# Company Renting Marriott Weeks That Appear to Be II Weeks



## wvacations (Sep 3, 2013)

I would guess I am not allowed to post the name of the company that is doing this as it may be considered advertising. A friend was searching redweeks for a Ko Olina week. She contacted someone renting a week and it appears to be a travel company on the web. They paid the deposit and got a confirmation PDF that was from II then paid the balance. They got a good price but how does a company get away with publicly renting an II week. The site claims to have been in business since 2001 and the site shows lots of Marriott properties. Kind of strange that II has not shut this down, or perhaps II is involved???


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

wvacations said:


> I would guess I am not allowed to post the name of the company that is doing this as it may be considered advertising. A friend was searching redweeks for a Ko Olina week. She contacted someone renting a week and it appears to be a travel company on the web. They paid the deposit and got a confirmation PDF that was from II then paid the balance. They got a good price but how does a company get away with publicly renting an II week. The site claims to have been in business since 2001 and the site shows lots of Marriott properties. Kind of strange that II has not shut this down, or perhaps II is involved???



II is probably not involved.  I doubt they would want to risk their brand and reputation over a rental service.

II doesn't actively search out cheaters.  There's no money in that.  They do use automated algorithms to detect irregularities and they may follow up on reported cheaters -- but there's a cost with enforcement and I think they probably have enough on their plate with what's being reported.  But if your friend got a great week at a great price -- who's going to report it and risk losing their rental?

-ryan


----------



## Sunbum (Sep 3, 2013)

I agree with Ryan, i doubt II is involved. I also think his comment is correct, if you report it, they loose there great deal on the week. 

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. (and not like it)


----------



## Clark (Sep 3, 2013)

I do not believe it would be considered advertising for you to post the name of the company so that others are forewarned. You certainly could not be said to be promoting their services!


----------



## PamMo (Sep 3, 2013)

When there's money to be made and/or saved, some people consider themselves quite clever and conveniently disregard the rules. Apparently, your friend did not question how this company could legitimately rent her an Interval exchange week?


----------



## larryallen (Sep 3, 2013)

I have rented 3 Marriotts in the last year and 2 of them were II weeks. It worked out fine for me. I didn't realize there was a limitation on owners renting those out. Is it never allowed?  The most recent one I rented was from a frequent poster here on Tug.


----------



## Sunbum (Sep 3, 2013)

It is an I.I. rule, but if it is a win/win and no individuals gets hurt (they both get good deals)..........why kick up a stink?


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

larryallen said:


> I have rented 3 Marriotts in the last year and 2 of them were II weeks. It worked out fine for me. I didn't realize there was a limitation on owners renting those out. Is it never allowed?  The most recent one I rented was from a frequent poster here on Tug.



II's rules prohibit renting exchanges for any consideration, including just the cost of a Guest Certificate.  The risks are that the II Member will have his/her account suspended and the rentee may show up at a resort only to be denied at check-in.  Admittedly the risks are minimal but it's only fair that folks who are playing the rental game should be made aware of them.

See this TUG thread re II's rules:  Are you allowed to rent a traded week?

And this most recent one from a TUGger whose II account was suspended for suspicion of rental activity:  II Account Blocked

As for TUG's advertising rule, we're prohibited from posting, "_messages promoting anything for which you may receive some personal gain_."  If it's not your company, you can post its name.  (As moderator I will usually edit out details re specific available rentals, to remove any appearance of an ad.)


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Sep 3, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> II is probably not involved.  I doubt they would want to risk their brand and reputation over a rental service.
> 
> II doesn't actively search out cheaters.  There's no money in that.  They do use automated algorithms to detect irregularities and they may follow up on reported cheaters -- but there's a cost with enforcement and I think they probably have enough on their plate with what's being reported.  But if your friend got a great week at a great price -- who's going to report it and risk losing their rental?
> 
> -ryan



I can assure you that II does actively search out those that are trying to run a business renting II weeks, and they are very active with enforcement. They employee full time personnel who's sole job is to seek out those that aim to run a side business at II's expense. The reason it is very important for them to keep this in check is because the inventory would disappear overnight. With no inventory, members would not renew, and the business model would crumble.

