# Renting Wyndham



## hjsweet2002 (Jul 31, 2022)

Has Wyndham corporate cancelled Wyndham rentals?


----------



## bnoble (Jul 31, 2022)

Any? Reportdely, yes. All? No.


----------



## chapjim (Jul 31, 2022)

hjsweet2002 said:


> Has Wyndham corporate cancelled Wyndham rentals?



Wyndham is on a crusade to discourage owners from renting.  Wyndham does this by making an owner an offer he can't refuse or, in extreme cases, shutting down the owner's account, etc.

In other contexts, Wyndham would be called a bully at the least, or a tyrant in the extreme.  Here, since Wyndham wrote the rules and the rules prohibit "commercial use," Wyndham is acting within its authority.


----------



## legalfee (Aug 1, 2022)

We have rented out ours through the HOA and our Yahoo / Facebook group for maintenance fees.


----------



## Lovetovacation2 (Aug 3, 2022)

Is this website for Only Corporate Wyndham Rentals that they need to rent or for owners who want to rent?  https://www.extraholidays.com/


----------



## bnoble (Aug 3, 2022)

Owners can book time and turn it over to Extra Holidays to rent on their behalf. Conventional wisdom is that it is rarely a good thing for the owner.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 3, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Wyndham is on a crusade to discourage owners from renting.  Wyndham does this by making an owner an offer he can't refuse or, in extreme cases, shutting down the owner's account, etc.
> 
> In other contexts, Wyndham would be called a bully at the least, or a tyrant in the extreme.  Here, since Wyndham wrote the rules and the rules prohibit "commercial use," Wyndham is acting within its authority.


Another context would be that the automatic upgrades Wyndham introduced defeated the predatory practice of commercial renters (bullies) who scammed the system by booking armloads (or more) of premium 3 and 4 bedroom Presidential units at 13 months then using a loophole to cancel and rebook those units withing 60 days at half the cost of a studio or 1 bedroom.

How can anyone think Wyndham is a bully by introducing Owner Priority Booking to minimize commercial renting and maximize occupancy by owners who bought into a Vacation Club for their personal use?

Seems like the profiteers just have sour grapes because the changes have put more Club Wyndham owners and fewer "anybody" renters in Club units -- and killed the profits.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 4, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Another context would be that the automatic upgrades Wyndham introduced defeated the predatory practice of commercial renters (bullies) who scammed the system by booking armloads (or more) of premium 3 and 4 bedroom Presidential units at 13 months then using a loophole to cancel and rebook those units withing 60 days at half the cost of a studio or 1 bedroom.
> 
> How can anyone think Wyndham is a bully by introducing Owner Priority Booking to minimize commercial renting and maximize occupancy by owners who bought into a Vacation Club for their personal use?
> 
> Seems like the profiteers just have sour grapes because the changes have put more Club Wyndham owners and fewer "anybody" renters in Club units -- and killed the profits.



I don't know about other owners but I couldn't book "armloads" of Presidential units.  I ran out of PR points before I even got a handful of them. BTW, I booked them at fourteen months, not thirteen.

I actually enjoy the hyperbole in some of your posts.  "Predatory," "bullies," "scammed the system," "armloads (or more)", etc.  Very creative, albeit inapt.

No sour grapes here.  I wasn't making enough of a profit to cry about.  I don't have to spend hours searching for rentable reservations, and writing and responding to emails.  Record keeping and preparing and filing tax returns will be a lot easier.  I reduced the size of my account, which reduced my monthly maintenance fee by almost 50%.  I ceased renting (at Wyndham's demand).  I'm not on that sinful path.  I'm on the righteous path of a Wyndham owner whose account is for personal use only.

I acknowledge that Wyndham is acting within its authority but still maintain that some of its actions in doing so are borderline tyrannical.


----------



## ronparise (Aug 4, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Another context would be that the automatic upgrades Wyndham introduced defeated the predatory practice of commercial renters (bullies) who scammed the system by booking armloads (or more) of premium 3 and 4 bedroom Presidential units at 13 months then using a loophole to cancel and rebook those units withing 60 days at half the cost of a studio or 1 bedroom.
> 
> How can anyone think Wyndham is a bully by introducing Owner Priority Booking to minimize commercial renting and maximize occupancy by owners who bought into a Vacation Club for their personal use?
> 
> Seems like the profiteers just have sour grapes because the changes have put more Club Wyndham owners and fewer "anybody" renters in Club units -- and killed the profits.




Like  chapjim I agree that Wyndham is acting within their authority now taking action to minimize renting, and Wyndham acted within their authority when they forced me out of the system

Was I bullied?? 
What is a bully??   A bully is a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable. And thats exactly how I was treated. And like any bully, they backed down when I stood up to them.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 4, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Like  chapjim I agree that Wyndham is acting within their authority now taking action to minimize renting, and Wyndham acted within their authority when they forced me out of the system
> 
> Was I bullied??
> What is a bully??   A bully is a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable. And thats exactly how I was treated. And like any bully, they backed down when I stood up to them.


Wyndham wanted you to cease and desist with your rental business.
You stopped renting.
Who backed down?


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 5, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Wyndham wanted you to cease and desist with your rental business.
> You stopped renting.
> Who backed down?



Renting had nothing at all to do with why Wyndham was looking at Ron.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 5, 2022)

That’s correct. It was other, shall we say unethical business practices that some would call working the system? Point being, Ron is no longer in business. Wyndham is. But, sure. Wyndham backed down.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 5, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Wyndham wanted you to cease and desist with your rental business.


As Ron has said many times, they essentially made him an offer he couldn't refuse - after he stood up to their initial demands. Wyndham certainly backed down from the stance they originally took with him, and he obviously came out of the situation just fine with that settlement (which only came because didn't back down). Because as Ron also said many times, he knew he wasn't in that game permanently, so the demise of the rental business was already something he expected. By the time he was done, it was less of a rental business and more an attempt to divest of all the contracts he had accumulated.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 5, 2022)

And maybe we don't have to re-litigate this whenever someone says his name three times. Maybe.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 5, 2022)

I feel there should be a website praiseron.com!


----------



## bnoble (Aug 5, 2022)

That’s not it at all. But some people insist on having the same argument over. And over. And over. And over.

In the immortal words of The Rock: it doesn’t matter who got the better of whom, who was right, or who was wrong. Wyndham does what they do, and we try to get what we want within those (changing) rules. And if we don’t think we can do that anymore, we get out.


----------



## jules54 (Aug 5, 2022)

Too once more repeat something that has been said so often when I bought into Wyndham(Fairfield) and upgraded and bought more points the rules were different. Renting your points or booked reservations was suggested and encouraged To recoup your yearly maintenance fees. Rolling points together and purchasing more points to get to a higher status of VIP so an owner could find more availability for both themselves and for reservations to rent out. That is what drove the desire to purchase more points. Then when Wyndham wanted to changed the rules they did so. Which some folks insist the rules that already excisted were enforced. In the last several years Wyndham has only taken away and never given anything in return to replace. These changes have no effect on largest percentage of the owners because they own much smaller amounts of points and are no level of VIP. It does still effect owners who have paid their maintenance fees year after year for 10’s of thousands of dollars. Wyndham Customer service is nonexistent. And still to this day the sales department is still telling owners they can rent their points/reservations. Now corporate is just as unethical as the sales department so why to go Wyndham.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 6, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> That’s correct. It was other, shall we say unethical business practices that some would call working the system? Point being, Ron is no longer in business. Wyndham is. But, sure. Wyndham backed down.


We will never, of course, get insight into Wyndham's interpretation of events.  And on TUG we will get multiple versions of one side of the story depending on the day of the week.



On December 10 2018 ronparise said:


> It dosent make any difference, whether they have the right or not.  I didnt think they had a right to suspend my accounts and force me out of the club... Basically they dared me to sue them.    I didnt have the money or inclination to do that...It was like negotiating with Tony Soprano..so I settled, on their terms
> 
> my point is even if you have the right, It you probably dont have the cash to fight for it


----------



## CO skier (Aug 6, 2022)

chapjim said:


> I actually enjoy the hyperbole in some of your posts.  "Predatory," "bullies," "scammed the system," "armloads (or more)", etc.  Very creative, albeit inapt.


It was you who introduced hyperbole about "bullies" and "tyrant in the extreme" into this thread.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 6, 2022)

chapjim said:


> No sour grapes here.





chapjim said:


> ... still maintain that some of its [Wyndham's] actions in doing so are borderline tyrannical.



I cannot recall the term for this kind of contradiction.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 6, 2022)

CO skier said:


> We will never, of course, get insight into Wyndham's interpretation of events.  And on TUG we will get multiple versions of one side of the story depending on the day of the week.


Hmmm. Did he settle twice? First on their terms and later after they backed down?


----------



## chapjim (Aug 6, 2022)

CO skier said:


> I cannot recall the term for this kind of contradiction.



tyrannical -- "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"

No contradiction at all.


