# Renting an exchange week



## Lisa G (Nov 6, 2006)

I have made an offer to rent a week from someone who got the week as an exchange from one of the major exchange companies. 

I am planning to use the week, but my mother is ill (it's a long-term situation), and if I have to cancel, will I have any options to use the week later? 

Second question, is there any possibility of changing to another resort within the family of resorts once I have the guest certificate?

Third and last question (for now), any special things I need to do when obtaining a week from someone whom I don't know?

Thanks for any help.

Lisa G


----------



## gmarine (Nov 6, 2006)

The first thing you should know is that the renting of exchanges is prohibited by most exchange companies. If they somehow find out about the rental, you risk arriving to find that your reservation was cancelled. A guest certificate is only to be used to give the week away to someone. Using for a rental is prohibited and listed on the GC and in the exchange company's Terms and Conditions.

If you still choose to rent, I wouldnt, especially from someone you dont know, and you have to cancel, you will get nothing in return. The member would get a replacement week depending on when you cancel but you would have to make advance arrangements on what happens if you cancel.

There is no chance of making any change to another resort once you have the GC unless the exchange company member cancels the exchange, pays another exchange fee and the other resort is available.

Renting an exchange from someone you dont know is very risky. I wouldnt do it.


----------



## littlestar (Nov 6, 2006)

I'd stay away from this situation. If this exchange company member gets caught renting an exchange week, they risk having the exchange company lock their account and getting in a lot of trouble. 

Don't do it - it's just not worth the hassle.


----------



## Spence (Nov 6, 2006)

All of the above, but hey, $450 is a great price, heck there's $140ish in exch fees, $40ish in GC fees, a prorated portion of annual exchange company fee and there's not much left for the MF on the deposit...


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanks for the replies. I figured both major exchange companies had the same kinds of regulations, but it seems like I'm always seeing these kinds of rentals on TUG.

I think the person is a TUGger.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 6, 2006)

The cost is likely under $200 total, including almost everythingeverything.  Not bad for a week at a resort that would cost $2,000 to rent for a week.  But it is illegal and immoral to rent out weeks, even if you discover you cannot use the week.  Give it back to the exchange company instead of losing exchange privileges forever.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 6, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> But it is illegal and immoral to rent out weeks, even if you discover you cannot use the week.



Oh, you guys are making it tough! I understand that it is against the exchange company's rules, but that doesn't make it illegal or necessarily immoral. Could you elaborate?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 6, 2006)

Well, if a person decided to make a little cash on the side with a great trader, they could do it.  I have several units that have maintenance fees of $416-$440 per year that I can trade into Hawaii pretty easily.  What would keep me from using those weeks (five of them) and pulling these exchanges that everyone wants, like Shearwater (I own Shearwater and can exchange my other weeks into the resort without penalty) or Kona Hawaiian Village, to name a few, and then renting them out as if I owned those weeks?  I don't think it is a moral thing to do because I would be taking exchanges away from others who are watching and waiting for them.  Lots of people do it and get by with it, but I would not because there is no reason for me to risk my trading ability for my own vacations, which are very special to us.  

Also, I have two different weeks that pull Disney weeks.  I love pulling Disney resorts and am currently hoping for one particular week, so I watch all the time and see the great stuff, like two-bedrooms and even saw a Grande Villa twice.  I know it drives Disney owners crazy when they see Disney weeks for rent on ebay for $1,400 for a two bedroom when their maintenance fees are about that much.  It makes owners mad and exchangers mad, so if you are making a lot of people angry, it is immoral.  

You really can lose your membership to II or RCI by renting out exchanges.  What amazes me is that companies like My Resort Network and Redweek do not have to put such a disclaimer when you list a week with them.  Somewhere they should say, "This week must not be an exchange that you received from RCI, II or any other exchange company."  But they make money, too, when you list, so why would they do that?


----------



## Spence (Nov 6, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> if you are making a lot of people angry, it is immoral.


That's a heckuva soap box you're standing on.  I can't find your definition of immoral anywhere.  RCI and II can skim the cream of the deposits and rent them to joe blow,  what makes it illegal or immoral? Is there a state in the union that has a law against it?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 6, 2006)

Spence, we agree when we give our weeks to RCI and II that they can do whatever they wish with them, unfortunately.

