calls to inquire on deedback.


I get it. Its a internal list that was never shared with the owners. You have to call in and they will tell you if your ownership is eligible.


----------



## tschwa2

rickandcindy23 said:


> Why would they not take back anything and everything? I thought that was the purpose of Ovations?


For awhile they did.  They would take anything deeded or in points.  Then they stopped accepting some of the resorts that are no longer managed by Wyndham.  At this point I think they are very hesitant to take back the contracts that are more than $10-$12 per 1000.  The purpose of ovations is to get free inventory but after about a year of taking everything they don't want to continue to flood cwa with more high MF's contracts.


----------



## paxsarah

When I returned a Pagosa contract in 2019, they told me they were taking Teal Landing (which I had) but not all HOAs at Pagosa (I didn’t ask for specifics).


----------



## CO skier

paxsarah said:


> When I returned a Pagosa contract ...


Elk Run at Wyndham Pagosa:

"*Delinquencies*
We continue to turn over all owners who are not current with their maintenance fees to Wyndham collections. For those owners which are one year behind, foreclosure proceeding will start. This Board signed an agreement with Wyndham, Inc. to handle foreclosure processing and transfer of deeds and ownerships."


Village Pointe at Wyndham Pagosa:

"I'm pleased to report that our agreement with Wyndham continues to significantly reduce our bad debt. The Wyndham Foreclosure Agreement has allowed us to increase our maintenance fee collections and contributions to our reserve account. Every completed foreclosure account brought current or account deeded back helps us remain solvent in our yearly operational budget and meet our reserve fund allocations. As of July 31, 2020, our collection rate on maintenance fee collections remains at 96%. This remains steady since the beginning of the year and bodes very well for our association finances. Again, this shows that our ownership values their vacation property and responsibilities. The Board thanks all owners for meeting their fiduciary obligations."


----------



## am1

If one wanted to stick it to Wyndham they would use all the points they could and then default. But that possibly means taking a credit hit.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I need to check our Pagosa deed and see if I can maybe sell it as a week and not as a Wyndham.  Our daughter said the fee is very high.  I think that is the only one that is extremely expensive.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> I need to check our Pagosa deed and see if I can maybe sell it as a week and not as a Wyndham.  Our daughter said the fee is very high.  I think that is the only one that is extremely expensive.


You tend to find resorts that are spread-out and require snow removal have higher fees. The more roads and parking lots a resort has, the higher the snow removal costs.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> You tend to find resorts that are spread-out and require snow removal have higher fees. The more roads and parking lots a resort has, the higher the snow removal costs.


For every rule, there's an exception. My Flagstaff converted fixed week is very low.


----------



## jfellenz

Cyrus24 said:


> The letter was posted on Facebook.  Seems to be a legitimate warning.  Based on other comments from the facebook post, it's safe to say that this person was renting, a lot.  Whether or not it was 'commercial' would require a lot of research.   I guess if Wyndham saw numerous rental postings and subsequent GC at what would clearly be a profit, they'd declare it as commercial.
> 
> View attachment 37456


This is exactly, word for word, the same letter that I got today.  The last two years have seen a systematic acceleration of restrictive rules and penalties.  They are totally disregarding 20 years of past practice as if it never was the past practice.  They initiated new restrictions on how many reservations an owner may have for any dates, system wide when their website (GLOSSARY) currently professes the following.

_Nightly Unit Limit
During the standard and express reservation timeframes, no more than 10 units may be confirmed per resort per night. For locations with less than 50 units, no more than 20% of the total units in the club may be reserved._

They disallow guest occupancy of prime weekends and holiday weeks at many resorts when all the while they’re selling them themselves on Travelocity and VRBO for big money.    

During, at least, the second half of 2021 Wyndham removed all handicap units from our inventory for Glacier Canyon and Smokies Lodge.  I would imagine they did that at other Club Wyndham resorts also.

I believe we need to approach a law firm that is familiar with class actions against Wyndham.  Maybe we could get a “cease and desist” order during the term of the law suit.   Let me know your feelings.


----------



## KimmieM

jfellenz said:


> This is exactly, word for word, the same letter that I got today.  The last two years have seen a systematic acceleration of restrictive rules and penalties.  They are totally disregarding 20 years of past practice as if it never was the past practice.  They initiated new restrictions on how many reservations an owner may have for any dates, system wide when their website (GLOSSARY) currently professes the following.
> 
> _Nightly Unit Limit
> During the standard and express reservation timeframes, no more than 10 units may be confirmed per resort per night. For locations with less than 50 units, no more than 20% of the total units in the club may be reserved._
> 
> They disallow guest occupancy of prime weekends and holiday weeks at many resorts when all the while they’re selling them themselves on Travelocity and VRBO for big money.
> 
> During, at least, the second half of 2021 Wyndham removed all handicap units from our inventory for Glacier Canyon and Smokies Lodge.  I would imagine they did that at other Club Wyndham resorts also.
> 
> I believe we need to approach a law firm that is familiar with class actions against Wyndham.  Maybe we could get a “cease and desist” order during the term of the law suit.   Let me know your feelings.