----------



## billymach4 (Aug 6, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Like  chapjim I agree that Wyndham is acting within their authority now taking action to minimize renting, and Wyndham acted within their authority when they forced me out of the system
> 
> Was I bullied??
> What is a bully??   A bully is a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable. And thats exactly how I was treated. And like any bully, they backed down when I stood up to them.


@ronparise   where can I read about your journey with Wyndham. Been in and out ot TUG for years. Mostly follow the Marriott trend. Would like to read about your experience.


----------



## billymach4 (Aug 6, 2022)

FWIW I  just tried to read some older threads on this subject matter. Not getting the acronyms and other abbreviated language.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 6, 2022)

These threads are about Wyndham attacking owners who are renting, and when owners want to state their displeasure on TUG, because this is usually a safe place, we get bullied by TUG members.  We cannot even dialogue on TUG about a big corporation who is indeed bullying without vitriol from TUG members who think we are breaking a rule, a rule that was added to the Wyndham website arbitrarily.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Aug 6, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> These threads are about Wyndham attacking owners who are renting, and when owners want to state their displeasure on TUG, *because this is usually a safe place,* we get bullied by TUG members.  We cannot even dialogue on TUG about a big corporation who is indeed bullying without vitriol from TUG members who think we are breaking a rule, a rule that was added to the Wyndham website arbitrarily.


Agree except I would say *used to be a safe place*...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 6, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Agree except I would say *used to be a safe place*...


Yes, I tend to keep my mouth shut.  I avoid the bullies, mostly.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 6, 2022)

Alternate take. We can’t disagree and have a discussion about renting and Wyndham’s right to change the rules without being called bullies by the renters.


----------



## billymach4 (Aug 6, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> These threads are about Wyndham attacking owners who are renting, and when owners want to state their displeasure on TUG, because this is usually a safe place, we get bullied by TUG members.  We cannot even dialogue on TUG about a big corporation who is indeed bullying without vitriol from TUG members who think we are breaking a rule, a rule that was added to the Wyndham website arbitrarily.


This is definitely an insider issue. Appreciate the high level overview. I  have a curiosity interest in Wyndham due to their properties in the New England area. Particularly in Rhode Island Since it is an easy drive from my current location.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Aug 6, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Alternate take. We can’t disagree and have a discussion about renting and Wyndham’s right to change the rules without being called bullies by the renters.


Sadly, people can't state their opinion about Wyndham without the thread quickly digressing to name calling/belittling of posters. I'm not saying by you. You can have whatever opinion you like. But direct name calling going on has really ruined TUG for me. I'm surprised continues to go on, and yet it does. Just can't say anything anymore, I am vowing to stay off of TUG a bit more, I'm trying, it's an addiction (and not healthy). Be kind. That's my alternate take.  Ha... I leave with a story, someone was letting their 6 year old jump into the hot tub during a recently. When my friend reprimanded the boy, the Mom jumped all over my friend, said she was just about to correct the boy and to leave the correction to his Mama. She was wearing a shirt that said 'Be Nice'.  The world today.


----------



## Lsfinn (Aug 6, 2022)

Can anyone point me toward where in the contract documents there are rules regarding renting points? I'm especially interested in rules that have a specific carveout for ExtraHolidays. 
Thanks!


----------



## bnoble (Aug 6, 2022)

There is no blanket prohibition against renting, and so there is correspondingly no carve-out for EH. There is language that forbids (or at least disclaims) using an ownership for "commercial purposes" that I am too busy to look up right now, but there are no concrete/actionable definitions of "commercial" that would be helpful to an owner trying to suss out where the line might be.

There are some rules about how many GCs one can use at certain resorts and during certain dates. IIRC, someone tried to give a "restricted" reservation to EH and it was declined. Not sure if they still do that or not, but at least at the time EH would not take a reservation that was restricted for GC use by owners.


----------



## WManning (Aug 6, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I feel there should be a website praiseron.com





rickandcindy23 said:


> These threads are about Wyndham attacking owners who are renting, and when owners want to state their displeasure on TUG, because this is usually a safe place, we get bullied by TUG members.  We cannot even dialogue on TUG about a big corporation who is indeed bullying without vitriol from TUG members who think we are breaking a rule, a rule that was added to the Wyndham website arbitrarily.



Best way to beat them is to join them at their game. If rules change you must adapt to new strategies. If you can't adapt Best course of action is to tap out.


----------



## chapjim (Aug 6, 2022)

bnoble said:


> There is no blanket prohibition against renting, and so there is correspondingly no carve-out for EH. There is language that forbids (or at least disclaims) using an ownership for "commercial purposes" that I am too busy to look up right now, but there are no concrete/actionable definitions of "commercial" that would be helpful to an owner trying to suss out where the line might be.
> 
> There are some rules about how many GCs one can use at certain resorts and during certain dates. IIRC, someone tried to give a "restricted" reservation to EH and it was declined. Not sure if they still do that or not, but at least at the time EH would not take a reservation that was restricted for GC use by owners.



That was me.  It was an item being discussed here so I tried it.  To the surprise of many, EH refused to take it.  I'm not sure what I would have done if EH had taken it.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 6, 2022)

bnoble said:


> IIRC, someone tried to give a "restricted" reservation to EH and it was declined. Not sure if they still do that or not, but at least at the time EH would not take a reservation that was restricted for GC use by owners.


What should be more clearly stated is that the reason to begin the process by reviewing the Owner-Only dates first is that these dates may not be booked for an Extra Holidays listing.


----------



## jules54 (Aug 7, 2022)

I keep reading in these threads about commercial renting about we knew what we were getting into when we signed the contract with Wyndham. I have never signed a contract with Wyndham. My one contract I bought from the developer was not a Wyndham affliate when I purchased the contract that happened after I already owned the contract. I can guarantee there was never anything I signed that warned me I couldn’t rent my reservations. I was encouraged by every salesman I ever spoke to that renting my reservations to pay my maintenance fees was the thing to do. Everything else I bought was resale so no signing anything for Wyndham there either.
Is this an automatic thing just taken for granted because you pay monthly or yearly maintenance fees to Wyndham. I’m really curious about this.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 7, 2022)

jules54 said:


> Is this an automatic thing just taken for granted because you pay monthly or yearly maintenance fees to Wyndham. I’m really curious about this.


Yes, regardless whether or not you signed a contract, if you have and use Wyndham points you are subject to the terms of the points Trust.

"WHEREAS, the Points allocated to a Member may be used to reserve Trust Properties pursuant to the procedures described in this Trust Agreement and the FairShare Plus Member’s Directory;"

On page 254 of the current Member’s Directory:

“The Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment and *not for any commercial purposes*.”


----------



## jules54 (Aug 7, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Yes, regardless whether or not you signed a contract, if you have and use Wyndham points you are subject to the terms of the points Trust.
> 
> "WHEREAS, the Points allocated to a Member may be used to reserve Trust Properties pursuant to the procedures described in this Trust Agreement and the FairShare Plus Member’s Directory;"
> 
> ...



Thank you CO skier
Subject to terms of the trust! Glad to know I didn’t actually sign something blindly that I don’t remember signing.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Aug 7, 2022)

bnoble said:


> That’s not it at all. But some people insist on having the same argument over. And over. And over. And over.
> 
> In the immortal words of The Rock: it doesn’t matter who got the better of whom, who was right, ........


Nice YouTube 
**************
Do you send it to students who don't like their earned grade ?
LOL


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 9, 2022)

jules54 said:


> Thank you CO skier
> Subject to terms of the trust! Glad to know I didn’t actually sign something blindly that I don’t remember signing.



There's also the website Terms of Use that everyone who uses the Wyndham owner website inherently agrees to whether they realize it or not:









						Terms of Use
					

By accessing Club Wyndham and/or using the Web Services, you agree to the Terms of use.




					clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com


----------



## troy12n (Aug 9, 2022)

OMG all this talk of safe spaces, and the plight of the poor, downtrodden, disaffected mega renter... PUHLEAZE...


----------



## flindberg (Aug 13, 2022)

I'm an owner of Wyndham points. Wyndham has one raison d'etre - profit. They'll soak you any which way they can with corporate lawyers constantly tuning the fine print. Buyer beware.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 14, 2022)

A for profit corporation trying to make a profit? Say it ain’t so! 

If Wyndham doesn’t turn a profit, they will be out of business and we will no longer have a timeshare. I really enjoy mine so I hope they continue prioritizing profit.


----------



## am1 (Aug 14, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Another context would be that the automatic upgrades Wyndham introduced defeated the predatory practice of commercial renters (bullies) who scammed the system by booking armloads (or more) of premium 3 and 4 bedroom Presidential units at 13 months then using a loophole to cancel and rebook those units withing 60 days at half the cost of a studio or 1 bedroom.
> 
> How can anyone think Wyndham is a bully by introducing Owner Priority Booking to minimize commercial renting and maximize occupancy by owners who bought into a Vacation Club for their personal use?
> 
> Seems like the profiteers just have sour grapes because the changes have put more Club Wyndham owners and fewer "anybody" renters in Club units -- and killed the profits.


