# So we are not allowed to rent out the week we own?



## Iwant2gonow (Mar 12, 2015)

I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:

 "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."

When did this happen?
Are my renters going to be asked if they rented this from me?
Has anyone had a problem with this?


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 12, 2015)

I saw that too.  It does specifically speak to SVN reservations even though it appear for home week reservations as well.  Since the unit I was renting is a home reservation (and not even a part of SVN) I ignored it.

It looks like this may be another step toward tightening up on rentals of SO rentals.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

I see this as a CYA move by Starwood to appease owners who complain about other owners renting their timeshare.  

They will not ask your guest any questions, nor do they care if you rent your timeshare.  

If it bothers you, don't use that form to request the confirmation - you won't hear the statement if you call, or use online chat.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 12, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> .
> "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."....


I get that same message when I change a guest name online, and I don't even belong to the Starwood Vacation Network! I just have fixed/floating weeks.


----------



## torontobuyer (Mar 12, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> to appease owners who complain about other owners renting their timeshare.


MYOB to those complainers IMHO.


DeniseM said:


> They will not ask your guest any questions, nor do they care if you rent your timeshare.
> 
> If it bothers you, don't use that form to request the confirmation - you won't hear the statement if you call, or use online chat.


How can you be so sure? We've all been asked questions that aren't necessarily appropriate. You might want to CYA by making more general statements such as "They usually won't..."


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

torontobuyer said:


> MYOB to those complainers IMHO.
> 
> How can you be so sure? We've all been asked questions that aren't necessarily appropriate. You might want to CYA by making more general statements such as "They usually won't..."



I do many, many rentals - I'm sure.  The resorts do not care if a guest is a renter, or the guest of an owner.

Remember - renters are fresh meat for sales presentations...


----------



## Iwant2gonow (Mar 12, 2015)

I purchased in 1998 and remember being verbally told I could rent my week, also being told about their rental program if as owners we wanted them to rent our week and they would receive some of the proceeds. I have not looked to see if my paperwork has this is writing. Having purchased before Starwood I am not even sure which bylaws affect me. I would think new bylaws instead of outdated paperwork especially since Starwood changes the rules as they see fit.


----------



## Henry M. (Mar 12, 2015)

I think the main issue with renting SVN weeks, as opposed to the weeks you actually own, is that it is an abuse of the system to ren otut an exchange into a resort with much higher maintenance fees and cost than the one you own. 

It is unfair for someone from say a Florida resort, that can be acquired for $0, to exchange into a July WKORV week and reduce availability for owners that actually own there and pay the associated maintenance fees. The intent is to prevent people from making a profit by buying at cheap locations and taking away units from owners at more expensive places. Owners at these expensive resorts are rightfully mad when this happens. SVO is trying to reduce this.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 12, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:
> 
> "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."
> 
> ...



Simple...
You are allowed to rent the VOIs that you own.
You are not suppose to rent SVN exchanges that were obtained using SOs.
This is according to SVO/SVN rules that every Owner agrees to when purchasing a SVO VOI (see your Owners' Manual/CCRs).

Certain people railing against this SVO/SVN rule have another motive ($$$), but in reality they are shutting out those who want to legitimately use their SOs to exchange into WKORV/N and HRA by grabbing weeks for no other reason other than to profit.

The origin and history of this topic has been previously been discussed on this forum.  But, I suspect it will be tangentially spun to distract from the real issue.

To my knowledge, I am the only one who has contacted SVO/SVN about this topic, and that was to clarify SVO/SVN's position when Tugger Glorian posted the SVO/SVN rule against renting non-HomeResort SOs.  This contact was a couple of years ago, and documented in this forum.  Their response was that they were aware, and we're discussing it internally.  Apparently, SVO/SVN approach is to remind Owners about the rule of not renting out SVN reservations (non-HomeResort)


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

David - please address this:  this message comes up on *home resort reservations* too.  What do you make of that?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 12, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> I think the main issue with renting SVN weeks, as opposed to the weeks you actually own, is that it is an abuse of the system to ren otut an exchange into a resort with much higher maintenance fees and cost than the one you own.
> 
> It is unfair for someone from say a Florida resort, that can be acquired for $0, to exchange into a July WKORV week and reduce availability for owners that actually own there and pay the associated maintenance fees. The intent is to prevent people from making a profit by buying at cheap locations and taking away units from owners at more expensive places. Owners at these expensive resorts are rightfully mad when this happens. SVO is trying to reduce this.



Exactly - we met a couple last year at WKORV that were bragging how they owned multiple weeks at SVV (like 12), and used them to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them out.

This topic came up on this forum a while ago, because it was openly suggested that people use their SOs to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them.  However, when this approach was brought up in regards to II exchanges they were immediately told that this was not allowed.  Guess what?  It is also not allowed for SVN exchanges, but for some reason (aka $$$) continues to be recommended.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 12, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> David - please address this:  this message comes up on *home resort reservations* too.  What do you make of that?



I do not need to - it is obvious.

I rent my VOIs legitimately.  I only contacted SVO/SVN about this a couple of years ago to get clarification. Do you want me to contact Suzanne again and ask why they include this for all reservations?  I think you already know the answer.

Let the tangents begin...


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> I do not need to - it is obvious.
> 
> I rent my VOIs legitimately.  I only contacted SVO/SVN about this a couple of years ago to get clarification. Do you want me to contact Suzanne again and ask why they include this for all reservations?  I think you already know the answer.
> 
> Let the tangents begin...



It isn't obvious to me at all - please explain it to me.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 12, 2015)

I will contact SVO/SVN and ask them if you wish.

My *speculation* is that it is easier for them to remind Owners of this rule for all reservations.
Personally, I have no skin in this game as I use my HomeResort weeks, and rent out my other VOIs (legitimately) even though it would be easy to use my WKV to reserve and rent WKORV/N for even more profit.  In fact, I just reserved my WKV weeks for 2016 last night on-line, and will be renting these out if you know anyone interested...


----------



## Sicnarf (Mar 12, 2015)

Home resort owners have up to a year to book their units and SO users only have up to 8 months?  So, how does this rule affect home resort owners?

If anything else this rule should anger other SO exchangers since it increases competition for highly sought resort weeks.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 12, 2015)

Sicnarf said:


> Home resort owners have up to a year to book their units and SO users only have up to 8 months?  So, how does this rule affect home resort owners?
> 
> If anything else this rule should anger other SO exchangers since it increases competition for highly sought resort weeks.



^^^^ this ^^^^
It does not affect HomeResort Owners - it is all about some people taking SO SVN reservations for their own profit.  Some even have it as a side business.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> I will contact SVO/SVN and ask them if you wish.
> 
> My *speculation* is that it is easier for them to remind Owners of this rule for all reservations.



So, you are saying that you know they won't enforce it on home resort reservations, so you are just ignoring the statement?


----------



## grgs (Mar 12, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> David - please address this:  this message comes up on *home resort reservations* too.  What do you make of that?



Not David, but I would guess they chose to not do the needed programming to differentiate between the different types of reservations.  It was just easier to put the statement in for all reservation types.

The only gray area in my mind is if you rent out your home resort with a reservation made less than 8 mos. out.  Technically, it is an SVN reservation, but there was some language that indicated that it was allowable.

Glorian


----------



## JudyS (Mar 12, 2015)

Here on TUG, it is considered very wrong to break RCI/II rules by renting out an exchange week. Yet, it is apparently considered OK to break SVN rules by renting out a week obtained with StarOptions through SVN's internal exchange. Why the difference? Both involve breaking stated rules, both involve "trading up" using an exchange system and then renting out the exchange one has obtained, thus reducing availability for owners who want to follow the rules and book for their own use. 

It also seems to me that some of the people who frequently speak out *against* renting RCI/II exchanges also speak out in *favor* of renting SVN exchanges. Why is that? 

I don't "have a dog in this fight" because I don't rent out RCI/II exchanges and I don't even own any StarOptions. But, I am confused about the inconsistency here.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

This is my take on it:

This rule has always been on the books since day one (15+ years?) and *it's never been enforced.*

*Why? *  Because Starwood does what benefits Starwood - it does not benefit them to enforce this rule - in fact, it would open a huge can of worms.

1)  Do you know what we call people who own a lot of Staroptions? * "Elite Owners"*

The same people who paid Starwood BIG BUCK$ to buy many timeshares, and were told by every sales person on the planet, that they could *make Staroption reservations at the top resorts and rent them to cover their maintenance fees.*

The Elite Owners are Starwood's biggest fans, and the core of their client base.  Do you really think that after 15+ years, Starwood is going to throw them under the bus, at no benefit to Starwood?

Ain't happening…..

2) Do you know what we call people who have enough money to rent a Starwood timeshare for $3,000- $5,000?  

*Prime potential buyers who are already AT the resort*

Starwood loves these folks - are they really going to do something to forever turn a well-heeled renter against Starwood.  NO!  They want these people to go to a sales presentation and buy-buy-buy!

Ain't happening...


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

Judy - This is the difference:

II has a rule that we know that they enforce, and renting an exchange is risky to both the owner and the renter.

Starwood does not care - in fact they promote it. 

That is a huge difference.

*BTW - very seldom do people post that renting an exchange is "wrong," - usually they say that it has "risks" - different thing entirely.


----------



## PamMo (Mar 12, 2015)

I, too, contacted SVO/SVN regarding the rules a while ago, but was probably a bit grumpier than you were about it, David. I wanted to know, "Why have the rule against StarOption rentals if you don't enforce it?"

Why do StarOption rentals bother owners? As an owner in Maui and Harborside, I'm paying up to double the MF's that owners at other resorts pay. We love our resorts, and are very happy with our seasons/weeks/views. The problem comes when we can't use one of our weeks and I want to rent it out. I'm always competing with SVN StarOption exchangers when I choose to rent out one of my weeks. The standard advice on TUG (but it's no secret to others) is to use StarOptions to book a week at WKORV/WKORVN or HRA, and rent that week for far more than what you would get from renting your home resort. Those StarOption exchange rentals (which violate SVN rules) have a detrimental effect on my bottom line, due to supply and demand. If units went to SVN members who actually USED the weeks, I would have less competition in the rental market. The units would definitely not sit empty. SVN members would see many more units available if they weren't being gobbled up at the 8-month mark by a savvy group of owners who reserve solely to rent for profit. 