Good luck with hiring a lawyer.


----------



## Rolltydr

jfellenz said:


> This is exactly, word for word, the same letter that I got today.  The last two years have seen a systematic acceleration of restrictive rules and penalties.  They are totally disregarding 20 years of past practice as if it never was the past practice.  They initiated new restrictions on how many reservations an owner may have for any dates, system wide when their website (GLOSSARY) currently professes the following.
> 
> _Nightly Unit Limit
> During the standard and express reservation timeframes, no more than 10 units may be confirmed per resort per night. For locations with less than 50 units, no more than 20% of the total units in the club may be reserved._
> 
> They disallow guest occupancy of prime weekends and holiday weeks at many resorts when all the while they’re selling them themselves on Travelocity and VRBO for big money.
> 
> During, at least, the second half of 2021 Wyndham removed all handicap units from our inventory for Glacier Canyon and Smokies Lodge.  I would imagine they did that at other Club Wyndham resorts also.
> 
> I believe we need to approach a law firm that is familiar with class actions against Wyndham.  Maybe we could get a “cease and desist” order during the term of the law suit.   Let me know your feelings.


I think class action suits mske attorneys very, very rich. Plaintiffs, not really.


----------



## chapjim

jfellenz said:


> This is exactly, word for word, the same letter that I got today.  The last two years have seen a systematic acceleration of restrictive rules and penalties.  They are totally disregarding 20 years of past practice as if it never was the past practice.  They initiated new restrictions on how many reservations an owner may have for any dates, system wide when their website (GLOSSARY) currently professes the following.
> 
> _Nightly Unit Limit
> During the standard and express reservation timeframes, no more than 10 units may be confirmed per resort per night. For locations with less than 50 units, no more than 20% of the total units in the club may be reserved._
> 
> They disallow guest occupancy of prime weekends and holiday weeks at many resorts when all the while they’re selling them themselves on Travelocity and VRBO for big money.
> 
> During, at least, the second half of 2021 Wyndham removed all handicap units from our inventory for Glacier Canyon and Smokies Lodge.  I would imagine they did that at other Club Wyndham resorts also.
> 
> I believe we need to approach a law firm that is familiar with class actions against Wyndham.  Maybe we could get a “cease and desist” order during the term of the law suit.   Let me know your feelings.



.You're nuts!  The real plaintiffs in class actions are the attorneys.  Members of the class get a voucher.  The attorneys get money.


----------



## dioxide45

chapjim said:


> .You're nuts!  The real plaintiffs in class actions are the attorneys.  Members of the class get a voucher.  The attorneys get money.


It isn't always about money, in some cases class action lawsuits force a change in policy.


----------



## KimmieM

dioxide45 said:


> It isn't always about money, in some cases class action lawsuits force a change in policy.


You can be right and win but still lose financially.  Wyndham has the right to change Club rules when they feel its necessary.


----------



## dioxide45

KimmieM said:


> Wyndham has the right to change Club rules when they feel its necessary.


Not necessarily. A judge would ultimately decide that in the event of a lawsuit. It is often that contracts are exactly what gets companies into trouble. Just because it is in the contract, doesn't mean it will prevail.


----------



## Eric B

dioxide45 said:


> Not necessarily. A judge would ultimately decide that in the event of a lawsuit. It is often that contracts are exactly what gets companies into trouble. Just because it is in the contract, doesn't mean it will prevail.



Wyndham's practice in the past with owners that were potential litigators seems to have been to freeze their accounts for "audits" for significant periods of time, ultimately coming to some sort of settlement agreements based on postings here from some.  That's an understandable approach that would avoid completing a trial and having a court decide how things should be and imposing it on them.  I believe that during the "audits" the owners were, of course, required to continue paying the fees for the points they weren't able to use.  I don't have any personal knowledge of it, but have seen a few of the threads where some folks posted what they believed they could under whatever non-disclosure agreements were included in the settlements.


----------



## paxsarah

jfellenz said:


> This is exactly, word for word, the same letter that I got today.  The last two years have seen a systematic acceleration of restrictive rules and penalties.  They are totally disregarding 20 years of past practice as if it never was the past practice.  They initiated new restrictions on how many reservations an owner may have for any dates, system wide when their website (GLOSSARY) currently professes the following.
> 
> _Nightly Unit Limit
> During the standard and express reservation timeframes, no more than 10 units may be confirmed per resort per night. For locations with less than 50 units, no more than 20% of the total units in the club may be reserved._
> 
> They disallow guest occupancy of prime weekends and holiday weeks at many resorts when all the while they’re selling them themselves on Travelocity and VRBO for big money.
> 
> During, at least, the second half of 2021 Wyndham removed all handicap units from our inventory for Glacier Canyon and Smokies Lodge.  I would imagine they did that at other Club Wyndham resorts also.
> 
> I believe we need to approach a law firm that is familiar with class actions against Wyndham.  Maybe we could get a “cease and desist” order during the term of the law suit.   Let me know your feelings.