I booked armloads of presidential units as well as other sizes.  At 15 days I would cancel and rebook at 14 days.  Or I would cancel book the middle 3  or 4 days and wait for the ends to be booked then cancel the middle.  A way to limit the competition.  
One December I had 50 million points show up in my account.  The only thing that resolved it was they expired.  I do not know what we’re mine and Wyndhams but I did my best to use theirs by cancelling by reservations that may have been using a further out use year and use the ones that weee set to expire.  Think of it a free roll.  That and no incentive to cancel.  Those points were  never addressed even in the end.  

That was just the tip of the iceberg. Other times if I cancelled a reservation points would comeback but reservation would not cancel. No one could explain it. Other side is once there was a 10 nightly limit whose fault is it that I cancelled a unit but it never actually cancelled but I was over the 10 unit limit?
Merging accounts generated extra guest confirmations and duplicate reservations that I had to cancel.  As well to move points between accounts one just has to transfer contracts and between accounts and that would do it.  
Or buying retail, using all available points and rescinding.  That happened to me by accident.   No deductions.  0 auditing went on for the longest time.  
But notice when I was in it none of this was mentioned on tug.  I would rather keep on keeping on then tell people how I was able to do what I did.


----------



## WManning (Aug 14, 2022)

am1 said:


> I booked armloads of presidential units as well as other sizes.  At 15 days I would cancel and rebook at 14 days.  Or I would cancel book the middle 3  or 4 days and wait for the ends to be booked then cancel the middle.  A way to limit the competition.
> One December I had 50 million points show up in my account.  The only thing that resolved it was they expired.  I do not know what we’re mine and Wyndhams but I did my best to use theirs by cancelling by reservations that may have been using a further out use year and use the ones that weee set to expire.  Think of it a free roll.  That and no incentive to cancel.  Those points were  never addressed even in the end.
> 
> That was just the tip of the iceberg. Other times if I cancelled a reservation points would comeback but reservation would not cancel. No one could explain it. Other side is once there was a 10 nightly limit whose fault is it that I cancelled a unit but it never actually cancelled but I was over the 10 unit limit?
> ...


Do you feel your partly responsible for the VIP loopholes being pretty much eliminated now? Do you think any of the VIP loopholes would of been addressed if there wasn't so much commercial use of the club? Did Wyndham buy your ownership or did you just walk away?


----------



## am1 (Aug 15, 2022)

WManning said:


> Do you feel your partly responsible for the VIP loopholes being pretty much eliminated now? Do you think any of the VIP loopholes would of been addressed if there wasn't so much commercial use of the club? Did Wyndham buy your ownership or did you just walk away?


Sure as without me there would have been less loopholes.  I was only trying to maximize the value of my ownership. Just as the sales people told me to do.


----------



## troy12n (Aug 15, 2022)

[DELETED]


----------



## ronparise (Aug 15, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Wyndham wanted you to cease and desist with your rental business.
> You stopped renting.
> Who backed down?



Wyndham froze my accounts and said they needed to do an audit to determine how it was that I had 90 million points in reservations but only owned contracts that generated only 10 million points  a year  They said they needed to do an audit...(no mention of rentals)

I spoke to a VP (Legal) He asked how it was possible that my account looked the way it did. That doesnt sound like bullying, but I was dealing with a lawyer from our first call.. It felt like intimidation.  In any case I told him how I used the credit pool to strip future points out of the contracts and then sold the stripped contracts. I also told him that ironically,  my buyer was Wyndham. (that seemed to upset him) 

The audit was never done but they made me an offer. The offer was that i would sign all my ownerships back to them and in exchange they wouldnt sue me. 
That felt more like a demand than an offer and felt like bullying to me. As I told my wife and anyone else that would listen to me. I felt like I was dealing with  Tony Soprano and he had his foot on my neck when he made the offer

So no audit, no accusation of wrong doing just a pissed off lawyer that thought I had taken advantage  of The Wyndham Worldwide Corp. and  a demand to, (without compensation)  sign my deeds back to them.. or they would sue me.  By the way, the offer was never put in writing

Did I stand up to them??  You decide.  

My response was.  "Knock yourself out, You can do what ever you want, but Im not going to make it easy, Sue me," and I hung up the phone

Was I bullied?, did I stand up to them? ...yes and yes  

Did it work out well for me?   Yea I think so,  Within a couple of months I did sign everything back to Wyndham, (20 million wyndham points and 400,thousand world mark credits) in exchange for a ton of money


----------



## ronparise (Aug 15, 2022)

billymach4 said:


> @ronparise   where can I read about your journey with Wyndham. Been in and out ot TUG for years. Mostly follow the Marriott trend. Would like to read about your experience.



You could read all my posts on TUG  (over 12000)  and on the Worldmark owners forum

As it happens I blew up my car (at 385000 miles)  this past weekend so Im stuck at home for a while Ill see what I can pull together


----------



## WManning (Aug 16, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham froze my accounts and said they needed to do an audit to determine how it was that I had 90 million points in reservations but only owned contracts that generated only 10 million points  a year  They said they needed to do an audit...(no mention of rentals)
> 
> I spoke to a VP (Legal) He asked how it was possible that my account looked the way it did. That doesnt sound like bullying, but I was dealing with a lawyer from our first call.. It felt like intimidation.  In any case I told him how I used the credit pool to strip future points out of the contracts and then sold the stripped contracts. I also told him that ironically,  my buyer was Wyndham. (that seemed to upset him)
> 
> ...


You beat Wyndham at their own game. The part that probably upset them the most was that Wyndham was buying the stripped deeds. I'm guesing they bought through a third party?


----------



## WManning (Aug 16, 2022)

am1 said:


> Sure as without me there would have been less loopholes.  I was only trying to maximize the value of my ownership. Just as the sales people told me to do.


No harm maximizing your ownership but how would there been less loopholes without you or any other mega renter? I think you meant to say "without me there would NOT have been less loopholes".


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham froze my accounts and said they needed to do an audit to determine how it was that I had 90 million points in reservations but only owned contracts that generated only 10 million points  a year  They said they needed to do an audit...(no mention of rentals)
> 
> I spoke to a VP (Legal) He asked how it was possible that my account looked the way it did. That doesnt sound like bullying, but I was dealing with a lawyer from our first call.. It felt like intimidation.  In any case I told him how I used the credit pool to strip future points out of the contracts and then sold the stripped contracts. I also told him that ironically,  my buyer was Wyndham. (that seemed to upset him)
> 
> ...


Ron, Ron, Ron. I don’t care. It was what, 5 years ago. It doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant. You said things then. You’re saying different things now. That, and your actions in the first place, don’t really lend to your credibility.


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Ron, Ron, Ron. I don’t care. It was what, 5 years ago. It doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant. You said things then. You’re saying different things now. That, and your actions in the first place, don’t really lend to your credibility.



Your assessment seems skewed. This was before your time on TUG and I doubt you've read all the posts in all the threads dating back to August 2016. Typically history isn't irrelevant and there's something to be learned from it even in regards to Wyndham and the owners past and present.


----------



## grupp (Aug 16, 2022)

If 


Rolltydr said:


> Ron, Ron, Ron. I don’t care. It was what, 5 years ago. It doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant. You said things then. You’re saying different things now. That, and your actions in the first place, don’t really lend to your credibility.



If it was so long ago and you don’t care, why do you keep calling him out and questioning what happen?


----------



## am1 (Aug 16, 2022)

WManning said:


> No harm maximizing your ownership but how would there been less loopholes without you or any other mega renter? I think you meant to say "without me there would NOT have been less loopholes".


I made the loopholes or at least exposed them.  No one really wanted to know how. which I found surprising.  I would have been happy to relocate to Orlando 1 week a month or so.

Then I exploited things that were not loopholes. Combing retail with resale. I had three platinum accounts off of a 308k retail purchase and two 3 bedroom pics. Only at the end Wyndham realized they over gave me platinum because of my El Cid contracts not being coded as resale and a 1 million plus Las Vegas deed being coded as retail when I purchased it second hand. Almost traded that in to make it guaranteed platinum but was not wanting to invest more money. 

But all in the past.
 I have to live with the fact that at 33 I was never going to work for that much money again. Or from age 26-33 I made more money then I will from 33- retirement.  Investments hopefully will be a different animal.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> Your assessment seems skewed. This was before your time on TUG and I doubt you've read all the posts in all the threads dating back to August 2016. Typically history isn't irrelevant and there's something to be learned from it even in regards to Wyndham and the owners past and present.


It may have been before I joined TUG as a paid member but I was reading it before and during the time Ron got caught. I, as well as others, have gone back and re-posted many if his comments from that time. I’m not doing it again. I’m going to put Ron on my Ignore list, again, and this time he won’t come off.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> You said things then. You’re saying different things now.