Of course, it's obvious I'm first and foremost looking after my family's self interest, but assuredly that is what a StarOption exchange "landlord" is doing as well. They can make thousands of dollars of profit by renting just one exchange at "my" resorts, so I don't expect they'll willingly give up this cash cow and follow the existing (but up to now unenforced) rules.

BTW, I am amused to read that rules cannot be enforced because salespeople lied to Elite Owners? :hysterical::rofl:


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

> BTW, I am amused to read that rules* cannot *be enforced because salespeople lied to Elite Owners?



Hi Pam - of course the rules "can" be enforced, but that is my belief about *why* it's not being enforced, and why it doesn't benefit Starwood to do so.

What's your take on it?


----------



## PamMo (Mar 12, 2015)

My take is SVN could absolutely enforce the rule if it wants to, and may be moving in that direction with the addition of the rental restriction notice on reservations. 

I think their concern might be more about owners who have set up rental businesses. There's a lot of talk in the industry about trying to shut down the mega owner-renters. That's more about leaving money on the table than anything else, though - they don't want competition. If I wanted to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps SVN wants to provide better availability for owners who started banking StarOptions for their dream vacations in Hawaii, St John, and Harborside. After all, isn't that the reason they're building out St John and Maui?


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

What would be Starwoods "motivation" to start enforcing the rule, after 15+ years?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Mar 12, 2015)

I own my SBP weeks and will rent them out, if I want.  I don't have SO's, so no big deal to Starwood--yet!


----------



## capjak (Mar 12, 2015)

Reminds me of Disney Vacation Club, where some of the biggest customers are Mega Renters, Imagine someone walking into WKORVN N sales and saying I want to purchase 16 of  your units at $500,000+......are you ok if I rent these?


----------



## PamMo (Mar 12, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> What would be Starwoods "motivation" to start enforcing the rule, after 15+ years?



Obviously, I don't know, but it's intriguing that the rental rule is stated on reservations now (which is why this thread was started in the first place).

That doesn't stop any of us from speculation and conjecture, so here's a thought. Rentals are in direct competition with Starwood hotels for guest dollars. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the hotel group might want the timeshare division spinoff to try to restrict StarOption rentals. Especially if they believe it is a relatively small group of owners who consistently use StarOption exchanges for rentals. SVN has a record of who used the week you reserved. If an owner puts a lot of StarOption exchanges under different guest names, they may try to enforce the rule they have in place.

It's interesting to compare Maui room rates for July 4-11, 2015. If you book directly through Starwood's website, these are the least expensive available rooms at these resorts:

Sheraton at Black Rock resort view hotel room - $3,038/wk
Westin Maui Resort resort view hotel room - $3,228/wk
WKORV 1BR island view (studios are sold out) - $4,163

Compare those rates to listings on Redweek:

Redweek OF 1BR -$2,200
Redweek OF 2BR Deluxe - $3,000 (Which I think is a fantastic deal!!!)


Capjak (Jack), the issue isn't about renting VOI's that you own. It's about buying at cheaper resorts with lower MF's, and using those StarOptions to book weeks at resorts with higher demand and higher rental value. Also, I think 16 OF/OV units at the new Westin Nanea (WKOVN-N) will cost at least $1 million!!!!!


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 12, 2015)

Even if Starwood thinks that these rentals are undercutting Starwood itself, I highly doubt that they will interject themselves any more than the verbiage on the reservation, which will certainly make SOME people think twice.  Currently, there is no way for them to know whether the person whose name you put down is a renter or a friend/family member who you are allowing to use your unit for free.  And, personally, I don't want to be grilled every time I change a reservation name. 

Perhaps they'll go after the obvious mega-renter abusers, but we shall see. 

BTW, while I do/did support the notion that an SVN exchanger shouldn't be able to undercut an owner, I also think that the rule is too restrictive.  An owner who pays to own at WKORV or HRA should be able to rent out a week, even if it's made outside of the Owner's Priority period. IMO.


----------



## Markus (Mar 12, 2015)

From the Star Central Web site

Owner Rental Program
The Owner Rental Program is not currently offered for any Starwood Vacation Ownership resorts. As an Owner, you may reserve a Vacation Period at your Home Resort through Owner Services and arrange a private third party rental on your ownership account. The rental of a reservation by a Starwood Vacation Network Owner for reservations confirmed using StarOptions (other than a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort in the Villa Type and season purchased) is prohibited.* All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of your Home Resort and as the Owner, you will be responsible for the acts or omissions of your renter and their guests.

Once you have rented your Home Resort Vacation Period, please notify Owner Services of the arriving guest name to ensure their access to your reservation at check-in.

Owners should be current in all fees, including maintenance fees and taxes, associated with your Ownership prior to the arrival date.

* Villa Type does not apply to Coral Vista Owners


----------



## Sicnarf (Mar 12, 2015)

PamMo said:


> I, too, contacted SVO/SVN regarding the rules a while ago, but was probably a bit grumpier than you were about it, David. I wanted to know, "Why have the rule against StarOption rentals if you don't enforce it?"
> 
> Why do StarOption rentals bother owners? As an owner in Maui and Harborside, I'm paying up to double the MF's that owners at other resorts pay. We love our resorts, and are very happy with our seasons/weeks/views. The problem comes when we can't use one of our weeks and I want to rent it out. I'm always competing with SVN StarOption exchangers when I choose to rent out one of my weeks. The standard advice on TUG (but it's no secret to others) is to use StarOptions to book a week at WKORV/WKORVN or HRA, and rent that week for far more than what you would get from renting your home resort. Those StarOption exchange rentals (which violate SVN rules) have a detrimental effect on my bottom line, due to supply and demand. If units went to SVN members who actually USED the weeks, I would have less competition in the rental market. The units would definitely not sit empty. SVN members would see many more units available if they weren't being gobbled up at the 8-month mark by a savvy group of owners who reserve solely to rent for profit.
> 
> ...



I, too, own Maui and St John which have high MF's.  But I disagree that SO rentals is the reason why I'm unable to book/use my weeks since I have up to year to reserve my weeks and SO users only have 8 months.  If I do not take advantage of my 1 year booking privilege then it is my fault!  

I don't go to Maui every year and I rent/use my unit last minute in most cases when I do.  I certainly do not blame SO renters or exchangers when I'm unable to get the unit/week I want because I didn't plan/act ahead of time.

Note that  I chose to pay the high MFs so that I have the first pick of units/weeks at highly sought resorts without competing with SO or other exchangers.  And I certainly appreciate the perseverance and risk tolerance of those who takes advantage of the SO exchange opportunities either for profit or for their own use.  

We we've been discussing this a lot but does anyone actually knows how prevalent is this?  I do not know anyone who would actually depend their livelihood on this considering the high upfront cost of WKV and relatively high MFs of SVV units.  I contend that this is not a huge issue that warrants Starwood's enforcement since it would not benefit them or the the Elite owners who spent big-bucks with Starwood.


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 12, 2015)

Sicnarf said:


> I, too, own Maui and St John which have high MF's.  But I disagree that SO rentals is the reason why I'm unable to book/use my weeks since I have up to year to reserve my weeks and SO users only have 8 months.  If I do not take advantage of my 1 year booking privilege then it is my fault!



If you read her post again, you'll see that she's not blaming exchangers for not getting the week of her choice.  She's saying that in the years that she cannot use her week, and chooses to rent it out, she has to compete with exchangers who are undercutting the price to the detriment of owners. 

IOW, a WKV or WLR owner who pays $1800 in MFs can use SOs to exchange to WKORV, where MFs are ~$2400, or HRA where MFs are $2800.  The exchanger can turn around and rent either for $2300 and pocket a nifty $500-$1000, while the WKORV/HRA owners would actually lose money at that rate. So the exchangers are undercutting the owners.  Doesn't seem fair.


----------



## grgs (Mar 12, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> IOW, a WKV or WLR owner who pays $1800 in MFs can use SOs to exchange to WKORV, where MFs are ~$2400, or HRA where MFs are $2800.   The exchanger can turn around and rent either for $2300 and pocket a nifty $500-$1000, while the WKORV/HRA owners would actually lose money at that rate. So the exchangers are undercutting the owners. Doesn't seem fair.



I agree with Lisa's post above, but would point out that MF at WKV & WLR are actually around $1400.


----------



## YYJMSP (Mar 12, 2015)

grgs said:


> Not David, but I would guess they chose to not do the needed programming to differentiate between the different types of reservations.  It was just easier to put the statement in for all reservation types.



Why not?  All the info is already there -- the online booking system on MSC knows when you're making a Home Resort reservation vs StarOptions, and it knows which StarOptions from which ownership you used to make the StarOptions booking.



grgs said:


> The only gray area in my mind is if you rent out your home resort with a reservation made less than 8 mos. out.  Technically, it is an SVN reservation, but there was some language that indicated that it was allowable.



This is the one they need to clear up.  IMHO a booking at a property with StarOptions from that same property should be no different than a Home Resort booking...


----------



## PamMo (Mar 12, 2015)

Sicnarf said:


> I, too, own Maui and St John which have high MF's.  But I disagree that SO rentals is the reason why I'm unable to book/use my weeks since I have up to year to reserve my weeks and SO users only have 8 months...



StarOption exchange rentals have absolutely no effect on owners' ability to book the weeks we want at the 12-month mark. I simply stated that when SVN members target just a few resorts for high profit using StarOptions exchanges, it increases the number of rental units on the market at those resorts. When home resort owners rent their units, they have to compete with SVN exchangers from other resorts who are breaking the rules. 

Lisa, with the new VAT added to Harborside's MF's, a 2BR lockoff is now almost $3,000/yr.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 12, 2015)

DeniseM said:


> *BTW - very seldom do people post that renting an exchange is "wrong," - usually they say that it has "risks" - different thing entirely.