If all exchangers could grab the best available and rent them out, we would all be vying for the great weeks for rentals and none of us would be happy.  It is against RCI and II rules to rent out exchanges.  I think it is wrong to profit financially from someone else's investment.  That is IMHO. :annoyed:


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 6, 2006)

Cindy, I'm sorry if my post made you feel as if you were hitting your head against the wall, but the reasoning behind your assertion that renting an exchange company week is illegal and immoral was not clear. You have made yourself a bit clearer, but the idea that something is immoral if it makes lots of people angry is weak and can be countered with many examples. 

I don't think the person renting this particular week is doing so in order to profit. He just wasn't able to use the week, and he's trying to recoup some of his expense, no doubt. I found the week through a TUG ad by the way.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 6, 2006)

Just because a TUGger was renting a week does not mean that it is okay.  Where do you draw the line?  It is not ethical to take good exchanges and rent them, which was my point.  It would not be worth any amount of money I could get for an exchange to have my exchange privileges taken away.

The rules for renting exchanges are posted everywhere.  Maybe illegal isn't the correct word, but it is definitely against RCI and II rules.  Just because the exchange companies rent out weeks does not make it okay for everyone to do the same.  No matter what Spence says, even though I have a lot of respect for him, and he knows I respect him and he knows how I feel about renting exchanges because we have gone around on this one before.   

No, it is just my opinion that renting the exchanges is immoral but I think some would agree with me.  We have to contend with RCI renting out the prime weeks, which is direct competition for my rentals, then we have exchangers doing the same.  Two wrongs don't make a right, but RCI would say they are not wrong to rent exchanges, they are now theirs.


----------



## Spence (Nov 6, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> It is not ethical to take good exchanges and rent them, which was my point.
> 
> Maybe illegal isn't the correct word, but it is definitely against RCI and II rules.
> 
> No matter what Spence says, even though I have a lot of respect for him, and he knows I respect him and he knows how I feel about renting exchanges because we have gone around on this one before.


You'll note that Spence didn't say it was OK to rent exchanges, I have issue with your illegal and immoral lines of reason.  Not ethical is a much better tact.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 6, 2006)

True.  My words were strong.  You are the voice of reason, as always.  Just a few days ago, Saturday actually, at the HOA meeting, a few people mentioned that I am a little crazy emotional and use stronger words than necessary.  Point well taken, Spence, my friend.   

Sorry about the strong words.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 7, 2006)

In general, I agree that a person with an II or RCI membership who grabs great weeks and rents them out is acting wrongly. However, as I said above, my sense is that the person with the exchange had a change of plans and can't use the week. In this case, while he may be acting against a rule, I don't think he is acting unethically or immorally.


----------



## frenchieinme (Nov 7, 2006)

Lisa G said:
			
		

> Oh, you guys are making it tough! *I understand that it is against the exchange company's rules,* Could you elaborate?



 No elaboration should be needed!!!  *Plain and simple, it is against the rules.*  Sorry   That would have been a good deal if allowed, uh?

frenchieinme


----------



## gmarine (Nov 7, 2006)

I think the consensus is that it isnt a good idea to rent an exchange from someone you dont know.


----------



## arlene22 (Nov 7, 2006)

I agree it is risky. Especially when you and the renter (whose full name is on the ad) have both posted the information in a very public place, making it easy for the exchange company to see who is violating the rules.


----------



## Dave M (Nov 7, 2006)

Good point, Arlene.

Based on your comment and a request made by the OP, I have done some extensive editing in this thread to eliminate the names of the resort and the exchange company and other related details. I have tried to be careful to avoid making any changes which would change the intent of any posts herein.

By my making such changes, the person who has advertised the week in question should not be in jeopardy merely because of this thread.


----------



## geekette (Nov 7, 2006)

Any Joe can show up here, pay their fee and be "A TUGGER".  That is not instant credibility.  

However, I wouldn't have any problem renting from "known regulars" here.  Conversely, I am not a member of Tug but I am a regular and have done business with many people here.  

It's your business who you do business with, just be careful about allocating instant honesty to people on the internet.

On rentals, go with your conscience and with your eyes open.  Exchange companies can and have cancelled rental arrangements made by members.

Please note, I did not see this thread before the edits and don't know who else is involved.