Having been here the entire time, I don't see how this is the case. I think Ron is offering a few more details now (because really, what's Wyndham going to do to him at this point?), but I don't see how anything he's saying today is inconsistent with anything he said in the 2016-17 timeframe when the account freezes were happening.

"Wyndham and I came to an agreement. I can’t say any more about it than that....we reached an agreement that satisfied us both." Nov 2017

"I knew years ago that what I was doing was not sustainable. My mentor in all this taught me early on, that nothing is forever. So I wasnt surprised or pissed about what happened, and as Ive said in other comments here, I came out smelling like a rose, so Im not pissed about that." June 2017

"I had my own 'disagreement' with Wyndham and I negotiated an agreement with them so that now I can say 'the parties have satisfactorily resolved their differences'" May 2017

"Their first offer was to say If I signed everything back to Wyndham, they wouldnt sue me. I said no to that. A week or so later they invited me to make a counter offer, I asked for a million dollars. We settled somewhere in between." July 2020

All completely consistent with what he's saying today. I know I come off as the Ron fan club which I really don't mean to be (though I've always appreciated his frank assessment of his own and the larger Wyndham situation through the years), but I just get super pedantic when people choose to create a different set of facts.


----------



## WManning (Aug 16, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> Your assessment seems skewed. This was before your time on TUG and I doubt you've read all the posts in all the threads dating back to August 2016. Typically history isn't irrelevant and there's something to be learned from it even in regards to Wyndham and the owners past and present.


One thing for sure that history does show. Wyndham can an will changes the rules when it benefits their bottom line. The recent changes helped owners book reservations for personal use but make no mistake about it being all about helping owners. Wyndam found it was costing them to much not to close the VIP loopholes that were being abused. Eliminating resale points with VIP benefits probably helped Wyndham`s bottom line the most. Think about all the free inventory Wyndahm recieved back from certified exit. The free inventory amounts to millions in developer sales all to start the ownership circle over again.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Having been here the entire time, I don't see how this is the case. I think Ron is offering a few more details now (because really, what's Wyndham going to do to him at this point?), but I don't see how anything he's saying today is inconsistent with anything he said in the 2016-17 timeframe when the account freezes were happening.
> 
> "Wyndham and I came to an agreement. I can’t say any more about it than that....we reached an agreement that satisfied us both." Nov 2017
> 
> ...


Sarah, I'm not going back through the various threads again where Ron's own words, that have been re-posted by me and others many times, are contradictory to what he is saying now. You can cherry-pick things from those threads to support your view that Ron was mistreated by Wyndham and stared down the bully. Fine. I can cherry-pick things he said that indicate he knew he was running a scam and would be caught. His supporters will always support him, regardless. His detractors will never believe him. So, I'll do my best to ignore any conversations about him in the future. I believe he's a conman. You disagree. C'est la vie!


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Fine. I can cherry-pick things he said that indicate he knew he was running a scam and would be caught.


Ah yes, the great "hustle" vs. "scam" debate of '22. It doesn't matter if he never said he was running a scam if you decide to believe the words are interchangeable.


----------



## WManning (Aug 16, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Ah yes, the great "hustle" vs. "scam" debate of '22. It doesn't matter if he never said he was running a scam if you decide to believe the words are interchangeable.


Was this was the hustle Ron was talking about?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Sarah, I'm not going back through the various threads again where Ron's own words, that have been re-posted by me and others many times, are contradictory to what he is saying now. You can cherry-pick things from those threads to support your view that Ron was mistreated by Wyndham and stared down the bully. Fine. I can cherry-pick things he said that indicate he knew he was running a scam and would be caught. His supporters will always support him, regardless. His detractors will never believe him. So, I'll do my best to ignore any conversations about him in the future. I believe he's a conman. You disagree. C'est la vie!



For my part personally, I don't think Ron characterized himself as mistreated by Wyndham.  Please note this is coming from someone (me) who notably has pushed back on certain elements of what Ron has said in the past - so I don't think anyone on here would characterize me as a Ron fanboy in other words.  He has admitted clearly in the past that he had a hustle ongoing and that he knew all along that his hustle wasn't going to last forever, as is evidenced by one of the statements that @paxsarah quoted above.  I also don't believe Ron ever felt bullied by Wyndham.  He's a smart and cunning type of person who figured out a way to game the Wyndham system - again by his own admission.  I admire his ingenuity - I have said so in the past.  He's an entrepreneurial rulebreaker type just trying to make a buck like many others in this world.  I would never have done what he did - but that's me.  He's a rulebreaker type, I'm a rulemaker/follower type.  We need both types of people in this world really.  It's all about balance big picture.  

Wyndham has also most definitely taken advantage of this situation to put more rules in place that place more limits on everyone - not just megarenters - whom they could have simply exited from their system entirely without putting additional rulesets in place limiting ownership based rentals across the board.  There is likely at least some truth to the fact that Wyndham is indeed using "megarenters" as an excuse to encourage and embrace corporate rentals over time by limiting ownership based rentals in the process.  Wyndham has a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders to increase revenue and profits over time.  If embracing corporate rentals is found to be one of the primary methods to do so - then that's what Wyndham is going to do.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Ah yes, the great "hustle" vs. "scam" debate of '22. It doesn't matter if he never said he was running a scam if you decide to believe the words are interchangeable.


Call it whatever you like, can you honestly say that what he was doing was ethical?

PS. Edited to fix grammatical error.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 16, 2022)

Gg.Jesus said:


> Who is Ron and what’s the story?


He was an owner, then renter, then flipper of contracts, who pushed the limits of the system Wyndham had in place 5+ years ago and consequently knew a lot about how it worked. If you have a spare weekend (or month), here's a thread where a lot happens: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/2016-account-review-email-accts-suspended.245656/


----------



## bnoble (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> can you honestly say that what he was doing was ethical?


Some people might. Others might not. It is almost certain that any two people will have at least moderate disagreements about what is/is not ethical, and it might even be possible that no two people precisely agree. Ethics are not absolute.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 16, 2022)

Why are we attacking the little guy, when it's the bully Wyndham that is pushing out all rental competition by owners who were sold this product based on the notion of renting.  And they are still pushing it.  

A TUG friend called TUG Tugly recently.  That describes these attacks of Ron and all mega renters pretty accurately.  Keep defending the powerful against the powerless.  That is something historically will not be in your best interest, all of you mega renter haters.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Some people might. Others might not. It is almost certain that any two people will have at least moderate disagreements about what is/is not ethical, and it might even be possible that no two people precisely agree. Ethics are not absolute.


You’re serious? You have trouble distinguishing between ethical and unethical?


----------



## Sandi Bo (Aug 16, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Why are we attacking the little guy, when it's the bully Wyndham that is pushing out all rental competition by owners who were sold this product based on the notion of renting.  And they are still pushing it.
> 
> A TUG friend called TUG Tugly recently.  That describes these attacks of Ron and all mega renters pretty accurately.  Keep defending the powerful against the powerless.  That is something historically will not be in your best interest, all of you mega renter haters.


Something I'm not sure some realize.

2022 is nothing like it was in 2016. Many things have changed. And unless you've been along for the ride, I'm not sure people have much basis to be commenting / weighing in too much on what transpired in 2016. Let alone judging.

One thing I would note, is Wyndham took a much different approach in 2016. In 2016 I do not believe the focus was on renting. The focus was on, holy crap these people have a lot of points. There were huge, huge flaws in Wyndhams systems and processes. There is a reason Wyndham has a bad rap for auditing. Points and apparently money, too. Look at the date integrity issues that continue to come up.  Years later they continue (yikes, this is better)!!! And Wyndham really truly answers to no one. In 2016, they wanted those people to go quietly away and not tell anyone exactly what went on. There are many who no longer comment on here whatsoever. There are a few that do. Make no mistake, amicable agreements were made and nondisclosures were signed.

Today, Wyndham has this 'we're doing these things for you the owner' movement going on. And many have bought it. Today's owners are not the owners of yesteryear. And Wyndham is a bigger bully than ever. Owners are cheering as Wyndham cancels reservations, who'd a thought. I do not think that mentality was there in 2016.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 16, 2022)

No. I certainly know what ethical is...to me. I don't know what it is to you though, because we may not share the same ethical framework.

Here's an example. Suppose I am selling something. If I tell a prospect only true things about the product but not every true thing, is that ethical? What about if I only say true things, but do not correct an apparent misunderstanding in my favor? What about if I say only true things, but they are _designed_ to elicit that misunderstanding in most people? I suspect different people on TUG would answer those questions differently. My answers to those questions are not necessarily the (only) "ethical" answers.

Heck, even if we agreed on the underlying principles of "right and wrong" we might still disagree on whether some positions adhere to those principles. There have been a couple of different examples of that in my own faith tradition that have lead to schisms, even though everyone on each side of the divide genuinely and honestly believes that their positions are "right" in light of the underlying principles of that faith tradition.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 16, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Today, Wyndham has this 'we're doing these things for you the owner' movement going on. And many have bought it. Today's owners are not the owners of yesteryear. And Wyndham is a bigger bully than ever. Owners are cheering as Wyndham cancels reservations, who'd a thought. I do not think that mentality was there in 2016.