I've seen a number of people here get angry when they see an eBay rental that appears to be an exchange, especially if the rental is at a resort they own. This is where I am getting the view that Tuggers think renting II/RCI rentals is wrong. And as a DVC owner, I agree. I don't want someone booking a DVC rental through RCI and then listing it on eBay for less than what I pay in MFs. 

Tuggers trying to book in to low-availability resorts also get upset about RCI exchanges listed on eBay. 



DeniseM said:


> Judy - This is the difference:
> 
> II has a rule that we know that they enforce, and renting an exchange is risky to both the owner and the renter.
> 
> ...


I've never heard of RCI enforcing the rules against renting, yet renting out RCI exchanges seems to bother some Tuggers. 

How does Starwood promote the renting of weeks obtained via StarOptions? I'm not disagreeing with you; I simply don't own StarOptions, so I don't know.


----------



## JudyS (Mar 12, 2015)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I own my SBP weeks and will rent them out, if I want.  I don't have SO's, so no big deal to Starwood--yet!


Could Starwood really forbid the renting of non-SVN weeks? I would think the owner has the right to rent their week out, at least if the owner is renting the fixed/floating week listed on their deed. The holder of the deed has a clear ownership of that particular week.

Anyone know if SBP's condo docs say anything about renting out weeks?


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 12, 2015)

JudyS said:


> I've never heard of RCI enforcing the rules against renting, yet renting out RCI exchanges seems to bother some Tuggers.



There are numerous posts about people getting caught by both RCI and II, and having their Accts. closed and deposits confiscated.  It definitely happens.



> How does Starwood promote the renting of weeks obtained via StarOptions? I'm not disagreeing with you; I simply don't own StarOptions, so I don't know.



It's one of the things they promote to owners to get them to buy multiple weeks to become Elite Owners.


----------



## Henry M. (Mar 13, 2015)

YYJMSP said:


> This is the one they need to clear up.  IMHO a booking at a property with StarOptions from that same property should be no different than a Home Resort booking...



See post #30 above by Markus. The rental of weeks at your home resort is clearly allowed by the rules, no matter when you make the reservation. My Star Central has very explicit information about it. 

I am an Elite owner, and I am happy for these rules. I do not want owners exchanging into a property they don't own and then renting out those reservations for significant profit. I don't mind other owners at my resorts using their weeks in whatever way they see fit, but I don't want outsiders with lower ownership costs at other locations devaluing the place I own. Starwood would not alienate me if they enforced the rules that exist today, and they seem to be moving in that direction. 

I do realize there are other owners that own lots of low cost weeks that are also Elite and would have a cow if their business was suddenly curtailed.


----------



## YYJMSP (Mar 13, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> See post #30 above by Markus. The rental of weeks at your home resort is clearly allowed by the rules, no matter when you make the reservation. My Star Central has very explicit information about it.
> 
> I am an Elite owner, and I am happy for these rules. I do not want owners exchanging into a property they don't own and then renting out those reservations for significant profit. I don't mind other owners at my resorts using their weeks in whatever way they see fit, but I don't want outsiders with lower ownership costs at other locations devaluing the place I own. Starwood would not alienate me if they enforced the rules that exist today, and they seem to be moving in that direction.
> 
> I do realize there are other owners that own lots of low cost weeks that are also Elite and would have a cow if their business was suddenly curtailed.



I don't have a problem with rental rule that exists, as it states something along the lines of "you can't make this a business".  That's explicitly forbidden. 

But on the other side, I want the flexibility of letting friends or family vacation at units I can book (show them the benefits of SVO, and perhaps lean them towards a purchase if it works for them, or encourage them to continue using "spare" time from us), whether or not I am there at the same time, and whether or not they cover my "costs" or whatever.  I don't' rent to strangers.

The gray area is the booking of your home resort after the 8mos period.  I think it doesn't matter what "currency" you used to book your home resort, whether or not it was with SO's after 8mos.  Bottom line, I used the ownership to book at the owned resort...


----------



## Henry M. (Mar 13, 2015)

I agree on being able to let friends use your units.

I think the quote from MSC above (post 30) is pretty clear - you can rent out a week at your Ho e resort even if you make it less than 8 moments out:



> The rental of a reservation by a Starwood Vacation Network Owner for reservations confirmed using StarOptions (*other than a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort* in the Villa Type and season purchased) is prohibited.


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 14, 2015)

PamMo said:


> Lisa, with the new VAT added to Harborside's MF's, a 2BR lockoff is now almost $3,000/yr.



That's nuts.  Do you pay that in the MFs or after your stay?  Maui also has a VAT but at least it's billed to the guest.


----------



## okwiater (Mar 14, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> That's nuts.  Do you pay that in the MFs or after your stay?  Maui also has a VAT but at least it's billed to the guest.



I agree, it's totally nuts. I just reserved $11,000 worth of Harborside rooms during Thanksgiving using StarOptions that cost $2,400 in MFs. If I were an actual Harborside owner I would be peeved if these rooms were destined for the rental pool instead of for personal use.

This inequity is certainly the reasoning behind the Sheraton Flex and Coral Vista programs -- put all the deeds in a trust and then allocate MFs based on the number of StarOptions owned.


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 14, 2015)

okwiater said:
			
		

> I agree, it's totally nuts. I just reserved $11,000 worth of Harborside rooms during Thanksgiving using StarOptions that cost $2,400 in MFs. If I were an actual Harborside owner I would be peeved if these rooms were destined for the rental pool instead of for personal use.



My yes, but my point was that the VAT should be paid by the person who actually stays there, whether it's an owner, his guest or a renter.  If you levy this via MFs, they're possibly targeting the wrong people. 



okwiater said:


> This inequity is certainly the reasoning behind the Sheraton Flex and Coral Vista programs -- put all the deeds in a trust and then allocate MFs based on the number of StarOptions owned.



I do agree that if they tied SOs to MFs from the get go, it would have been diminished some of the animosity we see between upper tier and lower tier resort owners. However, I'm more cynical about why Starwood imposed it.  I think it's a way for them to skirt laws which prohibit them from charging higher MFs to high season owners vs. low season owners.  In that model, MFs can never go far above low season rental rates, because low season owners will simply walk away. 

No matter why they imposed it, if a points program helps to stabilize resorts that would otherwise suffer, then I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 14, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> My yes, but my point was that the VAT should be paid by the person who actually stays there, whether it's an owner, his guest or a renter.  If you levy this via MFs, they're possibly targeting the wrong people.



I agree.  My understanding is the are charging the VAT tax on everything the MF's covers even items that normally wouldn't be subject to VAT (even on other real estate taxes) .  They want it on 100% and they want it at the time the MF's are due not when used.  I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find a way to add additional taxes paid at time of use.  As difficult as it is to fight Maui on taxes multiply that 10 times to fight Bahamanian taxes.


----------



## tha (Mar 14, 2015)

*I've attended over 50 sales presentation and this "rule" was NEVER mentioned*

Also, Starwood interprets rules to mean whatever they want. For instance "voluntary" means "excluded" and "standard" means "most inferior and not common".

Also excluding the voluntary resorts from SVN and thereby driving their resale values to near $0 (along with the rapid rise in Home Owner Fees) has created a situation where people have to do this to have any hope of not being financially screwed by having bought from Starwood.

I wonder if they are doing this in preparation for sales at Nanea? "Only you can rent these therefor it is worth $100K/wk"...


----------



## Iwant2gonow (Mar 14, 2015)

tha said:


> Also, Starwood interprets rules to mean whatever they want. For instance "voluntary" means "excluded" and "standard" means "most inferior and not common".
> 
> Also excluding the voluntary resorts from SVN and thereby driving their resale values to near $0 (along with the rapid rise in Home Owner Fees)



I feel that Vistana's resale value has been $0 for as long as I can remember because of  Orlando's high inventory!


----------



## Ken555 (Mar 14, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> I feel that Vistana's resale value has been $0 for as long as I can remember because of  Orlando's high inventory!




^this

Most accurate comment so far in this thread.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 14, 2015)

But allowing it to join SVN for a fee of $1000 or less would bump up the $0 value a little.  It would also strain the SVN system as more would be competing for the better  properties.  It would also significantly impact retail sales at voluntary resorts which aren't particularly brisk as it is.


----------



## taterhed (Mar 14, 2015)

I would buy if more resorts were in network.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidnRobin (Mar 14, 2015)

Ken555 said:


> Most accurate comment so far in this thread.



For accuracy/factual contents based on the OP:
1) Only what the sales contract states (linked to CCRs/OM/SVN agreement) is binding, not what Sales is spewing as misinformation (aka lying) to make commission 
2) Owners can rent their HomeResort VOIs, but renting non-HomeResort SOs is against SVO/SVN rules that were agreed to when buying a SVO VOI (no matter how it is justified...). 
3) Some SVO Owners are renting non-HomeResort SOs (some apparently as a side business)
4) SVO/SVN have been aware of the issue (#3) for some time, and have finally decided to enforce to some extent (in their typical slow and confusing manner) 
[IMO - likely for their own benefit or as a CYA]

That about covers it...


----------



## tha (Mar 14, 2015)

*Mistaking cause and effect*

"It (allowing resale owners at Voluntary resorts to participate in SVN) would also significantly impact retail sales at voluntary resorts  which aren't particularly brisk as it is." 

This is an example of the "Butterfield Fallacy". Retail sales at voluntary resorts are not brisk BECAUSE they are "voluntary".

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2013/01/the-butterfield-fallacy.html


----------



## dsmrp (Mar 14, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> For accuracy/factual contents based on the OP:
> 1) Only what the sales contract states (linked to CCRs/OM/SVN agreement) is binding, not what Sales is spewing as misinformation (aka lying) to make commission
> 2) Owners can rent their HomeResort VOIs, but renting non-HomeResort SOs is against SVO/SVN rules that were agreed to when buying a SVO VOI (no matter how it is justified...).
> 3) Some SVO Owners are renting non-HomeResort SOs (some apparently as a side business)
> ...



For #4,  to change behavior to follow a rule or policy requires long-term monitoring and enforcement (isn't that one of the reasons for police depts?).  Monitoring and enforcement requires resources (people & money).  Starwood's not going to expend significant resources to enforce their rental rules unless there is at least a moderate effect, positive or negative for them.