Are they trying to catch individual "cheaters"? Not really. You are right it would not be cost effective. They don't really care about anything except someone trying to run a business. When I spoke to one of these employees on the phone they did not seem to care about family, friends, employees, and acquaintances. Their focus was only on the advertising.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Sep 3, 2013)

wvacations said:


> I would guess I am not allowed to post the name of the company that is doing this as it may be considered advertising. A friend was searching redweeks for a Ko Olina week. She contacted someone renting a week and it appears to be a travel company on the web. They paid the deposit and got a confirmation PDF that was from II then paid the balance. They got a good price but how does a company get away with publicly renting an II week. The site claims to have been in business since 2001 and the site shows lots of Marriott properties. Kind of strange that II has not shut this down, or perhaps II is involved???



Most online rental sites are just a portal between owners and renters. Without knowing the site I cannot answer if this is the case here. I have heard that II does offload some inventory to 3rd party renters, but II controls it. I know with certainty that II would never allow a mass rental of inventory from a single account without their approval and involvement.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

I just remembered something.  Is the company, "CondoDirect.com?"  It's officially connected to II:  Does II have a rental site?


----------



## wvacations (Sep 3, 2013)

The site in question is:

NovaTravelClub.com


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> I can assure you that II does actively search out those that are trying to run a business renting II weeks, and they are very active with enforcement. They employee full time personnel who's sole job is to seek out those that aim to run a side business at II's expense. The reason it is very important for them to keep this in check is because the inventory would disappear overnight. With no inventory, members would not renew, and the business model would crumble.
> 
> Are they trying to catch individual "cheaters"? Not really. You are right it would not be cost effective. They don't really care about anything except someone trying to run a business. When I spoke to one of these employees on the phone they did not seem to care about family, friends, employees, and acquaintances. Their focus was only on the advertising.



I don't think what we are saying is all that different, but you speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the department.  I got my information from a friend who knew a management source who worked at II -- yet the information I have does not rise to the level of "assurance".  How can you provide such a level of assurance when you received the information from someone over the phone?

According to the friend of a friend, the department that ran the investigations was pretty busy -- they had more information than they knew what to do with.  Hence why they focused on developing systematic controls that could detect unusual behavior (i.e. catching high volume accounts, etc.) to increase human productivity.  That plus following up with reports/tips from other sources kept the department busy.  What I was told was that they do not actively scour the web for listings -- they were using their systematic controls and reported information to catch the people that really matter.  1 or 2 rentals is not going to put you on that list.

Of course the individual had left the company so I'm not sure how dated it was, and frankly, I don't do background checks so who's to say he was just blowing smoke?  I take all information I get secondhand with a grain of salt -- of course II is going to say they actively go after cheaters as they want the rule enforced.  That being said, there's no money in going after the tiny renters and I stumble across listings from time to time on eBay that appear to be II rentals and I'm not even trying to look for them.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> I don't think what we are saying is all that different, but you speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the department.  I got my information from a friend who knew a management source who worked at II -- yet the information I have does not rise to the level of "assurance".  *How can you provide such a level of assurance when you received the information from someone over the phone?*
> 
> According to the friend of a friend, the department that ran the investigations was pretty busy -- they had more information than they knew what to do with.  Hence why they focused on developing systematic controls that could detect unusual behavior (i.e. catching high volume accounts, etc.) to increase human productivity.  That plus following up with reports/tips from other sources kept the department busy.  What I was told was that they do not actively scour the web for listings -- they were using their systematic controls and reported information to catch the people that really matter.  1 or 2 rentals is not going to put you on that list.
> 
> ...



About what's bolded - Saintsfanfl is the TUGger whose II account was temporarily suspended recently while II investigated possible rental activity.  See the II Account Suspended thread that was previously mentioned.


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> About what's bolded - Saintsfanfl is the TUGger whose II account was temporarily suspended recently while II investigated possible rental activity.  See the II Account Suspended thread that was previously mentioned.



I know - I've read the thread.  Just because a person over the phone says it is so, doesn't mean it is so.  I think we all need to have some healthy skepticism here with information provided by II.  And I don't think my original post was that far off from what Saintsfan was saying.