I've written ad nauseum about this in the past - so won't regurgitate it here again.  But long story short, change is the only constant.  Wyndham is changing, TUG members come and go, new members have come along that don't know the history.  I was one of them.  I've only been an owner since mid-2018 personally.  I dove in and learned a ton about the history through interactions with the many good folks here on TUG.  It's been an education to say the least, and it's ongoing to this day.   One thing is crystal clear to me - the sea changes Wyndham is making are going to continue.  They have a master plan - we just don't know what the details on that master plan are.  If anyone wants to know what that master plan is - there's a strategic roadmap available that is published on the investor website that paints the broad brush strokes.  That plan doesn't disclose tactical details of course - so that's what we often debate and prognosticate about here on TUG.

The biggest differentiator that I can ascribe to regarding my approach is that I refuse to demonize anyone - including Wyndham.  This the ideal that I strive for, even and perhaps especially when I come across someone that has a differing stance/opinion.  Yes, Wyndham is a large corporation.  Yes their primary mission, as is the mission of ALL publicly held companies, is to maximize shareholder value (which may or may not align with maximizing timeshare owner priorities/values).  If Wyndham looks at the current and future landscape in their business sector and determines that corporate rentals are ak key part of their future - then that's what is going to come to bear.  If that means that Wyndham needs to start eliminating ownership based rentals - regardless of what happened in the past - then unless a class action lawsuit or something else comes along that stops them in their tracks - nothing short of that is going to stop them from marching forward.  Wyndham is doing quite well in managing the optics in the public forums as @Sandi Bo has indicated above, as we are increasingly seeing many owners cheering as Wyndham mass cancels rental reservations for the "megarenters."  For me personally, regardless of any personal feelings/opinions I may hold for or against the policies being implemented, I will continue to do my level best to work with Wyndham collaboratively to provide better outcomes for owners while Wyndham is busy continuing to implement changes according to their corporate strategic roadmaps, some of which are inevitably going to negatively impact Wyndham timeshare owners at times.

I believe it has been @Jan M. that has used the phrase "resistance is futile" repeatedly.  I agree with her for the most part bigger picture.  That said - let's try and practice empathy and show some understanding and some respect for those who were using the CWP system the way that the sales and marketing division told them to use it for many many years (decades even?), and are currently facing some difficult choices now with respect to their ownership and are likely feeling "left out in the cold" on some level.  I do feel for them whether or not I agree with some of their observations and opinions.

We are stronger together as a collective group of TUGGERs when we can simply agree to disagree, when necessary, and worst case utilize the "Ignore" function on the forum when we become too tempted to engage in debate using derogatory/demeaning undertones.  TUG encourages all perspectives and ideas to be freely shared here on our forums, subject to the forum rules of course.


----------



## am1 (Aug 16, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Something I'm not sure some realize.
> 
> 2022 is nothing like it was in 2016. Many things have changed. And unless you've been along for the ride, I'm not sure people have much basis to be commenting / weighing in too much on what transpired in 2016. Let alone judging.
> 
> ...



When one party holds almost all of the power amicable agreements are hard to come to.  But now just like then it is hard to actually fight when the other party has deeper pockets no matter the circumstances.  

As for the ones talking about ethics.  Before timeshare renting and where my investment for timeshares was by playing online poker and then online casinos. The latter to abuse the sign up bonuses.  BJ, slots and video poker was and still is mindlessly boring.  Playing poker on 5-6 tables at the same time was as well.  Endlessly searching for room cancelations and cancel rebook was more exciting for a while until that got old as well.  thankfully both resulted in a good income.  I gave others mp3 players or cash to get them to sign up.  Also got paid from the affillates for signing up and referring.  So yes I took advantage of dozens of online casinos but knew it would not last either.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Aug 16, 2022)

am1 said:


> When one party holds almost all of the power amicable agreements are hard to come to.  But now just like then it is hard to actually fight when the other party has deeper pockets no matter the circumstances.
> 
> As for the ones talking about ethics.  Before timeshare renting and where my investment for timeshares was by playing online poker and then online casinos. The latter to abuse the sign up bonuses.  BJ, slots and video poker was and still is mindlessly boring.  Playing poker on 5-6 tables at the same time was as well.  Endlessly searching for room cancelations and cancel rebook was more exciting for a while until that got old as well.  thankfully both resulted in a good income.  I gave others mp3 players or cash to get them to sign up.  Also got paid from the affillates for signing up and referring.  So yes I took advantage of dozens of online casinos but knew it would not last either.


Right! Curious, what are you doing now (offering any sign-up  bonuses?


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> No. I certainly know what ethical is...to me. I don't know what it is to you though, because we may not share the same ethical framework.
> 
> Here's an example. Suppose I am selling something. If I tell a prospect only true things about the product but not every true thing, is that ethical? What about if I only say true things, but do not correct an apparent misunderstanding in my favor? What about if I say only true things, but they are _designed_ to elicit that misunderstanding in most people? I suspect different people on TUG would answer those questions differently. My answers to those questions are not necessarily the (only) "ethical" answers.
> 
> Heck, even if we agreed on the underlying principles of "right and wrong" we might still disagree on whether some positions adhere to those principles. There have been a couple of different examples of that in my own faith tradition that have lead to schisms, even though everyone on each side of the divide genuinely and honestly believes that their positions are "right" in light of the underlying principles of that faith tradition.


That’s one reason we have rules and laws and written contracts. But, this wasn’t a little white lie.  “Gaming the system “, “taking advantage of loopholes”, “It didn’t hurt anyone but the big, bad, bully corporation.” It’s all excuses for doing something you knew was wrong. So, do you believe what Ron did was ethical?


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 16, 2022)

Yes I said it.

In some situations it's true that resistance is futile and a smart person recognizes that. Doesn't mean they have to like it; they just know when it's time to cut their losses. However there are times we need those who are willing to step up and not give up.  The crew of the intrepid Starship Enterprise didn't give up and abandon the fight to save humankind from the Borg.





DH is the Trekker, I'm more of a BSG fan and definitely Firefly too.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 16, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> We are stronger together as a collective group of TUGGERs


I agree with this.

But, it is also important to remember that each of us probably feels more obligation to ourselves and our families than to other TUGgers. That doesn't mean we won't help each other, but it is useful to recognize that there are limits.

If I am someone who bought to make an income renting, then I am going to work every angle I can to maximize my returns. That may have adverse effects on Wyndham or even other owners, including TUGgers, and to expect someone not to maximize returns anyway is unrealistic. Likewise, if I am someone who bought to maximize my own vacations, I am not going to go out of my way to help someone trying to rent. I might even prefer they go out of business, because the points they owned will make their way into the hands of an "average owner" who probably isn't as diligent about securing reservations as I am.

It's even the case that TUGgers who are only reserving vacations for themselves can sometimes be in conflict with one another. Again, that doesn't mean we don't help each other, but there will be limits to how far that will go. Expecting otherwise is a recipe for disaster. It is uncouth for us to dance on one another's graves. But, we also probably don't (and won't) feel all that sympathetic towards those who were "adverse" to us in securing reservations. I'm not particularly sympathetic towards the owners on the wrong end of those certified letters, but I also don't take joy in their predicament.



Rolltydr said:


> But, this wasn’t a little white lie. “Gaming the system “, “taking advantage of loopholes”, “It didn’t hurt anyone but the big, bad, bully corporation.”


Every single TUGger games the system. That's why we are here; to learn how to use our timeshares to the best advantage possible. Many of us are happy to take advantage of loopholes to secure our own vacations. Some are even willing to "stick it to the man" when those loopholes are clearly against the spirit of the rule, as long as they are within the letter of it.

A well-trod example of that is cancel/rebook. While some begrudged those who could make use of it, I don't think anyone truly expected people not to, and if they could also have availed themselves of it, they would have. And that's despite the fact that it was *obvious* that it wasn't within the spirit of the VIP discount, and that Wyndham was on the hook for more inventory than those owners were entitled to. I suppose there is an odd TUGger here or there who had VIP status and scrupulously avoided using cancel/rebook because "it was wrong," but I don't recall anyone who's said that. And, there are a few people who insist that they were entitled to cancel/rebook because they paid for the privilege, but I think most of those folks are being deliberately obtuse.

Another example was the interaction of overlapping use years with the cancel rules pre-Voyager. If you had overlapping use years, you could keep points "alive" forever without ever having them expire, and without having to use the credit pool. This was such common knowledge that at the time a common piece of TUG advice was to find a contract with an overlapping use year and buy it rather than always have your contracts aligned.



Rolltydr said:


> It’s all excuses for doing something you knew was wrong.