Software, as in MSC online, mainly exposes violations, but does not solve bad processes or lackadaisical enforcement.


----------



## dsmrp (Mar 14, 2015)

tha said:


> Also, Starwood interprets rules to mean whatever they want. For instance "voluntary" means "excluded" and "standard" means "most inferior and not common".
> 
> Also excluding the voluntary resorts from SVN and thereby driving their resale values to near $0 (along with the rapid rise in Home Owner Fees) has created a situation where people have to do this to have any hope of not being financially screwed by having bought from Starwood.
> 
> I wonder if they are doing this in preparation for sales at Nanea? "Only you can rent these therefor it is worth $100K/wk"...



:rofl: When I tried explaining voluntary vs mandatory resorts to DH, he coined it as entirely 'voluntary' *for Starwood *to let resale owners into internal network, and 'mandatory' as they _*had*_ to let those resort resale owners in. 

In a _unicorn, magical world_,  the (starwood) HOAs would band together to create a consolidated rental service for owners' weeks, and owners would at least be guaranteed their maintenance fees.  And any rental profit would go to rental service operating costs, and maybe even lowering future maintenance fees...


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 14, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> I feel that Vistana's resale value has been $0 for as long as I can remember because of  Orlando's high inventory!



SVV Key West and Bella phases are in Orlando, yet they still have some value (albeit lower value than other mandatory properties).  The only explanation for this is that they are mandatory and come with SOs. 

Orlando aside, the two resorts that strike me as being most hurt for their voluntary designations are WPORV and WMH.  I can't help but thinking that if they were switched to mandatory, that their value would increase significantly overnight.  I could be wrong.


----------



## cooldj23 (May 9, 2015)

*$$$$. A different approach to renting weeks*



DeniseM said:


> What would be Starwoods "motivation" to start enforcing the rule, after 15+ years?



If Starwood wanted to enforce their "no rentals" policy, they would only need to go to Redweek, Skyauction, ebay, and yes even TUG to find the violators.  No one is going to put a week out on a rental site to gift it to a family member or friend.  So the only thing that would be allowed is Home resort rentals, and they could do the necessary legwork to track that down too.  But I agree with DeniseM, Starwood would likely get a lot of resistance from the owners who have purchased far more weeks than they can use in a given year just to have the "elite/platinum" status. 
So if I was the head of SVO, I would implement something like  the following policy:
An escalating fee for changing names on a reservation in any calendar year. 
First Week  $25
2nd Week - $50
3rd Week - $100
4th Week - $200
5th Week - $300
Etc. 

That way those few people who are renting many weeks for profit have to pay a large fee to do so, while those like myself who once every few years are unable to use one of our weeks pay only a nominal fee to do a third party rental. 
II charges a gifting fee that I think is $49, so they figured out that "if you can't stop em, charge em!"


----------



## pacman777 (May 9, 2015)

cooldj23 said:


> If Starwood wanted to enforce their "no rentals" policy, they would only need to go to Redweek, Skyauction, ebay, and yes even TUG to find the violators.  No one is going to put a week out on a rental site to gift it to a family member or friend.  So the only thing that would be allowed is Home resort rentals, and they could do the necessary legwork to track that down too.  But I agree with DeniseM, Starwood would likely get a lot of resistance from the owners who have purchased far more weeks than they can use in a given year just to have the "elite/platinum" status.
> So if I was the head of SVO, I would implement something like  the following policy:
> An escalating fee for changing names on a reservation in any calendar year.
> First Week  $25
> ...



That's a dumb a$$ idea that doesn't accomplish or help any owners. If we own at the resort then we as owners should have every right to rent or assign our timeshare to someone else without being charged. If we were renting out units where we don't have ownership then charging would be fine but that won't help the WKORV owners any since the fees would get passed through in the rental rates anyways.


----------



## suzannesimon (May 9, 2015)

Let's not forget in most cases we have a deeded ownership - we own 1/52 of a unit.  It's privately owned real estate and we should be able to use it, rent it or give it away just like our own homes.  If Starwood doesn't let us rent our owned week, or charges us for the privilege, then my next purchase won't be a Starwood.  It will be a Marriott or Hyatt.  My first "store-bought" timeshares were sold to me by a Marriott salesman who told me what great rental income I could get from them.  I've never been told by any of the timeshare management companies that it is my responsibility to provide inventory for other owners who want to exchange.  I frequently rent my weeks and rent weeks from other owners.  Cash is the only " fair" exchange in many cases - no uptrade  or downtrade.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 10, 2015)

Ok folks... you ARE ALLOWED to rent out your VOI - it is TS week obtained via SOs that is not allowed PER contractual agreement.
Why is this so hard to comprehend? arg


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 10, 2015)

JudyS said:


> Here on TUG, it is considered very wrong to break RCI/II rules by renting out an exchange week. Yet, it is apparently considered OK to break SVN rules by renting out a week obtained with StarOptions through SVN's internal exchange. Why the difference? Both involve breaking stated rules, both involve "trading up" using an exchange system and then renting out the exchange one has obtained, thus reducing availability for owners who want to follow the rules and book for their own use.
> 
> It also seems to me that some of the people who frequently speak out *against* renting RCI/II exchanges also speak out in *favor* of renting SVN exchanges. Why is that?
> 
> I don't "have a dog in this fight" because I don't rent out RCI/II exchanges and I don't even own any StarOptions. But, I am confused about the inconsistency here.





DeniseM said:


> This is my take on it:
> 
> This rule has always been on the books since day one (15+ years?) and *it's never been enforced.*
> 
> ...



It's going to happen.

It's going to happen as soon as Starwood rolls out its FlexPoint / Destination Club program.  Why?

Because all those folks who will be paying $100K for enough points to reserve at Nanea, WKORV, etc. will need available inventory to reserve at the eight month mark if the trust does not have inventory at the twelve month mark.  Starwood will not allow those prime customers to be undermined by SVN members grabbing that inventory to rent at a profit (Starwood wants that profit for itself).


----------



## PamMo (May 10, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> It's going to happen as soon as Starwood rolls out its FlexPoint / Destination Club program.  Why?
> 
> Because all those folks who will be paying $100K for enough points to reserve at Nanea, WKORV, etc. will need available inventory to reserve at the eight month mark if the trust does not have inventory at the twelve month mark.  Starwood will not allow those prime customers to be undermined by SVN members grabbing that inventory to rent at a profit (Starwood wants that profit for itself).



Interesting take, and you may be right.  I'd wondered if Starwood was simply responding to mounting numbers of owners complaining about cheap StarOption rentals at their expensive-to-own resorts and limited SVN availability at 8 months for personal use, but this seems much more plausible. In the corporate world, it's most often about self interest.


----------



## canesfan (May 10, 2015)

Then they should stop having their sales staff in Orlando selling Sheraton Flex telling potential buyers they can reserve Hawaii and rent it out. First they have to start in house. I had my sales person tell me how she rents her SOs out! Let's get the rules right with Starwood employees first, please.


----------



## YYJMSP (May 10, 2015)

canesfan said:


> Then they should stop having their sales staff in Orlando selling Sheraton Flex telling potential buyers they can reserve Hawaii and rent it out.



Perhaps the rules for renting out Flex bookings are not the same as those for renting out SVN bookings?

Wasn't there speculation in another thread that a whack of WKORV/N inventory was being bought up but not offered for sale, so perhaps it's for inclusion in a (the?) Flex system, giving those owners "legitimate" access to some Hawaii inventory?  We're not party to what happens behind the scenes to balance availability in the various inventory buckets...

Any owners of this type of ownership out there who want to read through their docs for the rules governing the equivalent of "network reservations"?  The normal docs have an entire sub-section called "Starwood Vacation Exchange Company Disclosure Guide ..." that lays out the details.


----------



## LisaRex (May 11, 2015)

Good point about the flex program, YYJMSP.  Flex owners don't have a home resort.  So, unless they put a different set of rules in place, flex owners will be prohibited from renting out anything. That doesn't seem fair.

And if they DO allow flex owners to rent, then that doesn't seem fair to the weeks owners.  Or to other flex owners, who will quickly find that all the prime weeks will be gobbled up by owners who'll only book at WKORV or HRA so tha they can rent them out. 

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we create 3 different sets of rules.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 11, 2015)

1st - This is pure speculation regarding the Flex program and renting.
2nd - A HomeResort VOI can be rented, it is the TS week obtained using SOs (SVN exchange) that are not supposed to be rented according to SVO/SVN rules (per contract)
3rd - Some people are apparently forgetting a key and an important clause in their SVO contract, and that is whatever is told to you by SVO Sales verbally is not enforceable unless it is contained in the SVO contract.


----------



## okwiater (May 11, 2015)

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Flex Options are not StarOptions, and Flex Options reservations are not SVN reservations. Also, it's not about what's fair or unfair; it's about what is permissible according to the rules of your particular ownership or Exchange program.

Flex Options bookings are not made within an Exchange program. Rather, you are spending the Flex Options currency to make a home resort reservation at one of the properties contained within the Flex Options trust. If, and only if, your Flex Options convert to StarOptions (which happens automatically at 8 months), will the rules of SVN apply.

Will the Flex programs make SVN reservations more difficult? Perhaps, but only if meaningful numbers of owners convert from deeded ownerships to Flex ownerships. My guess is that Prime weeks at resorts with clear high and low seasons will disproportionately remain as deeded ownerships, as their owners will be more reluctant to trade them in.


----------



## oneohana (May 12, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> 1st - This is pure speculation regarding the Flex program and renting.
> 2nd -A HomeResort VOI can be rented, it is the TS week obtained using SOs (SVN exchange) that are not supposed to be rented according to SVO/SVN rules (per contract)
> 3rd - Some people are apparently forgetting a key and an important clause in their SVO contract, and that is whatever is told to you by SVO Sales verbally is not enforceable unless it is contained in the SVO contract.



Doesn't it say in some of the contracts that it is not to be used for commercial purposes? Some of my contracts have that, some don't.
When does it fall under commercial purposes? If you rent it out 1x time over the course of your ownership? EOY?