----------



## JLB (Nov 7, 2006)

When it comes to renting exchanges or aelling Spacebanked weeks, the explanation is simple, RCI does what they don't allow members to do.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 7, 2006)

Dave M, thanks for making the changes.


----------



## cindi (Nov 7, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> Good point, Arlene.
> 
> Based on your comment and a request made by the OP, I have done some extensive editing in this thread to eliminate the names of the resort and the exchange company and other related details. I have tried to be careful to avoid making any changes which would change the intent of any posts herein.
> 
> By my making such changes, the person who has advertised the week in question should not be in jeopardy merely because of this thread.



Dave,

I am perhaps playing devils advocate here, but why are you changing information from the original posts? 

The person who placed the ad for the rental is breaking the rules. That is a fact. He/she has already placed the ad in a public place. That is another fact. 

This is what they have made the choice to do. Whether the risk is acceptable is for them to decide. And they must also deal with the consequences if they are found out. 

Is this not correct?


----------



## Dave M (Nov 7, 2006)

I did not in any way change the meaning of any posts. I merely deleted some identifying information that was unnecessary for this discussion and that could have put the advertiser, who broke no TUG rules related to placing the ad, in a very difficult position.

Further, the OP had made a behind-the-scenes request of the administrators. I did the best I could to accommodate her request and still leave the intent of every post in this thread intact.


----------



## Carl D (Nov 8, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> I merely deleted some identifying information that was unnecessary for this discussion and that could have put the advertiser, who broke no TUG rules related to placing the ad, in a very difficult position.


Not really my place to comment, but I have been following this thread.
I would start by saying that Dave has always been an even handed, level headed admin for this forum.

That said, I was astounded to see an administrator/moderator edit third party posts for the sole reason of protecting someone who is breaking the rules.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Dave M (Nov 8, 2006)

Okay, I'll try one more time and then let the critics have at me.

The OP originally posted some details that, upon reflection, she wished she hadn't. She could edit those details out of her post, but there was no way for her to edit those same details from others' posts. Accordingly, she requested that we delete the entire thread.

Because this thread is instructive for those who might consider renting an exchanged week and because we generally delete threads only when there is a serious problem with the thread as it relates to BBS posting rules, I chose not to accommodate the OP's request. 

However, I did decide to delete the information that the OP would likely have excluded if she could start over. From that point, it was relatively easy to delete those same details - and only those details - from all other posts in the thread. I made no other changes. 

To make it clear, the deciding factor in making the edits was *not* to protect "someone who is breaking the rules." It was to partially accommodate the reasonable request of the OP. Without that sincere request there would not have been any edits or "protection".


----------



## Spence (Nov 8, 2006)

*Clear as mud*



			
				Dave M said:
			
		

> To make it clear, the deciding factor in making the edits was *not* to protect "someone who is breaking the rules." It was to partially accommodate the reasonable request of the OP. Without that sincere request there would not have been any edits or "protection".


You can't win, well, maybe you can because you can delete or edit anything.  Seems to me the 
the reasonable request of the OP which you have partially accommodated although a sincere request, were edits of "protection" and I really don't think my post #4 should have been edited!


----------



## Arb (Nov 8, 2006)

*Ugly*

This discussion is just ugly now.
This kind of backbiting seems really rude. I'm not the ettiquette police, but this kind of dialog isn't why most of use join TUG.


----------



## Keitht (Nov 8, 2006)

Arb said:
			
		

> This discussion is just ugly now.
> This kind of backbiting seems really rude. I'm not the ettiquette police, but this kind of dialog isn't why most of use join TUG.



It all comes down to interpretation, but I don't see any back biting in any of the posts in this topic.  Cindy did go over the top with some of the initial claims for illegality etc, but that was clarified and laid to bed.  
I think Dave M did leave himself open to questioning by his original explanation for why he edited the OP and associated responses.  I fully accept the clarification given.  'Sterilising' the OP without doing the same to quotes from it posted in replies would have been totally pointless.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 8, 2006)

I'm really sorry I've caused this thread to become somewhat contentious. If I had worded my original post more carefully there would have been no problem. 

I'm grateful to TUG for providing this forum. It's a wonderful service, and I've gleaned much valuable advice over the years I've been a member. I'm thankful to Dave for editing the posts and not just the deleting the thread as I had requested.