Was cancel-forward wrong? Was cancel-rebook wrong? Both were just using the system as it was implemented, both were common strategies used and publicly advocated by TUGgers, and both directly contradict the "intention" of the points system: that points have a limited shelf-life, and that VIP discounts apply to distressed inventory. I think there are genuine disagreements about whether or not those things are "wrong," and it's not always based on whether or not one was able to take advantage of them.



Rolltydr said:


> do you believe what Ron did was ethical?


I'm reminded of Matthew 7:3-5, so I am not going to go there. But, I've been around since before Ron joined the board, and have probably read most of what he's written at one time or another. I don't recall him being dishonest or disingenuous. For example, when he was stripping and flipping contracts, he offered stripped contracts up for TUGgers who wanted them. He was clear that the new owner would have to pay fees for a year or two in which there were no points, up front and from the beginning.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> But, it is also important to remember that each of us probably feels more obligation to ourselves and our families than to other TUGgers. That doesn't mean we won't help each other, but it is useful to recognize that there are limits.
> 
> ...


Wow! That is one hell of a lot of double talk and justification in that post. You even sneak in a scriptural reference immediately followed by a denial that you did. 

So, after re-reading your post again just to make sure I didn’t miss any excuses, it kind of translates to, Person A can do anything they want as long as Person A believes it is okay, and their mark/victim/bully corporation, I mean Person B, believes whatever Person A is saying at that moment is true. Yeah, I’d say we have quite different value systems.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 16, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> You even sneak in a scriptural reference immediately followed by a denial that you did.


Where did I deny anything? The reference is just "I have enough to worry about keeping my side of the street clean. I'm not going to work on Ron's." And, I did not say whether Ron behaved ethically or not, because I don't really know. All I can say is that he appears to have been honest. Honest is not equivalent to ethical.



Rolltydr said:


> I’d say we have quite different value systems.


I can't tell, because you didn't answer any of the specific "Is this ethical" questions I've posed. But, again: your side of the street. I'm not taking anyone else's inventory today.

And, I guess for the record, since I didn't really answer them either:

If I tell a prospect only true things about the product but not every true thing, is that ethical? _Probably, yes._
What about if I only say true things, but do not correct an apparent misunderstanding in my favor? _Maybe, maybe not._
What about if I say only true things, but they are _designed_ to elicit that misunderstanding in most people? _No._
Was using cancel-forward ethical?_ Yes._
Was using cancel-rebook ethical?_ Yes._

And, also for the record, I've never been in a position to take advantage of cancel-forward or cancel-rebook, so that's not just "It is okay because I did it." Also, just because cancel-rebook was "ethical" (as in: using the system as it was implemented in a way any other VIP owner could do), that doesn't mean I sympathize with anyone who is upset they can no longer do it. And, again, that's because it was clearly against the spirit of the program rules. No one should have believed they were _entitled_ to discounts on every booking, even though they could have gotten them for a period of time.


----------



## Rolltydr (Aug 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Where did I deny anything? The reference is just "I have enough to worry about keeping my side of the street clean. I'm not going to work on Ron's." And, I did not say whether Ron behaved ethically or not, because I don't really know. All I can say is that he appears to have been honest. Honest is not equivalent to ethical.
> 
> I can't tell, because you didn't answer any of the specific "Is this ethical" questions I've posed. But, again: your side of the street. I'm not taking anyone else's inventory today.And, I guess for the record, since I didn't really answer them either:If I tell a prospect only true things about the product but not every true thing, is that ethical? _Probably, yes._What about if I only say true things, but do not correct an apparent misunderstanding in my favor? _Maybe, maybe not._What about if I say only true things, but they are _designed_ to elicit that misunderstanding in most people? _No._Was using cancel-forward ethical?_ Yes._Was using cancel-rebook ethical?_ Yes._And, also for the record, I've never been in a position to take advantage of cancel-forward or cancel-rebook, so that's not just "It is okay because I did it." Also, just because cancel-rebook was "ethical" (as in: using the system as it was implemented in a way any other VIP owner could do), that doesn't mean I sympathize with anyone who is upset they can no longer do it. And, again, that's because it was clearly against the spirit of the program rules. No one should have believed they were _entitled_ to discounts on every booking, even though they could have gotten them for a period of time.





bnoble said:


> Where did I deny anything?


_“…so I’m not going to go there.”  _I assumed you meant you weren’t going to invoke religion since that is against forum rules. If you simply meant you don’t care what anyone else does if it doesn’t directly and negatively impact you, I stand corrected. 





bnoble said:


> Honest is not equivalent to ethical.



Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
Merriam-Webster:*honest*
https://www.merriam-webster.com/login

*Definition of honest*
1a: free from fraud or deception : LEGITIMATE, TRUTHFULan honest pleaan honest presentation of facts
b: GENUINE, REALmaking honest stops at stop signs— Christian Science Monitor
c: HUMBLE, PLAINgood honest food
2a: REPUTABLE, RESPECTABLEhonest decent people
bchiefly British : GOOD, WORTHYan honest fellow

Also from Merriam-Webster:

*Synonyms & Antonyms for ethical*

Synonyms


all right, 
decent, 
good, 
*honest*, 
honorable, 
just, 
moral, 
nice, 
right, 
right-minded, 
righteous, 
straight, 
true, 
upright, 
virtuous
Since you answered your questions but not mine, I’ll do likewise. I don’t know if the cancel- rebook, yada, yada, yada was ethical or not. I was VIP and used it once or twice before Wyndham changed the system. I haven’t complained about it for 5 years and called Wyndham a big, bad bully for taking something away from me that I paid for, because I wasn’t paying for it!

As for Ron, I do not believe what he was doing was ethical. Or honest.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> For example, when he was stripping and flipping contracts, he offered stripped contracts up for TUGgers who wanted them. He was clear that the new owner would have to pay fees for a year or two in which there were no points, up front and from the beginning.


There is nothing wrong with that, if they were advertised in the TUG Marketplace.

But that is not what happened; and for anyone who was not around in 2016:









						"FREE"  Wyndham points contracts
					

I have 29 small Wyndham points contracts  ranging in size from 49000 to 154000 points  deeded at various resorts that I am giving away to anyone willing to pay the closing and transfer fees  But there is a catch. These contracts have been stripped of points.   All the 2015, 2016 and 2017 points...




					tugbbs.com
				




Where he went wrong was "bending" or "breaking" the TUG rules by trying to pass off those crappy contracts with thousands of maintenance fee dollars in arrears as some kind of "bargain" in the TUG Bargain Basement subforum. Why advertise there instead of the TUG Marketplace? Because just like the "Last Minute Rentals" forum, the "Bargain Basement forum gets a lot more attention than the TUG Marketplace (and one ad with 29 contracts is cheaper to advertise than 29 ads in the TUG Marketplace).

So, the "rulebreaker" got the TUG Bargain Basement rules changed for every TUG member (rule change emphasis added):

"*Summary added April 15, 2016:*

-All timeshares offered in this forum should be offered for free.

-You may ask the new owner to pay for the transfer fees.

*-You may not ask the new owner to pay the maintenance fee for a usage year that you are going to keep.*

-If you want to "sell" your timeshare, please use the TUG Marketplace, instead."


And in typical fashion, he had his own spin on the decision by the rulemaker.









						Questions about what fees are allowed on Bargain Deals
					

I understand. I did not realize the rules state exactly that but I just read them to refresh my memory.  So in my case I could have charged for the closing, recording, ROFR, and transfer fees but then given a credit to the buyer for the yet to be billed 2017 fee? It makes sense because fee...




					tugbbs.com
				





At least on TUG, we got a glimpse of the "other side of the story" in this case.


TUG progressively banned Bargain Basement advertising of future year(s) "stripped" timeshares in 2016.

"Stripped" Wyndham accounts got a rehash in 2017 on TUG, 









						[2016] Account review email [Accts. suspended]
					

I believe Ron alluded to it a bit - You own a 2 million point contract, you buy 2,000,000 points, credit pool all future year points in the contract you just bought, and sell the contract with no points remaining in it for 3 years. You now own 2,000,000 points, but you have 8,000,000 points...




					tugbbs.com
				




and eventually in 2017 Wyndham policy caught-up and introduced changes from the "Credit Pool" to "Points Deposit" and eliminated "stripping future year(s) points" altogether.  The "rulebreaker" claimed the credit.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 16, 2022)

@bnoble I just love your posts. You never attack, you are always reasonable, and I would love to meet you.  

We are officially out of the rental game but are currently trying to figure out what we will be keeping.  Wyndham forced us out for sure, but we will keep enough points to remain Founder's Platinum.  I think.


----------



## am1 (Aug 17, 2022)

CO skier said:


> There is nothing wrong with that, if they were advertised in the TUG Marketplace.
> 
> But that is not what happened; and for anyone who was not around in 2016:
> 
> ...



Yes that was a scam by him to pawn off liabilities to others.  Also a lot of work to get extra points.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 17, 2022)

WManning said:


> Was this was the hustle Ron was talking about?