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 12, 2015)

I believe that 'commercial purpose' statement is for someone operating a company.  That is how I read it way back when.  The no renting SVN exchanges (nonHomeResort) statement  is in the SVN part of CCRs.  It has been posted here verbatim.

You can rent a HomeResort VOI - I do it annually for our studio WKORV OFD and 2 WKV Plat weeks. Helps cover the huge MFs.


----------



## vacationtime1 (May 13, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Flex Options are not StarOptions, and Flex Options reservations are not SVN reservations. Also, it's not about what's fair or unfair; it's about what is permissible according to the rules of your particular ownership or Exchange program.
> 
> Flex Options bookings are not made within an Exchange program. Rather, you are spending the Flex Options currency to make a home resort reservation at one of the properties contained within the Flex Options trust. If, and only if, your Flex Options convert to StarOptions (which happens automatically at 8 months), will the rules of SVN apply.
> 
> *Will the Flex programs make SVN reservations more difficult? Perhaps, but only if meaningful numbers of owners convert from deeded ownerships to Flex ownerships. *My guess is that Prime weeks at resorts with clear high and low seasons will disproportionately remain as deeded ownerships, as their owners will be more reluctant to trade them in.



More speculation, but interesting speculation.

In the Marriott world (against which Starwood's new program will compete), one "enrolls" a week (for a fee, of course), pays an all-inclusive annual membership fee that includes exchange fees, and has the option to "convert" some or all enrolled weeks into points on a year to year basis.  The big winners were owners of prime properties who could enroll multiple weeks, convert high value weeks into points some years, and use their weeks other years.  

Marriott has raised the enrollment fee substantially in the five years its Destination Club has existed, meaning that they don't feel compelled to attract more weeks with low prices. The system is also successful for enrolled owners who now have new benefits and tactics (check out the Marriott board) but did not have to give up their deeds.


----------



## Sicnarf (May 14, 2015)

*SO Rental Enforcement?*

When I called to change the name on a reservation to someone else today, the rep asked me if I was renting the unit.

I know that there is a message posted if you change the name online but this is the first time I got asked this question.

I'm wondering if anyone else has the same experience lately?


----------



## PamMo (May 14, 2015)

Ah, come on! You can't just leave us guessing...

So, are you renting?
Are you renting your home resort reservation or an SVN exchange?
And, what did the rep say about it?


----------



## travelwyndham (May 14, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:
> 
> "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."
> 
> ...



We own a Christmas week at Sheraton Mountain Vista and we rent it out all the time. Frequently, because it's a lock-off, we will rent out 1 side and sleep in the other side. I have never had to pay a guest fee at this resort. Sometimes, we aren't even in town and I just call the resort and let them know that we will be renting to someone else. I absolutely love the SPG (Sheraton) system. They are so kind and helpful. 

However, I am just starting to hear that all these timeshares (and RCI exchanges) are subject to cancelation if rented out. This makes NO sense at all because they have nothing to lose so long as the fees are paid and guest names are officially added. I was just explaining that my weeks booked with RCI (originally intended for our use) cost me a weeks worth of Wyndham points, $209 exchange fees, and if I want to now add a guest its another $59 (which is totally fair) are now subject to cancelation because I want to recoup the $$$ and value of points maintenance fees by renting them. I just don't get it. If I could go back- I'd just rent from someone else. None of these are really "OURS" are they? They say in the presentations: You can will it, sell it, rent it... blah blah blah- It's all BS


----------



## DeniseM (May 14, 2015)

It has always been against the rules to rent RCI exchanges.

It is not against the rules to rent your timeshare at SMV, nor do they charge to put the reservation in a guest's name - Starwood (Sheraton) does not charge for this service.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 14, 2015)

REPEAT… you can rent out your HomeResort VOI.  All you need to do is too inform the Rep that this is your HomeResort. No charge...
If you are renting SVN SOs - then you may need to be prepared to make something up (aka as lying).

Still not sure why SVN doesn't just state this in clear terms on the reservation confirmation?

huh? SW? listening…? Hello?


----------



## dspring (May 15, 2015)

Lots of interesting discussion. I have a similar opinion to sicnarf.  I first bought in Maui in 2003 and worked up to 5 star elite by 2006.....before reading this forum.  I rented unused rooms from the start.  I bought half in Maui and half at WKV  I told the salesman I planned to continue to rent in Maui for all rentals and he said good idea.  I did not trust a timeshare salesman so I did look at my contract, but I missed the rule where I was not supposed use WKV for Maui.  If I had known that, I probably would not have become 5 start elite and saved a lot of money.  I have enjoyed being sort of a part time travel agent and promoting Maui.  Lots of happy customers and probably spending in Maui.  In the early days I got points for 4-5 of my renters who bought.....I do not recommend buying from the developer now that I know more.....how could I live with myself.  Now that I know this rule, I do not plan to break it anymore, but I am also at the stage where I can use more weeks, invite relatives and friends, trade for hotel points.  With that said, i bought additional Maui because I  planned to take advantage of the 8-12 months advance bookings to be ahead of non-Maui owners, thinking it was competition from people who wanted to use it for themselves vs people that wanted to rent for profit.  Owners get that advantage, less than 8 months is up for grabs whether people use it for themselves or rent them.  I also wonder how prevelent the renters for profit are.  It is harder to book within 8 months during peak seasons, but not impossible.  After all that, rules are rules and they should be enforced and also pointed out to buyers.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 15, 2015)

Why not just rent out WKV with your WKV VOIs? And rent out WKORV with your WKORV VOIs?
I do - and it has worked out well.

If I were to use WKV to reserve WKORV/N using SOs, then rented it out - I would be taking away potential weeks from owners that legitimately want to stay at WKORV/N using their SOs via SVN which is part of the 4-tier SVO program - renting SOs is not one of those tiers.  This is also happening at HRA.

Is it prevalent?  Apparently so.
As mentioned previously, I met a couple at WKORV who owned multiple SVV and used their SOs to profit from renting out WKORV/N.
And there are Tuggers who are doing the same - but now staying under the radar in discussing this openly here.


----------



## dspring (May 15, 2015)

I do plan to follow the rules now that I know them and I would like to see Starwood enforce them

Is it fair for someone to buy SDO for next to nothing, pay much less in fees, and exchange for Maui - IMO - no.  Does it follow the rules - yes.


----------



## Henry M. (May 15, 2015)

dspring said:


> Does it follow the rules - yes.



It does not follow the rules. People get away with it because the rules haven't been consistently enforced, but you are not supposed to rent out SO reservations outside of your home resort.


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> It does not follow the rules. People get away with it because the rules haven't been consistently enforced, but you are not supposed to rent out SO reservations outside of your home resort.



Not to put words in his mouth, but wasn't talking about renting, but using it for his own personal use.  It doesn't seem fair that someone can buy a very inexpensive VOI and exchange it (via II or SVN) to a much more expensive resort.


----------



## pacman777 (May 15, 2015)

What if you end up making a staroptions reservation at your home resort. Is renting allowed?


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

pacman777 said:


> What if you end up making a staroptions reservation at your home resort. Is renting allowed?



I think the final word was that if you reserve exactly what you bought, yes.


----------



## okwiater (May 15, 2015)

pacman777 said:


> What if you end up making a staroptions reservation at your home resort. Is renting allowed?



I believe the answer is yes, because all reservations under 8 months for units enrolled in SVN are made using StarOptions -- and SVN enrollment is meant to enhance, not abridge, your usage rights.


----------



## dspring (May 15, 2015)

LisaRex got my meaning.  I am OK with Savy buyers understanding the system and making the most of it, within the rules.  So even though I said it was not fair, good for those that do.  Thanks to TUG and this forum, we are all more Savy.


----------



## Henry M. (May 15, 2015)

My bad. I see what you mean after re-reading the post.


----------



## alexadeparis (May 15, 2015)

dspring said:


> Lots of interesting discussion. I have a similar opinion to sicnarf.  I first bought in Maui in 2003 and worked up to 5 star elite by 2006.....before reading this forum.  I rented unused rooms from the start.  I bought half in Maui and half at WKV  I told the salesman I planned to continue to rent in Maui for all rentals and he said good idea.  I did not trust a timeshare salesman so I did look at my contract, but I missed the rule where I was not supposed use WKV for Maui.  - snip





dspring said:


> I do plan to follow the rules now that I know them and I would like to see Starwood enforce them
> Is it fair for someone to buy SDO for next to nothing, pay much less in fees, and exchange for Maui - IMO - no.  Does it follow the rules - yes.



But isn't that EXACTLY what YOU were doing by using your WKV StarOptions to rent out WKORV?!?!?! Using a less expensive resort, WKV (both in purchase price and in MF) to exchange for Maui? Seems like that is more unfair to the other StarOption owners as you were renting at a profit at the expense of other StarOption exchangers having a shot at those units, since you were breaking the rules. Ignorance of the rule is not an excuse, really. 

And if you are talking about II exchanges with Starwood Priority for non-StarOptions users, I would presume that those deposited units are available to StarOptions users before they are ever deposited into II if they are valuable trades. So I guess I really don't see the "unfairness" the same way you do, since this is within the rules. I choose to own StarOptions because I want first crack at the units in the system before they hit II. But I don't begrudge someone with no StarOptions for getting a good II trade with Starwood Priority.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 15, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> Not to put words in his mouth, but wasn't talking about renting, but using it for his own personal use.  It doesn't seem fair that someone can buy a very inexpensive VOI and exchange it (via II or SVN) to a much more expensive resort.



That is part of the 4-tier SVO program…
1) HomeResort Use
2) SVN Exchange (to use) {for resale - Mandatory only, or requals}
3) II exchange
4) Convert VOI to SPs {for SVO purchases or requals only}


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 15, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I believe the answer is yes, because all reservations under 8 months for units enrolled in SVN are made using StarOptions -- and SVN enrollment is meant to enhance, not abridge, your usage rights.



According to the text in the CCRs - the answer is 'No'.
If it falls under a SVN exchange (<8 months), and therefore it is not a HomeResort reservation anymore, and now falls under using SOs via SVN. Therefore, it is not suppose to be rented even if it is your HomeResort if you are using a SVN SOs (<8 months, no longer your deeded view location).  What may be confusing is that HomeResort reservations go through SVN and the currency used is SOs, but that is not the same thing.