----------



## RDB (Nov 8, 2006)

Lisa G said:
			
		

> Cindy, I'm sorry ... but the reasoning behind your assertion that renting an exchange company week is illegal and immoral was not clear. You have made yourself a bit clearer, but the idea that something is immoral if it makes lots of people angry is weak ...
> I don't think the person renting this particular week is doing so in order to profit. He just wasn't able to use the week, and he's trying to recoup some of his expense, no doubt. ...




Quite some time ago (about the era of time when it was becoming common knowledge that Exchange Companies were renting out space banked timeshares) I would deposit, what I had paid dearly for, into the space-bank. I would wait for someone wishing to go somewhere and try my best to put them into a place they felt comfortable with. That made me feel good.

This was during a time when we weren’t able to use all we had and were losing out at years end. 
Was it against rules, sure!  
Did I feel immoral or like I was committing a crime?  NO!  
Did I profit? From the standpoint of figuring a way to not lose out… YES!  Made enough to pay the yearly fees… not enough to ever make me think it would be something I could do in retirement.

The annual Exchange Company membership fees were being paid and the Exchange Company guest certificate fees were always paid, the same as anyone else had to do for getting an exchange for a guest.  

I was not depriving anyone. Any member had the opportunity to GRAB nice places from the availability and I was always banking our units. I just grabbed what others wanted, rather than what we wanted. 
Was I taking exchanges away from others who were watching and waiting?   Only if someone happened to want the exact location and the exact week that I grabbed.  NOT too likely. 

It is stated that lots of people do it and get by with it.  You can bet on that.

Just because many do something doesn’t make it right. It is only not right because *the Company(s)-written rule say so*.   However, the Exchange Companies turn right around and rent space-banked units. Those units are then unavailable to paying members. That makes me feel OK about exchanging space-banked units for Timeshare-weeks that others desire. I at least charged less for the units than what the Exchange Companies charged. 

It is neither illegal nor immoral to rent exchanged timeshare units. Can one lose membership by breaking rules?  Definitely!!! 

Talk this over with the owner of the week. It is up to them, if another week can be arranged with the Exchange Company.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 8, 2006)

Yes, you very likely did grab exchanges that others wanted, but family is different, so if it is for your family or friends, then the rule should/does not apply, or why would they have guest certificates.  

I never thought the conversation became argumentative.  Spence and I bicker on other threads and privately as well.    He is very matter of fact, I am complete right-brained, arguing with passion and the two of us enjoy the banter, obviously.  He is the king of timeshare, that is why he referred to himself in the third person in one of the posts.  :hysterical:

Dave was right to edit because the resort name could have riled those who cannot get those weeks.  Renting them from a TUG member or anyone other than friends or family, not cool.


----------



## gmarine (Nov 8, 2006)

RDB said:
			
		

> Quite some time ago (about the era of time when it was becoming common knowledge that Exchange Companies were renting out space banked timeshares) I would deposit, what I had paid dearly for, into the space-bank. I would wait for someone wishing to go somewhere and try my best to put them into a place they felt comfortable with. That made me feel good.
> 
> This was during a time when we weren’t able to use all we had and were losing out at years end.
> Was it against rules, sure!
> ...



The exchange companies have the right to rent exchanges because members give them that right when they join. Its in the Terms and Conditions.

Members dont have the right to rent exchanges because they agree not to when they join the exchange companies.

By saying that you think it is ok to rent an exchange you are in effect saying that it is ok to break an agreement that you have made. 

Rather than making excuses to break exchange company rules why not cancel your membership if you dont want to follow the membership agreement.


----------



## geekette (Nov 9, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> ...Renting them from a TUG member or anyone other than friends or family, not cool.



But what if RCI's numerous public rental outlets are the only place I can find it??

Not Cool, indeed.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 9, 2006)

Geekette, of course RCI can rent weeks, we agree to that when we join and turn them over for exchanges.   

What is your point?  You can exchange into a resort with your week, but you do not own that week that you are borrowing, so you cannot sell it.  It is not yours to sell, but it does belong to RCI.  You wouldn't borrow anything else from someone and then sell it, would you? 

I don't like the RCI's rental sites anymore than anyone else and I do not work for RCI, either.