There’s an owner on Facebook who’s also itching for a lawsuit. It looks like he’s basically been kicked out of all the Wyndham groups on FB but it appears he’s gone and made his own. Maybe you two can get together.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I don't know why people are disparaging an owner who feels he is being wronged by Wyndham.  We had a lawyer look at our paperwork from 2007 and he saw nothing to preclude us from renting.  They may have added that to later contracts, but early on, when it was Fairfield and not Wyndham, there were no rules against renting.  Those are the contracts we signed, so Wyndham says it's now in their directory that we cannot rent. 

I am not planning a lawsuit, so no one should contact me at all.  I am so done with Wyndham as a means to make a little cash for renting.  I can enjoy timesharing without Wyndham.  I just want to bow out gracefully and maybe keep our Founder's Platinum accounts.  But they aren't willing to work with us, apparently, because no answer to my email requesting for them to take back all of our resale.


----------



## bnoble

The prohibition against "commercial" activity has been in the directory for as long as I can remember, and I bought in late '06. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, though' it wouldn't be the first time. That's not the same as "renting is prohibited." That leaves arguing over what "commercial" means, and I think that's a losing game for anyone who doesn't have a staff of attorneys on retainer.



rickandcindy23 said:


> But they aren't willing to work with us, apparently, because no answer to my email requesting for them to take back all of our resale.


Assuming your MF/K ratios are reasonable, you can probably give them away here. There's still plenty of value in "regular" Wyndham ownerships for personal use.


----------



## paxsarah

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't know why people are disparaging an owner who feels he is being wronged by Wyndham.


I’m sympathetic to owners who feel they’ve been wronged. A lot has changed, and even if Wyndham’s contracts essentially state that they can change the program guidelines at any time, that doesn’t negate the fact that owners had come to rely on the way things had worked for many years.

What I’m less sympathetic to is an unrealistic confidence in the ultimate success of a lawsuit or class action. I understand owners taking whatever steps they personally need to realistically make the best of a bad situation. I don’t think it’s realistic to think a momentous lawsuit in which David takes down Goliath will be a part of one’s most advantageous exit.


----------



## dioxide45

paxsarah said:


> I’m sympathetic to owners who feel they’ve been wronged. A lot has changed, and even if Wyndham’s contracts essentially state that they can change the program guidelines at any time, that doesn’t negate the fact that owners had come to rely on the way things had worked for many years.
> 
> What I’m less sympathetic to is an unrealistic confidence in the ultimate success of a lawsuit or class action. I understand owners taking whatever steps they personally need to realistically make the best of a bad situation. I don’t think it’s realistic to think a momentous lawsuit in which David takes down Goliath will be a part of one’s most advantageous exit.


The problem with a class action is the class may not be large enough. Sure the loss in value is there for all owners, but only a small percentage of them rent and a smaller percentage are what could be considered, mega renters. Individuals who feel wronged should perhaps consider going to a lawyer to work out some settlement where Wyndham takes all their weeks and points off their hands for some form of compensation.


----------



## paxsarah

bnoble said:


> The prohibition against "commercial" activity has been in the directory for as long as I can remember, and I bought in late '06. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, though' it wouldn't be the first time. That's not the same as "renting is prohibited." That leaves arguing over what "commercial" means, and I think that's a losing game for anyone who doesn't have a staff of attorneys on retainer.


The commercial language is in the program disclosures in the 2011-12 directory, but I don't see it in the 2009-10 directory. I don't have any earlier directories saved to my computer.

Specifically, the paragraph about commercial purposes in the 11-12 directory is inserted between two paragraphs that carry over verbatim from the 09-10 directory, so it appears to be a very deliberate insertion. If I had to guess, it was probably added due to the original megarenter kerfuffle in the mid-aughts (in which unlimited guest certificates were eliminated, and then the GC price was jacked up shortly thereafter).

My guess is also that even if the commercial vs. personal language was only added to the directory a little later, that new contracts probably long included the signed disclaimer about purchasing only for personal use and not for renting or financial gain.


----------



## bnoble

paxsarah said:


> long included the signed disclaimer about purchasing only for personal use and not for renting or financial gain.


Maybe that's what I'm remembering, or maybe I'm just generalizing from other systems which had similar language for a long while. I have a lot of "city miles," so my memory isn't what it could be...


----------



## HitchHiker71

rickandcindy23 said:


> But they aren't willing to work with us, apparently, because no answer to my email requesting for them to take back all of our resale.



Have you reached out to CE already?  I wouldn't let a lack of response stand in the way of making a concerted effort to offload your resale contracts if CE will take them back - even if they only take back a subset - that'll leave you will fewer contracts to unload via third parties.


----------



## Jan M.

bnoble said:


> Maybe that's what I'm remembering, or maybe I'm just generalizing from other systems which had similar language for a long while. I have a lot of "city miles," so my memory isn't what it could be...



We've owned since 2002 and the wording about commercial use was always in every contract we bought over the next ten years of buying. More times than I like to admit to! 