Their goal is to ensure that the rule is enforced.  So of course they are going to say they are actively enforcing it. My point was that I had heard that they are not actively sweeping eBay and other sources for small cheaters.  They use analytics and other data to efficiently use their resources and catch the big fish.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> I know - I've read the thread.  Just because a person over the phone says it is so, doesn't mean it is so.  I think we all need to have some healthy skepticism here with information provided by II.  And I don't think my original post was that far off from what Saintsfan was saying.
> 
> Their goal is to ensure that the rule is enforced.  So of course they are actively enforcing it. My point was that I had heard that they are not actively sweeping eBay and other sources for small cheaters.  They use analytics and other data to efficiently use their resources and catch the big fish.
> 
> -ryan



I agree that II doesn't have enough employees to actively sweep the internet for every single rental that's in violation of their rules.  But there were only 14 confirmed II exchanges in the account when Saintsfanfl was contacted by II.  I don't consider that to be a "big fish" account.  If they found him they can find anyone, no matter what they're looking for.

The point is, there are risks if the rules are being broken.  IMO anybody who chooses to engage in rentals of II exchanges should at least be aware of the risks, and what better place than TUG to get the word out?


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree that II doesn't have enough employees to actively sweep the internet for every single rental that's in violation of their rules.  But there were only 14 confirmed II exchanges in the account when Saintsfanfl was contacted by II.  I don't consider that to be a "big fish" account.  If they found him they can find anyone, no matter what they're looking for.
> 
> The point is, there are risks if the rules are being broken.  IMO anybody who chooses to engage in rentals of II exchanges should at least be aware of the risks, and what better place than TUG to get the word out?



Your idea of big fish differs from mine.  I don't know what their systems are designed to detect, but my account has 4 confirmed exchanges in it.  I think the average account has far fewer than 14 confirmed exchanges at any given time.  Again, I have no evidence to back that up, but if they are making significant revenue off of memberships as was inferred in saintsfan's post, the average account has far fewer than 14 confirmed exchanges.  What is that magic threshold?  Who knows.  My point was that I doubt it was 1 or 2.

I agree with your last paragraph to some degree.  I just think it needs to be said that the risks are quite small if you are doing 1 or 2 rentals -- that is my opinion by what I see in the marketplace, what I have rented personally from others and the conversation I had with the friend of a friend.  The risks continue to increase as you do more confirmed exchanges, as I think we agree they use some systematic filtering to detect irregularities.

-ryan


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

Let me be clear.  I'm not advocating breaking the rules.  I wouldn't risk it with regard to my account.

That being said, I have no issue with others renting a week or two that they can't use, and I have no issue renting a II week from someone else.  It is up to II to enforce those rules, not mine.  We are not breaking laws here.

-ryan


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Sep 3, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> I don't think what we are saying is all that different, but you speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the department.  I got my information from a friend who knew a management source who worked at II -- yet the information I have does not rise to the level of "assurance".  How can you provide such a level of assurance when you received the information from someone over the phone?
> 
> According to the friend of a friend, the department that ran the investigations was pretty busy -- they had more information than they knew what to do with.  Hence why they focused on developing systematic controls that could detect unusual behavior (i.e. catching high volume accounts, etc.) to increase human productivity.  That plus following up with reports/tips from other sources kept the department busy.  What I was told was that they do not actively scour the web for listings -- they were using their systematic controls and reported information to catch the people that really matter.  1 or 2 rentals is not going to put you on that list.
> 
> ...



We are basically saying the same thing. Full time employees should be busy and what really matters to II are the "open for business" renters. The individual's (QA/Loss Prevention Specialist) name is Mark. I have spoken to him once and emailed back and forth a couple of times. Considering I have never once rented an exchange is assurance to me that they are performing reasonable due-diligence to stop exchange rentals on a mass scale. I agree that they are not scouring every ad. They most likely flagged my account because I have more than 12 annual transactions and then my real name is the contact name for my Redweek account.

If they really wanted to control exchange rentals they would just restrict the number of guest certificates allowed. That alone is clear evidence to me that they just don't want a side business sucking up their inventory. I can get top resort XYZ's and AC's for less than $200 per week. Even off season that is a very cheap price.