If anyone has not figured out by now that WManning is dgalati stirring the pot by another name, should go here:









						[ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit
					

In my opinion Wyndham should have never let someone own 60 million points…they must of [sic] let this happen for a reason.. seems like someone had a personal interest with in Wyndham to let this continue and it must be a higher up person.. that’s just my theory ‍♀   It's not a particularly...




					tugbbs.com
				




It is more than just coincidence.


----------



## ronparise (Aug 17, 2022)

WManning said:


> You beat Wyndham at their own game. The part that probably upset them the most was that Wyndham was buying the stripped deeds. I'm guesing they bought through a third party?



I think you are right, Wyndham didnt shut me down because I was renting And there is no question that Wyndham didnt want anyone to know they were actually buying deeds back.  

Wyndham bought through a third party, and I sold through a 4th party And wyndham used an anonymous LLC to take ownership before they sold to the end user


----------



## ronparise (Aug 17, 2022)

am1 said:


> Yes that was a scam by him to pawn off liabilities to others.  Also a lot of work to get extra points.



I think that the arbiter of all that is good or evil has stated  giving or selling a stripped contract in the Tug market place was ok and not a scam, (or as you put it pawning off my liabilities to others)  The problem was  characterizing it as a bargain. 

I still think they were a bargain


----------



## ronparise (Aug 17, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Ron, Ron, Ron. I don’t care. It was what, 5 years ago. It doesn’t matter any more. It’s irrelevant. You said things then. You’re saying different things now. That, and your actions in the first place, don’t really lend to your credibility.



I didnt bring this episode from 5 years ago up again, You did, I simply responded.  And I dont think that I said things differently then.  The facts haven't changed, 

What has happened over the last 5 years, is that more facts have emerged. and my understanding of those facts and my opinions regarding those facts have evolved


----------



## r4rab (Aug 17, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> Yes I said it.
> 
> In some situations it's true that resistance is futile and a smart person recognizes that. Doesn't mean they have to like it; they just know when it's time to cut their losses. However there are times we need those who are willing to step up and not give up.  The crew of the intrepid Starship Enterprise didn't give up and abandon the fight to save humankind from the Borg.
> 
> ...


Firefly was really good!


----------



## ronparise (Aug 17, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Sarah, I'm not going back through the various threads again where Ron's own words, that have been re-posted by me and others many times, are contradictory to what he is saying now. You can cherry-pick things from those threads to support your view that Ron was mistreated by Wyndham and stared down the bully. Fine. I can cherry-pick things he said that indicate he knew he was running a scam and would be caught. His supporters will always support him, regardless. His detractors will never believe him. So, I'll do my best to ignore any conversations about him in the future. I believe he's a conman. You disagree. C'est la vie!



What prompted this discussion was chapjim saying that Wyndham was a bully. and I said, yea, (locking back on my experience) I think so too. I may not have used the term bully, 5 years ago, but I did make references, from "The Godfather"

And yea, when our accounts were first frozen, I was unhappy, and when I realized that that would never be unfrozen, I was really unhappy. But once I understood what Wyndham wanted, and they understood what I wanted, we could make a deal.  and our opinions of each other changed


----------



## WManning (Aug 17, 2022)

ronparise said:


> I think you are right, Wyndham didnt shut me down because I was renting And there is no question that Wyndham didnt want anyone to know they were actually buying deeds back.
> 
> Wyndham bought through a third party, and I sold through a 4th party And wyndham used an anonymous LLC to take ownership before they sold to the end user





ronparise said:


> What prompted this discussion was chapjim saying that Wyndham was a bully. and I said, yea, (locking back on my experience) I think so too. I may not have used the term bully, 5 years ago, but I did make references, from "The Godfather"
> 
> And yea, when our accounts were first frozen, I was unhappy, and when I realized that that would never be unfrozen, I was really unhappy. But once I understood what Wyndham wanted, and they understood what I wanted, we could make a deal.  and our opinions of each other changed


The smartest decisions are based on reality setting in. You could still be litigating your situation today if you didn't settle. Sad thing is even if you won it would be a morale victory that left you in debt to lawyers fees.


----------



## ronparise (Aug 17, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> As for Ron, I do not believe what he was doing was ethical. Or honest.



When I was in college, (over 50 years ago) I was a biology major, but I took more philosophy courses than science. One of those courses was "Ethics" Unfortunately I dont remember anything from the course, except that there was no one definition of the term

so this morning, Ive been looking for a good definition of ethics, It dosent seem that anything has changed in 50 years. This is the best I found (Interesting that this comes from the website of a Jesuit University and  I graduated from a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit college)

_Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from  what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based._


I cant think of anything Ive done that could be called unethical


----------



## am1 (Aug 17, 2022)

ronparise said:


> I think that the arbiter of all that is good or evil has stated  giving or selling a stripped contract in the Tug market place was ok and not a scam, (or as you put it pawning off my liabilities to others)  The problem was  characterizing it as a bargain.
> 
> I still think they were a bargain



In no way was it a bargain.  Too much risk for one to assume while paying monthly fees with no current use.  Now if there was a hint that the ownership value could increase then maybe it could be an ok purchase.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 17, 2022)

ronparise said:


> This is the best I found (Interesting that this comes from the website of a Jesuit University and I graduated from a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit college)


Jesuits: they're almost Catholic.

(I say that with tongue firmly planted in cheek, having spent the bulk of my practicing faith life in a Newman Center that is currently under the pastoral care of the Jesuits.)


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 17, 2022)

Ron is right.  Ethical is up for interpretation, especially where the salespeople are concerned.  Wyndham sales pushed rentals for years.  We had one salesperson on Maui (nice guy) who told us exactly how to go about renting Wyndham.  We didn't buy at that time.  This was 2005, and Wyndham was still allowing new buyers to PIC as many weeks as people wanted.  Our weeks at Twin Rivers and Val Chatelle would have put us over 1,000,000 points with a small purchase.  I wanted to hear more, but our daughter was with us and she wanted to get on with their plans for the day (it was the kids' one year anniversary celebration).

Don't ask me why Wyndham has a sales' team on Maui because I cannot imagine the reason for it.  Wyndham has no resorts on Maui.  I wish they did.  I could use my points for that. I could stay even longer on Maui than my six weeks in Feb-Mar.   Nah, I wouldn't have purchased the Hono Koa weeks, if I had Wyndham to use.  

And to show you how not bitter I am toward Wyndham, their ability to keep fees low at resorts would make them the ideal company to take over the management of all of the Soleil properties on Maui (there are a bunch).  I wish they would do that.  Soleil has Hono Koa, Sands of Kahana, Kahana Beach, Kahana Villas, Maui Beach, Maui Banyan, and Gardens at West Maui.  The fees have been climbing and people are balking at the high fees and not paying.  I think Soleil should give it up and let a big company take the properties.  Wyndham could do a wonderful job of managing the new sales in these older properties.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Ron is right.  Ethical is up for interpretation, especially where the salespeople are concerned.  Wyndham sales pushed rentals for years.  We had one salesperson on Maui (nice guy) who told us exactly how to go about renting Wyndham.  We didn't buy at that time.  This was 2005, and Wyndham was still allowing new buyers to PIC as many weeks as people wanted.  Our weeks at Twin Rivers and Val Chatelle would have put us over 1,000,000 points with a small purchase.  I wanted to hear more, but our daughter was with us and she wanted to get on with their plans for the day (it was the kids' one year anniversary celebration).



I do envy the long time owners like you and the lack of limits that you had to get to VIP levels, particularly prior to 2008 when the two contract PIC limit was put in place.  If I had the option in 2018 to do more than two PIC Plus contracts, I almost assuredly would have done so at that time - and I'd be at least permanent VIPP at this point in time as a result - and probably for the same cash outlay that I made for VIPG to boot (210k CWA points).


----------



## WManning (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Ron is right.  Ethical is up for interpretation, especially where the salespeople are concerned.  Wyndham sales pushed rentals for years.  We had one salesperson on Maui (nice guy) who told us exactly how to go about renting Wyndham.  We didn't buy at that time.  This was 2005, and Wyndham was still allowing new buyers to PIC as many weeks as people wanted.  Our weeks at Twin Rivers and Val Chatelle would have put us over 1,000,000 points with a small purchase.  I wanted to hear more, but our daughter was with us and she wanted to get on with their plans for the day (it was the kids' one year anniversary celebration).
> 
> Don't ask me why Wyndham has a sales' team on Maui because I cannot imagine the reason for it.  Wyndham has no resorts on Maui.  I wish they did.  I could use my points for that. I could stay even longer on Maui than my six weeks in Feb-Mar.   Nah, I wouldn't have purchased the Hono Koa weeks, if I had Wyndham to use.
> 
> And to show you how not bitter I am toward Wyndham, their ability to keep fees low at resorts would make them the ideal company to take over the management of all of the Soleil properties on Maui (there are a bunch).  I wish they would do that.  Soleil has Hono Koa, Sands of Kahana, Kahana Beach, Kahana Villas, Maui Beach, Maui Banyan, and Gardens at West Maui.  The fees have been climbing and people are balking at the high fees and not paying.  I think Soleil should give it up and let a big company take the properties.  Wyndham could do a wonderful job of managing the new sales in these older properties.