That part being left out of one directory in the almost 20 years we've owned could have been an oversight or deliberate. I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate because that directory would have been in the compilation,  printing and shipping stages during the time the class action lawsuit the Klebba's and others were involved in was ongoing. From what I saw when I looked it up the only points that lawsuit had decided in it's favor were such minor points as to make in kind of a joke. I'd guess that any settlement was pretty much eaten up by the expenses. It wouldn't seem that there were any settlement agreements between Wyndham and the owners involved because the Klebbas continued to be owners and grow their accounts.


----------



## rickandcindy23

paxsarah said:


> I’m sympathetic to owners who feel they’ve been wronged. A lot has changed, and even if Wyndham’s contracts essentially state that they can change the program guidelines at any time, that doesn’t negate the fact that owners had come to rely on the way things had worked for many years.
> 
> What I’m less sympathetic to is an unrealistic confidence in the ultimate success of a lawsuit or class action. I understand owners taking whatever steps they personally need to realistically make the best of a bad situation. I don’t think it’s realistic to think a momentous lawsuit in which David takes down Goliath will be a part of one’s most advantageous exit.


It's probably like fighting city hall, as the old saying goes.  Whatever lawyer you get is not going to compete with the team of lawyers they can afford, especially a huge company like Wyndham.


----------



## chapjim

Jan M. said:


> We've owned since 2002 and the wording about commercial use was always in every contract we bought over the next ten years of buying. More times than I like to admit to!
> 
> That part being left out of one directory in the almost 20 years we've owned could have been an oversight or deliberate. I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate because that directory would have been in the compilation,  printing and shipping stages during the time the class action lawsuit the Klebba's and others were involved in was ongoing. From what I saw when I looked it up the only points that lawsuit had decided in it's favor were such minor points as to make in kind of a joke. I'd guess that settlement was pretty much eaten up by the expenses. It wouldn't seem that there were any settlement agreements between Wyndham and the owners involved because the Klebbas continued to be owners and grow their accounts.



My recollection is that contracts did not prohibit commercial use or renting.  Rather, the wording was to the effect that there should be no expectation of renting.  I don't think the term "commercial use" appeared in any of my contracts.  I'd have to go look to be sure.


----------



## KimmieM

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't know why people are disparaging an owner who feels he is being wronged by Wyndham.  We had a lawyer look at our paperwork from 2007 and he saw nothing to preclude us from renting.  They may have added that to later contracts, but early on, when it was Fairfield and not Wyndham, there were no rules against renting.  Those are the contracts we signed, so Wyndham says it's now in their directory that we cannot rent.
> 
> I am not planning a lawsuit, so no one should contact me at all.  I am so done with Wyndham as a means to make a little cash for renting.  I can enjoy timesharing without Wyndham.  I just want to bow out gracefully and maybe keep our Founder's Platinum accounts.  But they aren't willing to work with us, apparently, because no answer to my email requesting for them to take back all of our resale.


Renting is not the issue but running a commercial business is prohibited. They are systematically squeezing owners out that rent more then they use personally.  I know sales sold rentals as a way to sell more points but it has always been in directory that commercial use is prohibited.


----------



## rickandcindy23

KimmieM said:


> Renting is not the issue but running a commercial business is prohibited. They are systematically squeezing owners out that rent more then they use personally.  I know sales sold rentals as a way to sell more points but it has always been in directory that commercial use is prohibited.


Yes, I realize that.  We have been renting for 14 years.  I am trying to get out of this mess and not trying to argue with anyone about anything.  It's not necessary to fight Wyndham, when you have already raised the white flag of surrender.  I am done with renting.  I just want to keep my Founder's Platinum (WE HAVE TWO Founder's Platinum accounts).  We own 4.5 million developer points, or darned close to that.  If I sold my Kauai units, I would take them out of Wyndham and selll them as floating weeks, which is what the underlying deeds are.  I wouldn't let Wyndham just have them at all, if they won't let me keep my Founder's accounts.  I wouldn't care if I made any money on them. 

We have three kids and 7 grandkids that travel a lot and can use the points themselves, and the kids' names are on our accounts, so keeping what we invested in originally, sans the rental business, that is my goal.

I invested $140,000 in Wyndham points with conversions of PAHIO properties to Wyndham.  It's not money I will walk away from, if I can help it.


----------



## chapjim

KimmieM said:


> Renting is not the issue but running a commercial business is prohibited. They are systematically squeezing owners out that rent more then they use personally.  I know sales sold rentals as a way to sell more points but it has always been in directory that commercial use is prohibited.



While that is a reasonable way to think of it, I'm not sure that's Wyndham's way of thinking of it.  "Commercial use" not yet having been defined, it is whatever Wyndham says it is.  And we only find out we've been tapped when the anvil drops.


----------



## dioxide45

KimmieM said:


> Renting is not the issue but running a commercial business is prohibited. They are systematically squeezing owners out that rent more then they use personally.  I know sales sold rentals as a way to sell more points but it has always been in directory that commercial use is prohibited.


The whole term "commercial use" is kind of vague. Someone could easily interpret it to mean you can't run a barber shop out of your villa while staying at the property.