I still don't think it is "safe" to rent a few exchanges here and there. They could run a tighter ship at any point in time. Friends, family and maybe even a Tugger acquaintance at break-even a couple times a year, but beyond that it is not worth it. I suspect that as the travel market continues to improve they may guard their excess inventory a little closer.


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> If they really wanted to control exchange rentals they would just restrict the number of guest certificates allowed. That alone is clear evidence to me that they just don't want a side business sucking up their inventory. I can get top resort XYZ's and AC's for less than $200 per week. Even off season that is a very cheap price.
> 
> I still don't think it is "safe" to rent a few exchanges here and there. They could run a tighter ship at any point in time. Friends, family and maybe even a Tugger acquaintance at break-even a couple times a year, but beyond that it is not worth it. I suspect that as the travel market continues to improve they may guard their excess inventory a little closer.



Honestly, I would think an easy place to catch people would be to check the TUG Rentals Offered and Distressed boards, and search for Guest Certificate Required.  I think they deliberately choose to turn a blind eye to it because (1) it is small potatoes, and (2) doing so may alienate a good part of their customer base.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

I like rules.  I like companies and customers to follow the rules.  Some TUGgers are a little bit Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde when it comes to rules, because they'll break (or at least bend) any when it suits their purpose, but they'll rant and rave to the high heavens if any of the timeshare-related companies try to do it.

I would hate to be the rentee who shows up at a check-in desk only to learn that I'm not able to stay because the person from whom I rented had his/her account suspended by II.  Or, the rentee who is left high and dry when my renter notifies me after confirming a rental that I have to find something else because the front desk is not going to let me check in.  At the very least, I think renters have an obligation to tell rentees right up front that there is a minimal risk involved with renting II exchanges.  Knowing that doesn't happen, it's good IMO that TUG is used to get the word out.

If ever I'm in the market for timeshare rentals, I'm going to ask folks to let me know in PM's the names of TUGgers who are known to rent exchanges in violation of the rules, so that I'll know up front not to do business with them.  Not because I don't like them for what they're doing, but because I'm aware of the risks and don't want to assume them.  Hopefully folks in the know will be helpful enough then to respond to that request.


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> If ever I'm in the market for timeshare rentals, I'm going to ask folks to let me know in PM's the names of TUGgers who are known to rent exchanges in violation of the rules, so that I'll know up front not to do business with them.  Not because I don't like them for what they're doing, but because I'm aware of the risks and don't want to assume them.  Hopefully folks in the know will be helpful enough then to respond to that request.



That is a high road to take.

I think there is a significant percentage of II users that break this particular rule.  Even renting to your close relative is in violation of the rule.  How many people have rented a week for a sister, brother, etc?  Technically, against the rule but it happens.

To me, it makes no difference if the money exchanged is to a related party or a stranger -- the rule is still being broken.  I know a number of people who rent places for their relatives and are reimbursed for their mfs and trade fees.

That is why I take that stance that I have on the rule.

-ryan


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 3, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> That is a high road to take.
> 
> I think there is a significant percentage of II users that break this particular rule.  Even renting to your close relative is in violation of the rule.  How many people have rented a week for a sister, brother, etc?  Technically, against the rule but it happens.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to say what others should or shouldn't do.  "Taking the high road" can have a negative connotation that I don't mean to infer (and I'm not saying you're inferring it.)  It really does come down to, I'm not a risk-taker.  I don't want to be put in a position where I'm assuming risks that I don't want to assume, and I wouldn't put my family or friends in that position either.  As long as we all know the position might exist, I'm happy.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Sep 3, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I like rules.  I like companies and customers to follow the rules.  Some TUGgers are a little bit Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde when it comes to rules, because they'll break (or at least bend) any when it suits their purpose, but they'll rant and rave to the high heavens if any of the timeshare-related companies try to do it.
> 
> I would hate to be the rentee who shows up at a check-in desk only to learn that I'm not able to stay because the person from whom I rented had his/her account suspended by II.  Or, the rentee who is left high and dry when my renter notifies me after confirming a rental that I have to find something else because the front desk is not going to let me check in.  At the very least, I think renters have an obligation to tell rentees right up front that there is a minimal risk involved with renting II exchanges.  Knowing that doesn't happen, it's good IMO that TUG is used to get the word out.
> 
> If ever I'm in the market for timeshare rentals, I'm going to ask folks to let me know in PM's the names of TUGgers who are known to rent exchanges in violation of the rules, so that I'll know up front not to do business with them.  Not because I don't like them for what they're doing, but because I'm aware of the risks and don't want to assume them.  Hopefully folks in the know will be helpful enough then to respond to that request.