----------



## EricH (Nov 9, 2006)

I have been reading these posts, and started thinking about a TS I rented on RedWeek last summer.  The owner said he would get me the Suites at Fishermans Wharf or the Donatello in SF using his Shell Vacations points.  I am skeptical by nature, and checked to be certain he was a member, but I wonder how many people are renting exchanges and just assuming these are legitimate weeks?  It seems to me it would be very easy to get caught up in this situation, without realizing it is an exchange.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 10, 2006)

It really seems like this is a shades-of-gray issue and not black and white. Example: What if a regular on the forum wanted a particular week from an exchange company with which he was not a member? Let's say it was a desirable but off-season week that someone with an average trader could pull. Since the forum regular is someone who is always helpful, cheerful, and kind, another forum regular decides to offer to get the week and only requires to be reimbursed for expenses - maintenance fee on exchanged week, exchange fee, and guest certificate. Would this particular agreement be acceptable? 

I can think of more examples where those who are really careful to follow the rules might be tempted to bend them. My point is that perhaps these cases could be considered individually and not all lumped together.


----------



## JLB (Nov 10, 2006)

Those who rent outside of the exchange companies are bound by different rules.  You have to check the rules of each of the different systems.
- - - - - -
Yet another reason for this to be a confusing issue, especially for those who are not ex-spurts like those here.   

Regardless of what the rules say and what some here profess, this has always been a confusing issue, especially for those new to timesharing or those who do not spend half their waking hours on Internet message boards.  Plus, I would guess that even of those who do, most did not take the time to read the entire RCI agreement and understand it all before making their first timeshare purchase. 

I would guess that the majority of new timeshare owners do not know what a 1-in-4 rule or Regional Block is, or what it means to sell a Spacebank deposit or exchange.

It is further complicated by the fact that the exchange companies let it slide for so long, looking the other way, except in the case of those who were really abusing the system, grabbing and reselling prime exchanges.

Then you have to consider the fact that it is still being done on a larger scale, even when Madge says specific resellers cannot be doing that.

Then, it is further complicated by the fact that many timeshare salespeople say you can rent exchanges, and close to all do not mention that you can't.  If the prospect goes that route during their conversation, the salespeople do not correct them.  

I was going through stuff the other day looking for a receipt from 1999 and found my letters to the Hawaii Department of Real Estate and Popiu Point resort, complaining about Georgio.  Among other things, he told us that he traded one of his weeks for a Caribbean week and then rented it for $7000.  If it was our first tour, would we not believe that was a proper thing to do?  That was one of the possibilities going through my mind our first week of tours.

Needless to say, my postion is that a blanket condemnation of all who consider doing this is not appropriate.  Most are very nice people and many are not aware of their misdeed. 




			
				EricH said:
			
		

> I have been reading these posts, and started thinking about a TS I rented on RedWeek last summer.  The owner said he would get me the Suites at Fishermans Wharf or the Donatello in SF using his Shell Vacations points.  I am skeptical by nature, and checked to be certain he was a member, but I wonder how many people are renting exchanges and just assuming these are legitimate weeks?  It seems to me it would be very easy to get caught up in this situation, without realizing it is an exchange.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 10, 2006)

I consider many of my TUG friends as true friends and those that know me well only need to ask.  Friends and family are different.  That is not the same as soliciting for anyone on this forum to rent my week, nor is it the same as renting a week on ebay that I suddenly realize I cannot use.  I have lost many an exchange fee on resorts that others would drool over, including a Marriott Newport Coast Villas for mid-June last year that others were wanting.  I timed a release for another TUG member to grab.  My exchange ability is important to me. 

The biggest problem in renting exchanges is that you have no idea what your "renter" is like.  For example, what if your renter is a picky, persnickety person?  We know for a fact that when we exchange into timeshare, we cannot expect the ocean views, the golf course views, the pool views, etc.  We know that the resort puts exchangers into areas not requested by owners.  But if our "renters' go to a Marriott on an exchange and have anything happens out of the ordinary happen, they are going to complain if they are that way by nature.  The conversation could get ugly when the person mentions renting from a perfect stranger on TUG or on ebay.  You cannot guard against this, either.  