BTW - this all started a few years back because people were giving advice on TUG to use SOs to make reservations at WKORV/N and HRA, and then rent them out for profit.  Some even making it a small business and supporting this type of SO renting for a commision. While, if anyone mentioned doing this with II exchanges they were immediately told that is not allowed.
So it was being hypocritical (i guess is the right word) to condemn one (II renting) and support the other (SVN renting).

During this time, a Tugger copy/pasted the text from the SVO/SVN Owners Manual (CCRs) about renting of non-HomeResort SOs not being allowed.  I followed up by contacting the SVP of OS to get a better clarity on this topic. They said that it was the case (rules disallow renting SVN SOs), and they were aware that it goes on, and were discussing internally.  However, still no enforcement. At the time, I suggested to them (and still do) that they include something in the reservation confirmation about this so Owners were aware (as most likely were not - except for Tuggers). 

Some here felt that since SVO/SVN was not enforcing, then it was fair game.  Now, SVO/SVN apparently is attempting to do some type of enforcement - perhaps getting ready to 'enhance' their program using Flex Options. {speculation - but not improbable}.

Not surprisingly, apparently many Owners forgot the 'Golden Rule' - aka the nodge clause - and that is whatever a SVO sales person tells you is not enforceable unless it is written the contract - with the SVO/SVN CCRs being linked to that contract.


----------



## Henry M. (May 15, 2015)

I found the following on MyStarCentral concerning owners renting their property:



> As an Owner, you may reserve a Vacation Period at your Home Resort through Owner Services and arrange a private third party rental on your ownership account. The rental of a reservation by a Starwood Vacation Network Owner for reservations confirmed using StarOptions (*other than a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort in the Villa Type and season purchased*) is prohibited.
> 
> (found at https://www.mystarcentral.com/reference/ownerrental.jsp, but this link is not accessible without logging in. Emphasis is mine)



Thus, full enforcement of today's rules would not preclude owners renting out a week they own in a particular season at their home resort, even if reserved using Staroptions. Owners are perfectly within their rights to make a reservation at their home resort at any time within the next 12 months (or less) and rent it out.

It is pretty black and white that owners are not allowed to reserve at another resort or even another season at their own resort and then rent out that week.


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> Thus, full enforcement of today's rules would not preclude owners renting out a week they own in a particular season at their home resort, even if reserved using Staroptions. Owners are perfectly within their rights to make a reservation at their home resort at any time within the next 12 months (or less) and rent it out.
> 
> It is pretty black and white that owners are not allowed to reserve at another resort or even another season at their own resort and then rent out that week.



I agree with your assessment.  You can rent out exactly what you bought, but nothing else.  If you bought a 2bdrm in silver season, then Starwood shouldn't be able to prohibit you from using or renting that. Seems perfectly fair to me.  (Of course, it also seems fair to me that if you bought OF, then you should get OF at your home resort, no matter when you reserve it, provided it's available.)  Precluding everyone, even owners, from renting a reservation they made after the 8 month window seems unfairly restrictive to owners, especially since voluntary resale owners wouldn't have this restriction.

Like I've said before, I agree with Starwood that owners and owners alone should be able to rent out a unit. If you create a system where people can exchange for profit, then the top tier resorts will be gobbled up by those with a commercial interest.  I'd rather see availability for people who want to personally use it.


----------



## Sicnarf (May 15, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> I found the following on MyStarCentral concerning owners renting their property:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, what are the ramifications when owners or renters get caught?  Cancellation of reservation?  Penalty?


----------



## YYJMSP (May 15, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> You can rent out exactly what you bought, but nothing else.  If you bought a 2bdrm in silver season, then Starwood shouldn't be able to prohibit you from using or renting that. Seems perfectly fair to me.  (Of course, it also seems fair to me that if you bought OF, then you should get OF at your home resort, no matter when you reserve it, provided it's available.).



Problem is that at WKORV/N you lose your view and "deluxeness" at 8mos out so how can you book exactly what you own?


----------



## Henry M. (May 15, 2015)

I suppose the renters might not be able to check in and use their reservation if Starwood decides to enforce the rules.

I have not seen anything about a penalty.


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

YYJMSP said:


> Problem is that at WKORV/N you lose your view and "deluxeness" at 8mos out so how can you book exactly what you own?



True. I guess I should modify that to say that it appears that you can legally rent out in your home resort if you can book the season and villa size you bought, even past the 8 month window.  Do you agree?  

 "...other than a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort in the Villa Type and season purchased."

It'd be nice to get official word on this.


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> I have not seen anything about a penalty.



"I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."


----------



## LisaRex (May 15, 2015)

BTW, I don't think that anyone can claim that Starwood isn't taking this matter seriously. They haven't "enforced" this rule to our knowledge, but our knowledge is very limited. A very small percentage of owners are Tuggers.  

So I really think that we can no longer, in good faith, advise owners to go ahead and rent an SVN exchange out without fear of reprisal.  It is obvious that Starwood is putting warnings in place. Enforcement may very well be next.   Personally, I wouldn't break the rules, because I'm a rules follower.  But if I did decide to flagrantly disregard the rules, I sure as heck wouldn't advertise it on the internet.  

Just trying to keep it real.


----------



## Henry M. (May 15, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."



I was thinking more "fine" or financial penalty, but this is pretty clear. A very angry renter will go along with it.


----------



## YYJMSP (May 15, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> A very angry renter will go along with it.



And having to give back the renter's monies and/or having to deal with a potentially more expensive last-minute booking rate using cash so that the renter has a place to stay, etc

And of course being out the usage, as it would obviously be too late to cancel and rebook (if SVO was to let you do that at all anyways) as all of this could occur at check-in...

Would a big mess to say the least!


----------



## kctime (May 18, 2015)

Hello, this is my first post, I've been lurking for a few months and am just getting into time-sharing.

I haven't seen it discussed, but the first issue that comes to my mind with this discussion is liability. If you go against the rules and rent a week that you shouldn't, then Starwood is essentially laying all the blame on you if your tenant causes any losses. (Fire, injury, etc.)

As a separate question (which maybe should go into its own thread), I'd be curious to know what sort of insurance people buy to protect themselves against any issue caused by their tenant. Would a simple umbrella policy work in this case?


----------



## DeniseM (May 18, 2015)

kctime said:


> As a separate question (which maybe should go into its own thread), I'd be curious to know what sort of insurance people buy to protect themselves against any issue caused by their tenant. Would a simple umbrella policy work in this case?



- Starwood requires all guests to run their credit card at check-in, and any charges or damages will be charged to the guest.

- At better quality resorts, intentional damage from private timeshare renters is almost unheard of.  In 15 years on TUG, I have never heard of anything more serious than a stained bedspread.

- In 15 years on TUG, I've never heard of a Starwood owner being charged for guest damages.  

- But, just to be cautious, I do not rent to anyone under 25.


----------



## DavidnRobin (May 18, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> I found the following on MyStarCentral concerning owners renting their property:
> 
> As an Owner, you may reserve a Vacation Period at your Home Resort through Owner Services and arrange a private third party rental on your ownership account. The rental of a reservation by a Starwood Vacation Network Owner for reservations confirmed using StarOptions (other than a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort in the Villa Type and season purchased) is prohibited.
> 
> ...



Not to harp on this point - but if 'Villa Type' is classified as to include Location (and I think it is) - and Location is lost at <8 months - then this is no longer a HomeResort reservation (same type) and it is classified as a SVN SO exchange, and therefore falls under 'prohibited' to rent.

So… sorry to disagree, and I could certainly be wrong - but this is not 'back and white'.  I would advise getting clarification on this point from SVO/SVN Management (and not some OS Associate).


----------



## SMHarman (May 18, 2015)

Sensible logical interpretation of home resort rental is anything in the season and villa type you own. Whether or not it is booked at 18 months or 3 days.


----------



## PamMo (May 18, 2015)

SMHarman said:


> Sensible logical interpretation of home resort rental is anything in the season and villa type you own. Whether or not it is booked at 18 months or 3 days.



That sounds sensible, but at resorts with view designations, that might not work, depending on what "type" means. For example, Westin Princeville VOI's have no view designation, so owners could reserve a month out and get the season (1-50 or 51-52) and type (size) they own. If "type" is classified as size AND view, Westin Ka'anapali owners would be forbidden from renting anything reserved under 8 months at their home resort.


----------



## SMHarman (May 18, 2015)

PamMo said:


> That sounds sensible, but at resorts with view designations, that might not work, depending on what "type" means. For example, Westin Princeville VOI's have no view designation, so owners could reserve a month out and get the season (1-50 or 51-52) and type (size) they own. If "type" is classified as size AND view, Westin Ka'anapali owners would be forbidden from renting anything reserved under 8 months at their home resort.


But that is only TUG speculation. 

The statement is designed to catch those owning in Florida and renting HI or Barbados and arbitraging MF.


----------



## YYJMSP (May 18, 2015)

SMHarman said:


> The statement is designed to catch those owning in Florida and renting HI or Barbados and arbitraging MF.



While that may be the intent, that is not what it says as there is no mention of "source" and "destination" of the SO's used to make the less than 8mos bookings, other than under some ambiguous circumstance where it may allowed when "source" and "destination" are the same...


----------



## Henry M. (May 19, 2015)

To me, the statement is very clear. It says that Staroptions reservations are prohibited, but then provides one exception - if the Staroptions reservations are at your Home Resort (this is not the same as Home Resort Period 8-12 months out) and in the season and Villa Type (1 BR, 2BR, Lock-off, etc.) that you own. 

I think it is trying to be as clear as it can that you can rent out what you own even if it is technically a StarOption reservation. It prohibits all StarOption reservations at resorts and seasons you don't own. I see how you can quibble about villa type including the view, but I don't think that is the intent of the statement. It refers to StarOption reservations, which by definition don't include a view.


----------



## SMHarman (May 19, 2015)

Iwant2gonow said:


> I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:
> 
> "I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."
> 
> ...


Going back to post 1 and the statement. If you use SO to book from one network resort to another that is an SVN reservation. Anything else is home resort.