sjsharkie said:


> That is a high road to take.
> 
> I think there is a significant percentage of II users that break this particular rule.  Even renting to your close relative is in violation of the rule.  How many people have rented a week for a sister, brother, etc?  Technically, against the rule but it happens.
> 
> ...



Perhaps my opinion but I actually do not believe the rule is being broken here with friends and family. The reason I say this is because II openly allows you to enter someone else's credit card into the payment screen on top of openly allowing entering the same name for the guest certificate. There is big difference between strictly worded T&C legal language that is designed to prevent loophole protection of abusers and the actual "rules". The Loss Prevention person that put a hold on my online access knew that my family member paid for a getaway on my account. It is a built in function of their system.

If they choose to change it later then I am sure they will let people know "unofficially". For now it seems there is no limit to the number of getaways that can be paid using other people's credit cards.

Paying for it directly does remove the exchange of consideration between the parties since it now is technically paid for by the family member. But, does it really matter? Trying to profit is a bending of the rules for sure but not a pass through between related parties.


----------



## jont (Sep 3, 2013)

I, for one, would never take the risk of renting an II week to anyone nor would I rent one for my personal use. I just wouldn't want to take that chance. just sayin!


----------



## PamMo (Sep 3, 2013)

jont said:


> I, for one, would never take the risk of renting an II week to anyone nor would I rent one for my personal use. I just wouldn't want to take that chance. just sayin!



+1

As for Sue "taking the high road"? I don't think so. Let me add that it pi*#es me off to see great sightings snapped up, only to see them later listed for rent with "Guest Certificate required" in a rental ad. :annoyed: Interval and RCI members should have reasonable expectations that weeks will be available for _*personal use*_. I don't want to be competing for weeks with even the occasional renter who gets a good week, with the idea that they'll always be able to rent the week if they can't use it.


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Perhaps my opinion but I actually do not believe the rule is being broken here with friends and family. The reason I say this is because II openly allows you to enter someone else's credit card into the payment screen on top of openly allowing entering the same name for the guest certificate. There is big difference between strictly worded T&C legal language that is designed to prevent loophole protection of abusers and the actual "rules". The Loss Prevention person that put a hold on my online access knew that my family member paid for a getaway on my account. It is a built in function of their system.
> 
> If they choose to change it later then I am sure they will let people know "unofficially". For now it seems there is no limit to the number of getaways that can be paid using other people's credit cards.
> 
> Paying for it directly does remove the exchange of consideration between the parties since it now is technically paid for by the family member. But, does it really matter? Trying to profit is a bending of the rules for sure but not a pass through between related parties.



Your example of Getaways is different than what I was talking about.  I can see skirting around the rule in that event because someone is directly paying for the Getaway with a credit card.  No money changes hands, and the only consideration given for the rental of the week is the payment of the Getaway amount (i.e. no exchange) which was received from (at least in your example) the occupant of the Getaway reservation.

I was thinking more of an exchange where the relative is reimbursing the owner for the week.  The rule is so strict, it doesn't state that any third party (relative or otherwise) is exempt.

To me, this is another example of bending the rule: "it's OK because I'm your relative and you're not making any money off of it".  So, it then should be OK if I rent my week to a stranger (i.e. distressed) and I don't make any money off of it?  When people say, "well that's not the spirit of the rule", my opinion is that they are still bending it for their benefit.

As you pointed out, the legal T&Cs do not allow any leeway.  It is entirely up to II on whether or not they wish to penalize these rule infractions on a case by case basis.