I know of one person that rented a Marriott Grande Vista on ebay and the owner had to have suffered the consequences because that woman was angry about her room location and wanted to be moved.  She explained that the person who rented her this week on ebay told her that all units had excellent views, but her unit was not remodeled like the pictures she had seen on the internet and not a pool view as she had hoped.  She had a Guest Certificate.    How do you warn your renter not to complain and get you into trouble?   It is not worth the risk.  Some people. when they get a sense that you are doing something wrong by renting to them and you never know what they could do with that information.  

Ultimately, it is AGAINST THE RULES!  No gray areas, friends are people you trust.  One thing that I decided long ago is not to help my sister and her husband with a week because my brother-in-law is too picky and complains about everything.  One night at an Olive Garden on our nephew's birthday with his upsetting the server was enough time with him.  I know he would hate every timeshare we have stayed in for some reason.  Besides, he thinks timeshares are stupid, so we will not make him suffer by staying in a Marriott in Orlando.    He can have the Marriott hotel rooms he loves so much.  I have given my sister a few weeks she used with the kids when he was out of the country for work.  

One of the rules is that no money exchanges hands, so another TUG member could never do this because we are too cheap.


----------



## Lisa G (Nov 10, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I consider many of my TUG friends as true friends and those that know me well only need to ask.



Cindy, my new dear, close TUG friend! :whoopie: 
:rofl:


----------



## Dave M (Nov 10, 2006)

Lisa G said:
			
		

> It really seems like this is a shades-of-gray issue and not black and white. Example: What if a regular on the forum wanted a particular week from an exchange company with which he was not a member? Let's say it was a desirable but off-season week that someone with an average trader could pull. Since the forum regular is someone who is always helpful, cheerful, and kind, another forum regular decides to offer to get the week and only requires to be reimbursed for expenses - maintenance fee on exchanged week, exchange fee, and guest certificate. Would this particular agreement be acceptable?


RCI's and II's rules _are_ black and white. The T&Cs for both companies clearly prohibit renting, selling or otherwise accepting compensation for a week obtained from one of those companies. RCI, however, allows reimbursement for the guest certificate and exchange fee, but no more than that. That restriction is emphasized in a sticky thread that Madge has posted at the top of the Ask RCI forum on this BBS.


----------



## JLB (Nov 10, 2006)

I believe you and I have come to know and respect each other.

But what you say here is the rub, what raises the hair on the back of necks!

I think you are saying that it is *not* OK to try to recoup something from an exchange that cannot be used, say a one-time situation.  Some feel that *is* OK, not illegal or immoral.  RCI condoned it for years by looking the other way.

And some who feel it is not OK, feel obligated to report it.

Please note that I did not say how I feel.   



			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I consider many of my TUG friends as true friends and those that know me well only need to ask.  Friends and family are different.  That is not the same as soliciting for anyone on this forum to rent my week, nor is it the same as renting a week on ebay that I suddenly realize I cannot use.


----------



## JLB (Nov 10, 2006)

There's something to be said in favor of the old way of enforcing this, when it wasn't black and white, when there were shades of gray, when each case was considered on it's own merits.

In real life those who violate this rule are not always bad nor not always innocent.  In many cases they are not informed or they are misinformed.  Policy is only as good as the manner in which it is implemented.  To enforce it when it does harm in an instance where the violation did no harm or perhaps did good, makes it an unwise policy.

As some say, no good deed goes unpunished.   

In a real-life example, earlier this year my 86-year-old, longtime-timeshare-owner-and-former-timeshare-salesman neighbor asked me to help him _get rid_ of the two timeshares he owns.  A TUGger, as a favor to me, agreed to take them.

Then my neighbor wanted compensation for the four Spacebanked weeks.  Logically, since he paid $2200 in maintenance fees on those weeks, he wanted something out of them.  Now, you try to explain that he is not entitled to anything, that that would be against the rules, that all he is entitled to is the right to make four exchanges!    

In that instance, IMHO, it would have been the right thing to do, to let him get something for them and transfer them to someone else's account, someone who would use them to make four exchanges and put money in the exchange company's pocket.  No one would be ripping off prime weeks and selling them to the public.

Not being able to do that has left loose ends for my neighbor and he is now at a point where he needs to take care of loose ends.  His ex-companion is now here trying to accomplish that.


----------