----------



## 55plus

Since Wyndham cracked down on rentals, I have been able to make reservations that I wasn't able to before due to nonavailability. In most cases I'm able to find and book the same reservation at a 50% discount within 60 days and cancel the full points reservation, giving me my points back. Upgrades, not so much, but at least a points discount.


----------



## Hawaii2022

chapjim said:


> My recollection is that contracts did not prohibit commercial use or renting.  Rather, the wording was to the effect that there should be no expectation of renting.  I don't think the term "commercial use" appeared in any of my contracts.  I'd have to go look to be sure.


The Wyndham purchased agreements changed around 2011. Prior to the change the Wyndham purchase agreement showed renting your ownership as an allowed use. You were required to initial that you were not guaranteed or promised an expected dollar amount. The purchase agreements changed around about 10 years ago.


----------



## Sandi Bo

It just seems to me like the right way to handle this would be to say, okay, no more. Things change, and this is our new policy moving forward. And work with existing owners to gracefully exit or modify their current ownership to fit the new policies.  I think it is only fair to look at how things have been run over the past 20 years, acknowledge things were allowed that they no longer want to allow, and work things out amicably. I just don't get all the hate. And have no respect for Wyndham for how it's being handled. 

Is Wyndham using the Salem Witch Trials as a business model?  That sure is how it feels to me. What a crazy way to run a business.  Start this owner priority campaign. Pit owner against owner... Is she a witch (substitute megarenter).  Sending out letters then not responding to those that email and try to work things out with them. Notice how the culture has changed here on TUG and also on FB?  We could be helping each other get through this, instead people are shutting down. Wyndham knows what they are doing.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Sandi Bo said:


> It just seems to me like the right way to handle this would be to say, okay, no more. Things change, and this is our new policy moving forward. And work with existing owners to gracefully exit or modify their current ownership to fit the new policies.  I think it is only fair to look at how things have been run over the past 20 years, acknowledge things were allowed that they no longer want to allow, and work things out amicably. I just don't get all the hate. And have no respect for Wyndham for how it's being handled.
> 
> Is Wyndham using the Salem Witch Trials as a business model?  That sure is how it feels to me. What a crazy way to run a business.  Start this owner priority campaign. Pit owner against owner... Is she a witch (substitute megarenter).  Sending out letters then not responding to those that email and try to work things out with them. Notice how the culture has changed here on TUG and also on FB?  We could be helping each other get through this, instead people are shutting down. Wyndham knows what they are doing.


Agree with that.  Let us out of the points we cannot use ourselves, let us keep our status.


----------



## chapjim

Hawaii2022 said:


> The Wyndham purchased agreements changed around 2011. Prior to the change the Wyndham purchase agreement showed renting your ownership as an allowed use. You were required to initial that you were not guaranteed or promised an expected dollar amount. The purchase agreements changed around about 10 years ago.



My last retail purchase was way before 2011 so that fits perfectly.  Honestly, I don't think the actual sales contracts make much difference.  Wyndham seems to be relying on the policy in the directory more than on contractual agreements.

Let's face it.  Wyndham owns the bus and is driving.  All we can do is hop on (or off) and try to enjoy the ride, wherever it goes.


----------



## KimmieM

chapjim said:


> My last retail purchase was way before 2011 so that fits perfectly.  Honestly, I don't think the actual sales contracts make much difference.  Wyndham seems to be relying on the policy in the directory more than on contractual agreements.
> 
> Wyndham owns the bus and is driving.  All we can do is hop on (or off) and try to enjoy the ride.


Your analogy is spot on. Hiring lawyers is will only make your financial situation worse. Ask your lawyer what your case is worth and be clear you want to know what its worth to you and not him finacially.


----------



## ronparise

well thats 2 hours Ill never get back.  20 pages of speculation and mis information
Ill only speak to the posts that mention me or

In 2016 when wyndham froze my accounts and the accounts of many others they didnt do it because we were engaged in commercial activity. (I was of course, but that wasnt the reason they froze our accounts).  They did it because we had more reservations in our accounts than could be justified by the size of our ownerships.

I met with some folks from the legal dept to go over my accounts and what I had done that made it look suspicious. I expected them to tell me how many points were in question and either make me pay for them or give them back
Imagine my surprise when Without any explanation as to why, They suggested that I sign all my deeds back to them. (for no money) and in exchange they wouldnt sue me. Without giving it any thought at all ,my response was  “knock yourself out, You can do anything you want, but Im not going to make it easy for you, so sue me". They didn’t, instead, they suggested I counter their offer but before I did that, the Wyndham lawyer called me,  Ultimately we came to an agreement, one line of which said neither party has done anything wrong.

so is there anything you guys can learn from my experience. I think so

1) they never invoked the commercial activity clause. In fact they never said I did anything wrong.

2) they could have foreclosed as I had stopped paying maintenance fees when my accounts were frozen

3) although they threatened to sue, I don’t think they wanted to

4) I asked their lawyer directly, What do you guys want? Do you want do figure out how many points I might owe you, or do you just want me gone? To their credit he answered honestly, they just wanted me gone. So I said, OK let’s make that happen. And we did

my advice for today’s mega renters is to figure out what Wyndham wants, and then give it to them.