-ryan

From II rule #13:



> "Members are expressly prohibited from exchanging or renting the Host Accommodations, including, but not limited to offering the Host Accommodations for sale or rent to third parties through the use of a Guest Certificate or otherwise."


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

PamMo said:


> +1
> 
> As for Sue "taking the high road"? I don't think so. Let me add that it pi*#es me off to see great sightings snapped up, only to see them later listed for rent with "Guest Certificate required" in a rental ad. :annoyed: Interval and RCI members should have reasonable expectations that weeks will be available for _*personal use*_. I don't want to be competing for weeks with even the occasional renter who gets a good week, with the idea that they'll always be able to rent the week if they can't use it.



I agree with you -- I don't like great sightings snapped up for rental either.  But I don't like them snapped up for relatives that are paying the owner back as well -- maybe I'll feel differently once I use this rule bending to my benefit.

To me, the rule should be applied uniformly or the rule should be changed.  One should not be able to justify it that it is going to a relative at cost of mf and exchange fee either.  It still is bending the rules.

-ryan


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not trying to say what others should or shouldn't do.  "Taking the high road" can have a negative connotation that I don't mean to infer (and I'm not saying you're inferring it.)  It really does come down to, I'm not a risk-taker.  I don't want to be put in a position where I'm assuming risks that I don't want to assume, and I wouldn't put my family or friends in that position either.  As long as we all know the position might exist, I'm happy.



No negative connotation intended.

I was just trying to state that you were doing right by your principles, and that it might be easier said than done given the strict writing of the rule.  Sorry, if you thought that I was chastising you for it -- no rebuke intended.

Just putting my 2 cents in -- and that's probably all it's worth.
-ryan


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Sep 3, 2013)

I am aware of the rules per the T&C, but my point is that the reality of how II chooses to run it's business is completely different. I have never rented an exchange but the Loss Prevention person made it very clear that they only care about advertisements. He was very specific about it. They are trying to keep "theft" in check and not micro-manage the specific use of the members. Part of it is customer service and another part practicality. It is still not safe to sell an exchange to anyone but that in itself is not their focus.



sjsharkie said:


> Your example of Getaways is different than what I was talking about.  I can see skirting around the rule in that event because someone is directly paying for the Getaway with a credit card.  No money changes hands, and the only consideration given for the rental of the week is the payment of the Getaway amount (i.e. no exchange) which was received from (at least in your example) the occupant of the Getaway reservation.
> 
> I was thinking more of an exchange where the relative is reimbursing the owner for the week.  The rule is so strict, it doesn't state that any third party (relative or otherwise) is exempt.
> 
> ...


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 3, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> I am aware of the rules per the T&C, but my point is that the reality of how II chooses to run it's business is completely different. I have never rented an exchange but the Loss Prevention person made it very clear that they only care about advertisements. He was very specific about it. They are trying to keep "theft" in check and not micro-manage the specific use of the members. Part of it is customer service and another part practicality. It is still not safe to sell an exchange to anyone but that in itself is not their focus.



We are in agreement as to it not being II's focus.

-ryan


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sunbum said:


> It is an I.I. rule, but if it is a win/win and no individuals gets hurt (they both get good deals)..........why kick up a stink?



I am not sure that no one gets hurt. It is quite possible that there are people out there with requests or searching for the inventory that is being rented. That inventory is unavailable to them by someone making a profit.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 3, 2013)

wvacations said:


> The site in question is:
> 
> NovaTravelClub.com



They seem rather organized and have a snazzy looking website. It is quite possible that they have been authorized by II to rent inventory.

They seem to be using a page from IIs book by advertising that they have access to over 2,500 resorts worldwide. Just about the same number that II advertises that it has access to.


----------



## sjsharkie (Sep 4, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> They seem rather organized and have a snazzy looking website. It is quite possible that they have been authorized by II to rent inventory.
> 
> They seem to be using a page from IIs book by advertising that they have access to over 2,500 resorts worldwide. Just about the same number that II advertises that it has access to.



Unlikely it is part of Interval Leisure Group or any subsidiaries.  Don't know about II authorization -- but it seems more like a small setup.  Admin contact routes to a gmail email address.