----------



## SMHarman (May 19, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> Exactly - we met a couple last year at WKORV that were bragging how they owned multiple weeks at SVV (like 12), and used them to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them out.
> 
> This topic came up on this forum a while ago, because it was openly suggested that people use their SOs to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them.  However, when this approach was brought up in regards to II exchanges they were immediately told that this was not allowed.  Guess what?  It is also not allowed for SVN exchanges, but for some reason (aka $$$) continues to be recommended.





grgs said:


> Not David, but I would guess they chose to not do the needed programming to differentiate between the different types of reservations.  It was just easier to put the statement in for all reservation types.
> 
> The only gray area in my mind is if you rent out your home resort with a reservation made less than 8 mos. out.  Technically, it is an SVN reservation, but there was some language that indicated that it was allowable.
> 
> Glorian


Except it is not when you are not a member of SVN. It is just a currency used to represent the booking then.


----------



## RnU (Jun 17, 2015)

Can someone explain to me about letting a family member or friend use your week if it is booked somewhere besides the home resort? Do I have the legal right to trade from FL to HI and just let my kids use the week without being present myself?

I'm just curious about the legality and how SVN would be able to distinguish between renters and lucky family/friends.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 17, 2015)

You absolutely are permitted to gift a timeshare reservation to anyone that you choose.


----------



## RnU (Jun 17, 2015)

Thanks Denise.


----------



## Henry M. (Aug 6, 2015)

Some additional information on this subject. Today I noticed MyStarCentral allows me to change the name on a reservation I already have. I only have reservations at my home resorts, so I don't know if there would be different verbiage for other reservations.

When I click on Change Guest Name, a form comes up. At the bottom there's a statement you have to agree to:



> _
> I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant.
> 
> Agree to Terms and Conditions:*
> _



Clicking on the link for SVEC Rules and Regulations, it says:


> _
> 8.1 Personal Use; Commercial Purposes. Use of the Units and facilities associated with SVN is limited solely to the personal use of SVN Members, their guests, invitees, exchangers, and for recreational use by corporations or other similar business entities owning VOIs. Purchase of a VOI or use of Units and facilities associated with SVN for commercial purposes, for contribution to or use in a different vacation ownership plan or vacation club (except as expressly permitted in the SVN Documents), or for any purpose other than the personal use described above is prohibited.
> 
> 8.2 SVN Member Rentals. An SVN Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the SVN Member's Home Resort and rent it on the SVN Member's own account. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of the Resort Documents affecting occupancy, and the renting SVN Member will be responsible for the acts or omissions of the SVN Member's renters or any other person or persons permitted by the SVN Member to use the Unit. Rental by an SVN Member of Units reserved through SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved at the SVN Member's Home Resort) is prohibited.
> _



Now some will argue about seasons, views, unit sizes and such, but it is pretty clear you cannot rent out anything anywhere other than at your home resort. You are clearly allowed to use SVN to reserve something at your home resort and rent it out.

All those people buying Florida to get a unit in Maui to rent out are doing so at their own peril. Renters using units from non-owners are also risking their whole vacation being disrupted. Slowly, but surely, Starwood is tightening the noose.

Perhaps the stickies above the forum should also include a section on renting out your VOI.


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 6, 2015)

I don't think they care one hoot about saving the weeks for the Starwood owners.  Renters provide them with new prospects to sell to.  It's also another reason to buy high-value weeks and it's a sales pitch I've gotten from both Starwood and Marriott.  I'm not even sure they could legally do it.  In most cases this is still private real estate ownership.  I don't think they can put a deed restriction on the property after the fact anymore than a condo assn or developer can decide their owners can't rent after they already own the property.


----------



## Henry M. (Aug 6, 2015)

SVN is separate from your ownership. They can put whatever rules they want on exchanges through SVN. The rules above don't restrict anything you do with what you own, but they sure can decide to void your rental of an exchange through the Starwood Vacation Network.


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 6, 2015)

I don't ever want to rent an exchange.  I only want to rent what I own.  I totally understand why the rule is in place that you can't rent weeks that were gotten with Star Options.


----------



## Henry M. (Aug 6, 2015)

There was a question further up about whether a reservation at your home resort within 8 months of arrival was a StarOption reservation or not. I don't think it matters, if it is at your home resort. 

You can rent out what you own. You cannot rent out anything at a property you don't own. I think this is pretty black and white now.


----------



## okwiater (Aug 7, 2015)

suzannesimon said:


> I don't think they can put a deed restriction on the property after the fact anymore than a condo assn or developer can decide their owners can't rent after they already own the property.



This is done all the time. There are many, many examples of homeowners and condo associations not permitting the rental of personally owned, deeded units.



> _Rental by an SVN Member of Units reserved through SVN (other than a  Vacation Period reserved at the SVN Member's Home Resort) is prohibited._


I think this is still vague. If I own 10 Orlando units and 1 Maui unit, can I make multiple SVN reservations for Maui using my Orlando StarOptions?


----------



## Ty1on (Aug 7, 2015)

okwiater said:


> This is done all the time. There are many, many examples of homeowners and condo associations not permitting the rental of personally owned, deeded units.
> 
> I think this is still vague. If I own 10 Orlando units and 1 Maui unit, can I make multiple SVN reservations for Maui using my Orlando StarOptions?



I would argue that rental restrictions are encoded in the CC&Rs from the development stage on.


----------



## taterhed (Aug 7, 2015)

okwiater said:


> This is done all the time. There are many, many examples of homeowners and condo associations not permitting the rental of personally owned, deeded units.
> 
> I think this is still vague. If I own 10 Orlando units and 1 Maui unit, can I make multiple SVN reservations for Maui using my Orlando StarOptions?



Of course. Good luck.

Not to be harsh, but why wouldn't you be able to make 11 Maui reservations? You can only rent 1 of them if it's a week reserved at the SVN Owner's Home Resort in the Villa Type and season purchased. 

My question is: Why isn't SVN enforcing the policy of no rentals (on 10 of those Maui reservations--or 11 if it's a trade-up) ?

jmho

 I assume you'll be occupying all 11 of those ressies--or purchase guest certificates for the person you give the week to.  Oh, and btw, I think the guest certificates now contain language about non-rental--or do they?


----------



## Henry M. (Aug 7, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I think this is still vague. If I own 10 Orlando units and 1 Maui unit, can I make multiple SVN reservations for Maui using my Orlando StarOptions?



I think the intent is pretty clear. You can rent what you own. Anything else is just trying to find loopholes or contrived ways around the intent of the rule.


----------



## Ty1on (Aug 7, 2015)

emuyshondt said:


> I think the intent is pretty clear. You can rent what you own. Anything else is just trying to find loopholes or contrived ways around the intent of the rule.



The soup thickens when there are salesmen sharing these contrivances in order to close a sale and make their commissions.


----------



## raygo123 (Aug 7, 2015)

Very interesting.  Usually it takes a majority vote to change a covenant.  So no grandfather in that instance.
It could be why Wyndham is taking the approach they have initiated.  Given that Wyndham does not in any way recognize resale,can they push through a similar policy that one can only rent what is bought from Wyndham.
If presented correctly I think most owners who bought through Wyndham would vote for it.  Plus they have the votes with what they have in inventory

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 7, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I think this is still vague. If I own 10 Orlando units and 1 Maui unit, can I make multiple SVN reservations for Maui using my Orlando StarOptions?



I think the intent that they're aiming for is that you can only rent out the Maui reservations that were made using the Maui ownership.

If a reservation was "paid" for with a different resort, you can't rent it out...


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 7, 2015)

raygo123 said:


> Very interesting.  Usually it takes a majority vote to change a covenant.  So no grandfather in that instance.
> It could be why Wyndham is taking the approach they have initiated.  Given that Wyndham does not in any way recognize resale,can they push through a similar policy that one can only rent what is bought from Wyndham.
> If presented correctly I think most owners who bought through Wyndham would vote for it.  Plus they have the votes with what they have in inventory
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk



I think that there's wording in the SVN agreement allowing SVO to make unilateral changes to the program, which they've obviously done before (SO valuation/redemption rate changes, Elite benefits changes, etc)


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2015)

It seems every year or so there's a thread on what SVN may do unilaterally with the club. I find it interesting that there are always people who express surprise at this, and then try to find ways around the potential limitations.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 7, 2015)

The CCR rules about thus is vague? Seems pretty clear - and it is in the terms one accepts when buying these SVO VOIs and were not added at later date (I have copies of Original CCRs at WKORV, WKORVN, and WPORV). Perhaps the problem is that the bias needs to be wiped off the glasses of those that seem to have an issue with comprehension (and compliance) of these rules?

IMO - they really need to add text to the reservation confirmation that addresses this issue. I suggested this to SVO/SVN back in 2012 in my communication with them about this topic. IMO - this would be a major deterrent to those renting villas obtained via SVN SOs that are not at the Owner's Home Resort.

Correct... SVO TS salespeople should not be contradicting this rule in order to make a sale - I wrote SVO/SVN about this topic when it came up recently. Never heard back - which doesn't surprise me because they could open themselves up to Legal issues by putting something in writing.  I would not be surprised that this is being addressed internally - especially now that they are asking Owners that put an alternate name on the reservation to acknowledge the SVN rule prohibiting these types of rentals.  IMO

Added: I do agree that the language used on MyStarCental is confusing when changing the Guest name.
_*I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes.* In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant._

This makes it sound that no rental is allowed - which is untrue according to CCRs. I am going to contact them about this text, as I have just rented one of my WKV Plat+ weeks.

Added-2: Instead of doing a name change on-line (because of this text) - I called Owner Services and did the name change over the phone. They did not query about the name change other than the usual questions (name, address, phone).


----------



## Scott & Laura (Aug 9, 2015)

The question of Rental seems to me to comprise two issues

1) I own deeded property and as such I can rent or use in compliance with our association rules as deemed fit
       Starwood is hired by our association to manage our affairs and as such can only convey Rules we agree to as owners. Starwood cannot set rules beyond what we agree to as owners or empower them with


2)  Star options are an owner to owner exchange that owners agreed to be managed by Starwood. I personally believe that implying and exchanging my week for personal use using Star options with an owner at another resort and subsequently renting it for personal gain is inappropriate.  