Early in this thread I was criticized for being open about what I was doing.here on TUG. First of all I didn’t share everything. I didn’t share the important stuff 1) I had 2 Platinum accounts made with two $6000 purchases  from wyndham and 3 more platinum accounts made with only resale I share that knowledge with two other guys that were important to what I was doing (the guy that rented my points and the guy that was able to get my contracts sold) and that’s the second thing I didn’t share 2) I was selling stripped contracts back to Wyndham 
I only shared here on Tug the things I had learned here on tug.  Cancel and rebook, and how to use the credit pool.

 Some folks (including my wife)  think I was the cause of Wyndham coming down on renters by being so open.  Maybe, but I dont think so. There was a method to my madness. I knew that Wyndham had a no commercial activity rule. And I knew I was engaged in commercial activity, and  I couldn't understand why they were letting me and others get away with what we were doing. It was my hope that they would  come up with a set of rules to clarify what was allowed and what wasnt  before I got too big and dependent on the income. Tug was only part of it. I went to annual meetings, and resort hoa meetings. to meet the powers that be and to challenge them to clarify the rules.


----------



## KimmieM

am1 said:


> If one wanted to stick it to Wyndham they would use all the points they could and then default. But that possibly means taking a credit hit.


Not sure how much defaulting on timeshare debt affects ones credit. Its been reported on tug that defaulting has a minimal effect on someones credit score.


----------



## KimmieM

ronparise said:


> well thats 2 hours Ill never get back.  20 pages of speculation and mis information
> Ill only speak to the posts that mention me or
> 
> In 2016 when wyndham froze my accounts and the accounts of many others they didnt do it because we were engaged in commercial activity. (I was of course, but that wasnt the reason they froze our accounts).  They did it because we had more reservations in our accounts than could be justified by the size of our ownerships.
> 
> I met with some folks from the legal dept to go over my accounts and what I had done that made it look suspicious. I expected them to tell me how many points were in question and either make me pay for them or give them back
> Imagine my surprise when Without any explanation as to why, They suggested that I sign all my deeds back to them. (for no money) and in exchange they wouldnt sue me. Without giving it any thought at all ,my response was  “knock yourself out, You can do anything you want, but Im not going to make it easy for you, so sue me". They didn’t, instead, they suggested I counter their offer but before I did that, the Wyndham lawyer called me,  Ultimately we came to an agreement, one line of which said neither party has done anything wrong.
> 
> so is there anything you guys can learn from my experience. I think so
> 
> 1) they never invoked the commercial activity clause. In fact they never said I did anything wrong.
> 
> 2) they could have foreclosed as I had stopped paying maintenance fees when my accounts were frozen
> 
> 3) although they threatened to sue, I don’t think they wanted to
> 
> 4) I asked their lawyer directly, What do you guys want? Do you want do figure out how many points I might owe you, or do you just want me gone? To their credit he answered honestly, they just wanted me gone. So I said, OK let’s make that happen. And we did
> 
> my advice for today’s mega renters is to figure out what Wyndham wants, and then give it to them.
> 
> 
> Early in this thread I was criticized for being open about what I was doing.here on TUG. First of all I didn’t share everything. I didn’t share the important stuff 1) I had 2 Platinum accounts made with two $6000 purchases  from wyndham and 3 more platinum accounts made with only resale I share that knowledge with two other guys that were important to what I was doing (the guy that rented my points and the guy that was able to get my contracts sold) and that’s the second thing I didn’t share 2) I was selling stripped contracts back to Wyndham
> I only shared here on Tug the things I had learned here on tug.  Cancel and rebook, and how to use the credit pool.
> 
> Some folks (including my wife)  think I was the cause of Wyndham coming down on renters by being so open.  Maybe, but I dont think so. There was a method to my madness. I knew that Wyndham had a no commercial activity rule. And I knew I was engaged in commercial activity, and  I couldn't understand why they were letting me and others get away with what we were doing. It was my hope that they would  come up with a set of rules to clarify what was allowed and what wasnt  before I got too big and dependent on the income. Tug was only part of it. I went to annual meetings, and resort hoa meetings. to meet the powers that be and to challenge them to clarify the rules.


Reading past threads there were a few others on Tug that were openly having discussions about the striping points. Some were engaged in renting some were not. None were at Ron's level of playing the system.


----------



## 55plus

KimmieM said:


> Not sure how much defaulting on timeshare debt affects ones credit. Its been reported on tug that defaulting has a minimal effect on someones credit score.


If a credit score/report doesn't matter to you then defaulting shouldn't matter either. If you plan on obtaining a loan in the near future then think twice.


----------



## ronparise

KimmieM said:


> Reading past threads there were a few others on Tug that were openly having discussions about the striping points. Some were engaged in renting some were not. None were at Ron's level of playing the system.