-ryan

Website domain registered to:

Registration Service Provided By: Namecheap.com
Contact: support@namecheap.com
Visit: http://namecheap.com
Registered through: eNom, Inc.

Domain name: NOVATRAVELCLUB.COM

Registrant Contact:
   -
   Neil Anderson ()

   Fax: 
   PO Box 503
   San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
   US

Administrative Contact:
   -
   Neil Anderson (ocsonoma@gmail.com)
   +1.9493347397
   Fax: +1.5555555555
   PO Box 503
   San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
   US

Technical Contact:
   -
   Neil Anderson (ocsonoma@gmail.com)
   +1.9493347397
   Fax: +1.5555555555
   PO Box 503
   San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
   US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
   NS1.WIX.COM
   NS2.WIX.COM

Creation date: 14 Oct 2011 18:59:00
Expiration date: 14 Oct 2013 10:59:00


----------



## camachinist (Sep 4, 2013)

Yeah, I did some network/phone sleuthing yesterday but was unsure if within guidelines to post the results. Personally, based upon what I gathered, I'd be a bit skeptical. 

I'm routinely contacted by vacation brokers to re-rent my Marriott intervals but they balk at my tenant signature requirement. It's possible this outfit is re-renting both owned and exchanged intervals, essentially being the middle-man for discrete account holders renting their own exchanges. 

OP, presuming the end user was the named party on the guest certificate, it is interesting that they'd receive the guest certificate in their name prior to paying for the vacation in full. As a corollary, I never assign a reservation with Marriott to a tenant until they've paid for it in full. IMO, doing so is an open invitation to abuse and is bad business. Something else is going on here. It would be interesting to see, if surrendering parties are still identifiable (it's been awhile since I've received a II confirmation), who the surrendering party was/is. 

I think your concerns are valid and justifiable.


----------



## jont (Sep 4, 2013)

camachinist said:


> Yeah, I did some network/phone sleuthing yesterday but was unsure if within guidelines to post the results. Personally, based upon what I gathered, I'd be a bit skeptical.
> 
> I'm routinely contacted by vacation brokers to re-rent my Marriott intervals but they balk at my tenant signature requirement. It's possible this outfit is re-renting both owned and exchanged intervals, essentially being the middle-man for discrete account holders renting their own exchanges.
> 
> ...



Hi Patrick
It's interesting you don't put the renters name on the reservation till they pay in full. I'm not sure what abuse you are referring to. I usually add their name to the reservation once they pay their deposit to make a good faith gesture to them. If they fail to pay the remaining balance within the specified time period I have the ability to pull their name off the reservation. Im interested in hearing your take on this.
John


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 4, 2013)

I know of someone whose account was shut down, and his exchanges cancelled.  He was told he could use his account for the future, because he had a lot of deposits, but II will not allow him to add guest certificates.  

I believe it was a TUG member who turned him in (not me) because he had a week on eBay.  

So if you report something, II will act.  They will also watch ads on various sites, according to Pamela at Starwood, because one Starwood owner got caught renting an exchange, the very day she listed the week for rent.  She was warning me because I deposited several weeks into II at once.


----------



## camachinist (Sep 4, 2013)

> Im interested in hearing your take on this.


One example: Once they have control of the reservation with Owner Services, they can, without notice, sublet the interval and profit from that subletting, playing the 'float' and having use of that money until their final payment is due. An extreme example would be skipping out of the final payment, my rescinding the contract and removing their name from the reservation, and the subleting party being left high and dry, with the middle man taking the difference between the deposit paid and rent received, of course subject to operation of law if I sue for damages. 

I prefer to keep things simple and clean. I run a business in a pretty brutal industry (general machine work) and have seen all forms and sorts of abuse and 'taking advantage', hence have developed a take no prisoners style and it's worked very well with my tenants, both in my rental houses as well as timeshares. I go with what works. YMMV, of course.