 The reason being trading star options for myself prohibits other owners the access rights to that very week to use personally and, if I  turn around and rent  it for personal monetary gain after denying other star option traders It smells wrong---Why not trade every star option week for a Spring Break Ski week at Steamboat and turn around and rent them to strangers so other Star option people are denied access or will pay my price


Scoitt & Laura


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 9, 2015)

I think we're just complicating the matter more than we need to.  This is very simple.

You own a deeded property.  Your deed specifically restricts you to some combination of usage criteria, such as a view, a unit size, a season, a week, etc.  There may be a way you can split up the deeded usage (i.e. a lockoff) in to separate pieces.  You can rent out that deeded property, or piece thereof.  As long as what you rent matches your ownership, I don't think anyone argues with your right to rent it.  The right to rent carries with your deed.

The issue is when you trade your deeded property for someone else's deeded property (i.e. a StarOption exchange within SVN, a trade using II, etc).  You have basically rented out your deeded property to the owner of the other deeded property, in return for the right to use their deeded property.  You might be going through some agent in the middle (SVN, II, etc) to do this.  Think of them as a rental agency.  What you get from them does not include the right for you to sublet it to someone else.  Bottom line, you don't have rights to rent out the property you traded for, since you do not have the deed to it, which is what carries the right to rent.


----------



## Helios (Aug 9, 2015)

I like your explanation.  Based on it, it sounds like you are restricted to rent your exact Home Resort villa in it's season because that is what you own.  However, the Starwood reservation language does not clearly convey that.  I think it can be interpreted as it is OK to rent units at your Home Resort if they are made with StarOptions from your Home Resort.  This adds a level of complexity to track what StarOptions are used for a specific reservation.  Thought?


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 9, 2015)

moto x said:


> I like your explanation.  Based on it, it sounds like you are restricted to rent your exact Home Resort villa in it's season because that is what you own.  However, the Starwood reservation language does not clearly convey that.  I think it can be interpreted as it is OK to rent units at your Home Resort if they are made with StarOptions from your Home Resort.  This adds a level of complexity to track what StarOptions are used for a specific reservation.  Thought?



Yah, the booking your home resort out-of-season with the SO's from that same resort kinda breaks what otherwise would be clean rules.  The wording appears to be that you can do this and it still gets treated as rentable.  The problem I see is that you could end up with more time than you actually own (i.e. using a high-season unit to book more than your owned time in low-season).  I suppose that gets balanced out in the other direction, where you get less time than you actually own if you booked with a low-season unit in to high-season.  It's all an accounting nightmare...

When you make a SO reservation, you are always specifying which ownership those SO's came from.  It's not really a great big pool no matter what anyone tells you -- every SO tracks back to a specific ownership.  If you don't say which ownership(s) to use, they will take some combination of your ownerships to get enough SO's together.

When you call in for a SO booking, the onus is on you to make sure you tell them which ownership(s) to pull the SO's from.  You need to keep track of what was consumed for what usage, or you may inadvertently lose a Home Resort booking opportunity.

We've had fun when they took the SO's from an ownership that we later wanted to use for a Home Resort booking, and couldn't do any more, since the ownership had been consumed.  It makes a big mess when you have to basically cancel the SO booking and rebook it (losing your timestamp, though it's supposedly documented for the property to honour the original timestamp) so you can get your Home Resort back again.  Ick.

When you do an online SO booking, you either let it choose where to pull the SO's from, or you can go to the optional screen that let's you specifically choose how many SO's come from what ownership (including banked SO's) to cover the booking.  This makes it easy to make sure you're using SO's from the same property at which you're trying to book.


----------



## Helios (Aug 9, 2015)

I know what you mean about losing your Home Resort Reservation Priority.  Especially if you ask SVN to use certain StarOptions but instead they use whatever they want or whatever the system picks.  I think this is most upsetting for people with fixed units/weeks at resorts where not all units are the same (WSJ Pool Villas and WKORV/N Ocean Front and ocean Deluxe, and Harborside Phase I to some extent; there may be more).

Going back to your post, renting a unit at your resort in a lower season means you can reserve more days for your season StarOptions and I can see how that would be considered cheating the system.  However, that also means you open the door for someone to reserve your high season unit.  I would argue that greatly benefits other members, perhaps mainly exchangers more than Home Resort members from the lower season you reserved.  At the end of the day all seasons (for the same villa) pay the same maintenance fees.  Members who bank/borrow also would benefit by you not reserving your unit.

This can be very complex to interpret, and Starwood is not helping the issue with their reservation language when you change the name online.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 9, 2015)

you can't change season at HomeResort, and then rent - only within season at HomeResort...

just because someone states it here - does not make it so...


----------



## YYJMSP (Aug 9, 2015)

DavidnRobin said:


> you can't change season at HomeResort, and then rent - only within season at HomeResort...
> 
> just because someone states it here - does not make it so...



From the text in a pop-up when you change the guest name online at MSC (bolding is mine):



> 8.2 SVN Member Rentals. An SVN Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the SVN Member's Home Resort and rent it on the SVN Member's own account. All renters must comply with the rules and regulations of the Resort Documents affecting occupancy, and the renting SVN Member will be responsible for the acts or omissions of the SVN Member's renters or any other person or persons permitted by the SVN Member to use the Unit. *Rental by an SVN Member of Units reserved through SVN (other than a Vacation Period reserved at the SVN Member's Home Resort) is prohibited. *



That text unclearly can be read as "you can rent a SO reservation at your home resort".

However, no mention of restriction to your owned season, unit type, etc.

And it doesn't say that the source of those SO's has to be the home resort, but it's my reading that was likely the intention.

The words have to be made explicitly complete and correct.


----------



## Helios (Aug 9, 2015)

YYJMSP said:


> From the text in a pop-up when you change the guest name online at MSC (bolding is mine):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with YYJMSP 100%.  That was my point also.  Starwood needs to clearly state it in their wording.  

On the flip side, I think at the end of the day you are not allowed to rent a different season villa even if it is at your Home Resort using your Home Resort options.  But, does everybody know their deed's rights and restrictions?

And on a related side note, at the risk of upsetting many, does anybody think banking should be discontinued?  My logic would be that I don't want to be forced to plan more than 8 months ahead because I fear that many people can take my villa in my season away, even if it is for personal use.  This was not as big of a problem in the old days before banking...  BTW, planning is not a problem for me but think that banking has created an unfair situation for some of us.:ignore:


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 10, 2015)

moto x said:


> And on a related side note, at the risk of upsetting many, does anybody think banking should be discontinued?  My logic would be that I don't want to be forced to plan more than 8 months ahead because I fear that many people can take my villa in my season away, even if it is for personal use.  This was not as big of a problem in the old days before banking...  BTW, planning is not a problem for me but think that banking has created an unfair situation for some of us.:ignore:



There are two potential topics for discussion here: 

WILL Starwood discontinue banking? and 
SHOULD Starwood discontinue banking?

As to the first question, I highly, highly doubt it.  I think that banking is a great selling point for mid and low seasons, and mid to low tier resorts, because banking gives owners the_ opportunity _to exchange into the top tier resorts and/or a larger unit.  That in itself is enough reason to keep the program.  Unsold inventory is a bad deal for the developer AND owners, and if this creates a boost to sales in low season, especially, that's a good thing. Because Starwood is going to pass along the costs of those clunker weeks to the other owners one way or another. 

Remember that whether these lower tier owners are ABLE to exchange in to the top tier resorts is really immaterial to Starwood.  It's still a great marketing tool:
 
Buy a studio in Orlando, Exchange to the World!*
*Subject to availability.  

And, of course, the increased competition for top tier resorts, in turn, creates an incentive for folks who wouldn't otherwise pay the $$ to own at HRA or WKORV to actually buy there.  So that's a win-win for Starwood. 

Banking also creates a nice new revenue stream because Starwood collects $99 every time someone banks any amount of points.   

And it also creates situations like mine, where I banked my SOs two years ago, and I'm now in the unenviable position of having 30,000 SOs that I have to use or lose by 12/31/15.  I've run out of vacation time for this year, so unless I give them away, I'll end up forfeiting them.  And I have no one to blame but myself.  Starwood must LOVE that.  

So, no, I don't think that it WILL be discontinued.  

As a former owner of WKORV-N, I will say that banking was not particularly welcomed by me because I only exchanged to top tier resorts, and I knew that this would mean even more competition for those few resorts.  So I definitely see where you're coming from.  

But would I campaign for an end to banking? No, because even when I owned a marketable villa (for rentals), I actually much preferred the ability to bank my week v. use it or lose it.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 10, 2015)

YYJMSP said:


> From the text in a pop-up when you change the guest name online at MSC (bolding is mine):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the first part...
"*8.2 SVN Member Rentals. An SVN Member may reserve a Vacation Period at the SVN Member's Home Resort and rent it on the SVN Member's own account." * is key here - the paragraph needs to be looked at in its entirety.

However, that Sec 8.2 is the Terms and Conditions for the CCRs that is linked in the pop-up - that is not the text pop-up on MSC (I just did this a few days ago) - the text pop-up is:

_*I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes.* In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant._

at least that is what I copy/pasted from my guest name change - I didn't want to agree to it as it states '...for personal use and not for rental...', So I called - the Associate did not request anything from me (except renter's info as usual) - so maybe they saw that this was my HomeResort (and not SOs) - or just inconsistent training (likely).


----------



## Scott & Laura (Aug 10, 2015)

Thanks David

You used phrase which I think makes clear      ------I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant 

 SVN is for "Inter"-Network exchanges    Ownership is "intra" access to a home Resort   

I think people are conflating ownership in a Resort with  SVN

Ownership is deeded property and only governed by agreements in home resort association


SVN is a trade association whereby people of differing ownerships have agreed  to a standardized monetary system  --not dollars or rubles or loonies--in this case --Staroptions that is the agreed upon name of the currency used as a medium of exchange in this case. It is used to purchase access for yourself for the week---You are not purchasing access in SVN for entitlement to rent


Scott & Laura


----------