As you suggest, several of us were agressively using the credit pool,    When wyndhams attorney asked me how I could have 90,000,000 points in reservations with ownership of only 10,000,000 points. I told him that I used the credit pool, I had entered the year with ownership of 30,000,000 points, 3 years of points went in the credit pool (90,000,000) and then I sold 2/3 of the contracts I owned     so that explained the 90,000,000 points in reservations but only 10,000,000 owned.   I went on to say, "the ironic thing is ........ I sold those contracts........ to you".   

Thats what upset them. And I never talked on Tug about how I sold stripped contracts back to Wyndham, and I dont think anyone else did either


----------



## ronparise

Megarenter Rap
"Just you wait, we’re gonna figure it out. We’re gonna put you outta business and surely make you pout.”



So what do we know about this?  It seems the Klebba's are back in court.



			‘Megarenter rap’ describes plot to cheat Wyndham timeshare customers, lawsuit contends


----------



## bnoble

ronparise said:


> It seems the Klebba's are back in court.


Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.


----------



## Jan M.

ronparise said:


> It seems the Klebba's are back in court.



Is it related to a previously filled suit, a new class action suit or new lawsuit on their own over Wyndham going after them earlier this year? Are they trying to force Wyndham to define commercial renting? Looking at the Facebook group, eBay  and other places there's still a lot of renting going on. Selective enforcement is discriminatory which could bring them, the Klebbas, a win. Possibly even a big win. They could be trying get Wyndham to buy out them out over that to make them go away. Although with everything Wyndham's doing to curtail renting it might be enough to convince a judge that Wyndham's making enough of an effort to sway the ruling in Wyndham's favor.

Another possibility is a claim for some type of punitive harassment because Wyndham extended the restrictions placed on them to the new owners of all the deeds they sold off to comply with Wyndham telling them they had to bring the size of their remaining account down. Some of those sales dating back to March fell through when those contracts started coming in to be transferred in May. The buyers were told about the restrictions they had to accept before Wyndham would complete the transfers and some backed out. That meant the Klebbas were on the hook for however many more months of maintenance fees until the transfers were completed to other buyers on those failed sales. If they weren't doing the closings themselves that also meant more closing costs. From what I gathered the Klebbas didn't know that Wyndham would be doing this so couldn't have warned those first buyers beforehand.

While I'm not endorsing what the Klebbas were doing I do sympathize with their situation. I'm guessing they were paying something in the neighborhood of $375k in maintenance fees. Unless they were screwing up royally which I seriously doubt they were, they should have been making several hundred k in profit after paying their maintenance fees and renting expenses like guest confirmations, eBay and PayPal fees. That's one heck of an income to lose. For as long as they've been in business to have it all fall apart without seeing it coming has to have been a major shock. The loss of income for most of the year and the continued maintenance fees during the months they were trying to get rid of what they were selling off has to be a nightmare financially.


----------



## KimmieM

55plus said:


> If a credit score/report doesn't matter to you then defaulting shouldn't matter either. If you plan on obtaining a loan in the near future then think twice.


It has been reported on tug timeshare defaults have a minimal impact on credit scores.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

bnoble said:


> Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.


Or maybe the Klebbas  lawyer found a "hobby".
and perhaps one that could give " street cred" in the timeshare lawyer world.


----------



## Eric B

I'm fairly sure there was a quite lengthy thread that started with the article about the Klebbas back in August.


----------



## KimmieM

55plus said:


> If a credit score/report doesn't matter to you then defaulting shouldn't matter either. If you plan on obtaining a loan in the near future then think twice.


I have no debt and surely wouldn't add any timeshare debt.  Knowing resale prices are close to nothing it would be fiscally irresponsible to carry any timeshare debt.


----------



## ronparise

KimmieM said:


> I have no debt and surely wouldn't add any timeshare debt.  Knowing resale prices are close to nothing it would be fiscally irresponsible to carry any timeshare debt.



Its not always the debt incurred at the purchase Unpaid maintenance fees might trigger a foreclosure too. In my experience (with another timeshare; not Wyndham) the account was turned over to a collections agency, They notified the credit bureaus, but only 2 out of 3. The result is that my credit score with one credit bureau is 100 points higher than the other two


----------



## ronparise

Eric B said:


> I'm fairly sure there was a quite lengthy thread that started with the article about the Klebbas back in August.



Sorry for bringing up again.  It was new to me. But I think its relevant to this thread, in that it paints a bright picture of the two different approaches to dealing with wyndham regarding rentals. Some of us chose to negotiate a way out of a place where we weren't wanted, and some chose to fight to stay there


----------



## ronparise

Jan M. said:


> Is it related to a previously filled suit, a new class action suit or new lawsuit on their own over Wyndham going after them earlier this year? Are they trying to force Wyndham to define commercial renting? Looking at the Facebook group, eBay  and other places there's still a lot of renting going on. Selective enforcement is discriminatory which could bring them, the Klebbas, a win. Possibly even a big win. They could be trying get Wyndham to buy out them out over that to make them go away. Although with everything Wyndham's doing to curtail renting it might be enough to convince a judge that Wyndham's making enough of an effort to sway the ruling in Wyndham's favor.
> 
> Another possibility is a claim for some type of punitive harassment because Wyndham extended the restrictions placed on them to the new owners of all the deeds they sold off to comply with Wyndham telling them they had to bring the size of their remaining account down. Some of those sales dating back to March fell through when those contracts started coming in to be transferred in May. The buyers were told about the restrictions they had to accept before Wyndham would complete the transfers and some backed out. That meant the Klebbas were on the hook for however many more months of maintenance fees until the transfers were completed to other buyers on those failed sales. If they weren't doing the closings themselves that also meant more closing costs. From what I gathered the Klebbas didn't know that Wyndham would be doing this so couldn't have warned those first buyers beforehand.
> 
> While I'm not endorsing what the Klebbas were doing I do sympathize with their situation. I'm guessing they were paying something in the neighborhood of $375k in maintenance fees. Unless they were screwing up royally which I seriously doubt they were, they should have been making several hundred k in profit after paying their maintenance fees and renting expenses like guest confirmations, eBay and PayPal fees. That's one heck of an income to lose. For as long as they've been in business to have it all fall apart without seeing it coming has to have been a major shock. The loss of income for most of the year and the continued maintenance fees during the months they were trying to get rid of what they were selling off has to be a nightmare financially.



I dont know the Klebba's but I cant believe they didnt see it coming.


----------



## bnoble

ronparise said:


> I dont know the Klebba's but I cant believe they didnt see it coming.


It is often the case that we can't see what we don't want to---and it sounds like they had a pretty big incentive not to want to see this.


----------



## ronparise

Eric B said:


> I'm fairly sure there was a quite lengthy thread that started with the article about the Klebbas back in August.



Well I lookes up that old thread and I see I posted in it.   Se what happens when you get old.... Every time I want to learn something new, I forget something old


----------



## ronparise

bnoble said:


> It is often the case that we can't see what we don't want to---and it sounds like they had a pretty big incentive not to want to see this.



In 2016, I didnt want to see what was happening either, but...there it was

The fact that the Klebbas got through 2016 and 2017 with their rental business intact makes it even more clear to me that when Wyndham froze accounts in 2016, they werent thinking about renters and renting They cast a net to find accounts with too many points, but in the net with a lot of little fish, they caught some whales. Once they figured out what they had, they took the opportunity to drive us out of the system, but apparently they didnt refine their search criteria to find any others (like the Klebbas)


----------



## KimmieM

ronparise said:


> Sorry for bringing up again.  It was new to me. But I think its relevant to this thread, in that it paints a bright picture of the two different approaches to dealing with wyndham regarding rentals. Some of us chose to negotiate a way out of a place where we weren't wanted, and some chose to fight to stay there


Sunds like you are a lover and not a fighter Mr Parise.


----------



## Ty1on

ronparise said:


> Sorry for bringing up again.  It was new to me. But I think its relevant to this thread, in that it paints a bright picture of the two different approaches to dealing with wyndham regarding rentals. Some of us chose to negotiate a way out of a place where we weren't wanted, and some chose to fight to stay there



I appreciate you bringing this up, and Eric for pointing out the August thread.  Ignoring the slugfests, it's a good read.


----------



## am1

ronparise said:


> Megarenter Rap
> "Just you wait, we’re gonna figure it out. We’re gonna put you outta business and surely make you pout.”
> 
> 
> 
> So what do we know about this?  It seems the Klebba's are back in court.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Megarenter rap’ describes plot to cheat Wyndham timeshare customers, lawsuit contends



Wyndham most have been doing multiple things wrong to only 2.5 million a year by bothering Megarenters.   I mentioned on here that it was going to hit the fan even before the accounts were locked.  I sold my WYN shares a short while after the recovery as I did not think highly of the management of the timeshare division.  Cost me a fortunte as they kept going up.


----------



## Eric B

am1 said:


> Wyndham most have been doing multiple things wrong to only 2.5 million a year by bothering Megarenters.   I mentioned on here that it was going to hit the fan even before the accounts were locked.  I sold my WYN shares a short while after the recovery as I did not think highly of the management of the timeshare division.  Cost me a fortunte as they kept going up.



I've got to agree with your assessment of the management.  All these changes that seem to be targeting the nefarious megarenters could just as well be considered correcting egregious mistakes made in the set up of the system by the management.  Kind of makes me wonder how much better they could have done if they could have figured out how to run things effectively in the first place.


----------



## Jethro37

am1 said:


> Wyndham most have been doing multiple things wrong to only 2.5 million a year by bothering Megarenters.   I mentioned on here that it was going to hit the fan even before the accounts were locked.  I sold my WYN shares a short while after the recovery as I did not think highly of the management of the timeshare division.  Cost me a fortunte as they kept going up.


Since when are fundaments a factor in stock price?


----------



## ronparise

KimmieM said:


> Sunds like you are a lover and not a fighter Mr Parise.



Thats probably the first time Ive been accused of being a lover
Lets just say, if I have a choice I will avoid a fight. 
In a bar fight Im the guy hiding under a table


----------