----------



## jont (Sep 4, 2013)

Thanks Patrick
I guess i have been lucky so far. Your example is certianly "food for thought" for my future rentals.

john


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Sep 4, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> II is probably not involved.  I doubt they would want to risk their brand and reputation over a rental service.
> 
> II doesn't actively search out cheaters.  There's no money in that.  They do use automated algorithms to detect irregularities and they may follow up on reported cheaters -- but there's a cost with enforcement and I think they probably have enough on their plate with what's being reported.  But if your friend got a great week at a great price -- who's going to report it and risk losing their rental?
> 
> -ryan



They do watch out for these. Please contact Mark Campos of II for details of he website and rental. They are interested in enforcement. I know because I reported and got a call from II.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 4, 2013)

camachinist said:


> One example: Once they have control of the reservation with Owner Services, they can, without notice, sublet the interval and profit from that subletting, playing the 'float' and having use of that money until their final payment is due. An extreme example would be skipping out of the final payment, my rescinding the contract and removing their name from the reservation, and the subleting party being left high and dry, with the middle man taking the difference between the deposit paid and rent received, of course subject to operation of law if I sue for damages.
> 
> I prefer to keep things simple and clean. I run a business in a pretty brutal industry (general machine work) and have seen all forms and sorts of abuse and 'taking advantage', hence have developed a take no prisoners style and it's worked very well with my tenants, both in my rental houses as well as timeshares. I go with what works. YMMV, of course.



Are you saying that if you reserve an Owner's Week and then put a rentee's name on it as a Guest, Owner Services will allow the rentee/Guest to make further changes to the reservation (e.g. changing the Guest name to a sub-letter?)  I don't think they do - I think the Owner retains ultimate control of the reservation no matter whose name is on it as a Guest.


----------



## camachinist (Sep 4, 2013)

Last year, I had a tenant who wished to add a family member's name (different surname) to the reservation so that person could check-in prior to them arriving. This was a known and trusted prior tenant and I simply advised them to call in and make the change. They did and the rental went smoothly. 

Also, I've noted that reservations, once transferred, can appear in the name of the tenant and have on more than one occasion when I've looked at my Marriott account. Hence, a tenant in control of the reservation and possessing a scan of it in their name could conceivably pass it off as their own and re-rent it convincingly. They can, of course, attempt to do that at any time, even if in breach of our contract, but I'm not going to give them that option until I've been paid in full, hence they will never, and have never, received sufficient information to gain control of the reservation, or have their name added to it, until I've been paid in full. It's business.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 4, 2013)

The problem I have is that whenever I call to make a reservation, or put a guest name on a reservation, or do anything with my account or reservation; the agent asked my name, and phone number and may have me give my address and/or email account on file "for verification" purposes but anyone who I rent to generally has that information too and could just say they were me.  Maybe I need to have my husbands cell phone on file for verification because that is not a number I give out to anyone renting.  This isn't specific to Marriott.  It is also Starwood and Bluegreen.  I have two that make me fax or scan my signature before releasing or changing a guest cert/check in but most just do it over the phone.  Even so if I've signed a rental agreement then the renter has my signature and could just cut and paste it.  If it is done late enough it might be too late even if I get email confirmation of the change in a fairly timely manner.  Nothing like that has ever happened to me, knock on wood, but I worry that it could.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 4, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I would hate to be the rentee who shows up at a check-in desk only to learn that I'm not able to stay because the person from whom I rented had his/her account suspended by II.  Or, the rentee who is left high and dry when my renter notifies me after confirming a rental that I have to find something else because the front desk is not going to let me check in.  At the very least, I think renters have an obligation to tell rentees right up front that there is a minimal risk involved with renting II exchanges.  Knowing that doesn't happen, it's good IMO that TUG is used to get the word out.



I think the chances of this are nil and perhaps always over-hyped here on TUG. If a rentee has a guest certificate in their name I would expect it to be the responsibility of II to notify the rentee that the confirmation being cancelled. Of course I don't know if II really had the responsibility to do this or not, but I sure hope they would since they do have the rentee's contact information on the guest certificate.

I would think it would be very rare if it happens at all that a rentee shows up and is told at checkin by the resort that the reservation has been cancelled.

Of course that doesn't mean that the reservation wouldn't be cancelled, that is a very likely possibility, just don't think the rentee would show up and be high and dry. They may be high and dry, but find out earlier and perhaps able to make different plans.


----------