You make a very good point. If Wyndham was concerned about ethics they wouldn't  have to look far to find unethical dealings. It's a common practice daily in the owner updates.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 17, 2022)

When we bought two years later, Wyndham only allowed us two PIC two weeks.  I am glad we really thought out our second purchase in 2008.  We PIC'd two Twin Rivers 3 bedrooms for the 254,000 points each.  That is the account we are going to keep, I think.  We have the other one that is going to be sold off in bits and pieces.  We have no desire to keep two Founder's Level accounts.  I don't want to live in Wyndham resorts year-round. 

I think we will get a good price for some of our contracts, even though status will not transfer over, our fees are low.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The fees have been climbing and people are balking at the high fees and not paying.


How much of the rise has been due to bad debt---in other words, owned weeks that simply don't pay? I suspect it's a lot--it's the only thing that explains how the fees at e.g. Hono Koa can be so much higher than nearby resorts.

There are really only three strategies for that. One: foreclose and resell the inventory. That's expensive, time-consuming, and requires a real sales operation. Two: rent out non-performing weeks. That's harder to do at an older, non-name-brand property. How do people find you? When they do find you, how do you compete against the shiny name-brand places that have had a more aggressive refurbishment schedule? A cheaper price only gets you so far before you just look cheap and it's not worth it. Three: allow the death spiral to happen and let the resort die of natural causes. As more people don't pay, costs go up, causing more people not to pay, and so on. Those who hold on to the end might get a decent return when the place is resold as whole-ownership/for redevelopment, but that's a bit of a gamble as you watch fees skyrocket every year.

Owners at these resorts tend to think that options one and two are easier than they are, because they own and love the place. Why wouldn't everyone want to own there? Well, if annual fees are already substantially above-market compared to other area resorts, a savvy resale buyer won't touch it. Why wouldn't everyone want to rent there? Well, it's because they've never heard of it, and what to us looks cozy and comfortable to them looks a little dumpy.

We loved Hono Koa when we stayed there on an exchange last summer. It fit our vibe perfectly, and we were even in one of the "bad" units without any real view. But I would have a hard time justifying owning there at the current fees level, even for those corner oceanfront units. It is a very hard problem. Wyndham's trust product lets them side-step it a little bit, because they can sell the trust product at any of their resorts no matter where the inventory is coming from.


----------



## WManning (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> When we bought two years later, Wyndham only allowed us two PIC two weeks.  I am glad we really thought out our second purchase in 2008.  We PIC'd two Twin Rivers 3 bedrooms for the 254,000 points each.  That is the account we are going to keep, I think.  We have the other one that is going to be sold off in bits and pieces.  We have no desire to keep two Founder's Level accounts.  I don't want to live in Wyndham resorts year-round.
> 
> I think we will get a good price for some of our contracts, even though status will not transfer over, our fees are low.


In box me when your ready to let go any low maintenance fee deeds. As far as status goes it dosent sound like the cost can be justified anymore.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 17, 2022)

@bnoble Yes, the trend is upsetting because I know the management is not on top of sales in any meaningful way.  They have a separate entity that does the selling,  called Kainoa Properties.  When we visited with our fellow owners at the hot tub, it seems Kainoa is more about converting current owners to RCI Points.  Imagine getting 108,000 points for a MF of $2,350 (our fees for our oceanfront units).  And people do it!!!  They are nuts.  I would never pay money to get RCI Points at over 2 cents per point.  The big sell is the 7,500 point exchanges.  What a scam.  

Maybe exchange guests get the sales' spiel about the property, but as you said, who is going to buy with such high fees.  

Soleil is talking about a major update for Hono Koa and are in the design stage.  They have done major updates with the Kahana Villas, Sands of Kahana and Gardens at West Maui, and it's a big difference, but even the bathrooms at Sands of Kahana didn't get more than a re-grouting of the tiles (which was fine because they looked really clean).  It was the same old tub and tile.  

I have no idea if they did a special assessment to remodel those units.  

If Wyndham took these properties from Soleil, I see a bright future for Hono Koa and all of those properties.  

I would still never convert my Hono Koa weeks to Wyndham points.  We owned Shearwater when we did our conversion, and our salesperson told us that platinum members would get inventory before we would get it.  That was one of the many lies told at the sales' table.  I believed him.  Why?  I have no idea. But I won't fall for that again.  

Not many Shearwater owners converted to Wyndham.  I can tell by the lack of inventory.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Maybe exchange guests get the sales' spiel about the property


I don't think we did, but that might be because we arrived after hours and just used the lock box.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 17, 2022)

Another lie at the sales' table during our conversion--only weeks owners would pay a special assessment to update the units at Shearwater to Wyndham standards.  Points would not pay.  That was a lie because no one paid for the updates.  Wyndham never charged for the updates.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 17, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I do envy the long time owners like you and the lack of limits that you had to get to VIP levels, particularly prior to 2008 when the two contract PIC limit was put in place.  If I had the option in 2018 to do more than two PIC Plus contracts, I almost assuredly would have done so at that time - and I'd be at least permanent VIPP at this point in time as a result - and probably for the same cash outlay that I made for VIPG to boot (210k CWA points).


I've said before if I had a time machine back to when I made my first purchase (resale) in 2010, maybe I'd convince myself to PIC to silver when it was only 300k. On the other hand, if I was willing to spend more discretionary funds on a timeshare purchase at that time, a better choice would still probably have been to buy resale DVC instead.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Another lie at the sales' table during our conversion--only weeks owners would pay a special assessment to update the units at Shearwater to Wyndham standards.  Points would not pay.  That was a lie because no one paid for the updates.  Wyndham never charged for the updates.



IIRC the way Wyndham HOAs structure their financials - they have funding that covers standard renovations on a rolling scheduled basis.  I cannot recall the last time I heard from a Wyndham owner that had to pay a special assessment for anything really.  While the sales and marketing division continues to disappoint with their deceptive sales practices both currently and historically, the resort management arm of the company and the local resort management HOAs are doing a good job overall.  There's always room for improvement without a doubt, but I have always valued and appreciated the way the Wyndham resorts are managed.


----------



## am1 (Aug 17, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> When we bought two years later, Wyndham only allowed us two PIC two weeks.  I am glad we really thought out our second purchase in 2008.  We PIC'd two Twin Rivers 3 bedrooms for the 254,000 points each.  That is the account we are going to keep, I think.  We have the other one that is going to be sold off in bits and pieces.  We have no desire to keep two Founder's Level accounts.  I don't want to live in Wyndham resorts year-round.
> 
> I think we will get a good price for some of our contracts, even though status will not transfer over, our fees are low.



Get it in an corp or llc and transfer.


----------



## schoolmarm (Aug 17, 2022)

ronparise said:


> I think that the arbiter of all that is good or evil has stated  giving or selling a stripped contract in the Tug market place was ok and not a scam, (or as you put it pawning off my liabilities to others)  The problem was  characterizing it as a bargain.
> 
> I still think they were a bargain


Yes, Ron....my Bali Hai contract I bought from you WAS a bargain.  Totally worth it even with stripped points. It has such low MFs that it didn't take me long to "break even". Thank you.


----------



## scootr5 (Aug 17, 2022)

schoolmarm said:


> Yes, Ron....my Bali Hai contract I bought from you WAS a bargain.  Totally worth it even with stripped points. It has such low MFs that it didn't take me long to "break even". Thank you.



As was the South Shore one I took. As with most things, YMMV.


----------



## ronparise (Aug 26, 2022)

am1 said:


> In no way was it a bargain.  Too much risk for one to assume while paying monthly fees with no current use.  Now if there was a hint that the ownership value could increase then maybe it could be an ok purchase.



as it turned out you are right very few saw the “bargain” in my “bargains”. That doesn’t take away from the fact I saw them as bargains and some folks saw some of them as bargains

No question that free is a powerful marketing word and free doesn’t  mean it’s a good deal. Tug called me on it and I took the ad down


----------



## jebloomquist (Aug 29, 2022)

hjsweet2002 said:


> Has Wyndham corporate cancelled Wyndham rentals?


Back to the original question in this thread.

Back on April 1, 2013, pacodemountainside stated the following from the 1991 VOI Trust Agreement:

_1991 VOI Trust Agreement

11.08 Wyndham Use. In addition to the right of Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, to make reservations using those Points at any time, Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, for its own purposes, including renting to the public, provided it pays or otherwise causes a third party to pay the occupancy related expenses of such Accommodations for each night to be used. All such occupancy related expenses shall be determined by the Trustee. As a result of Wyndham’s use there will be less space available for Member use; however, Wyndham may not reserve the last 10% of available occupancy for a type of Accommodation until 30 days prior to the first day of intended use. In addition, to the extent more Points are available in the Plan than are allocated to Members other than Wyndham, Wyndham may sell or lease Points on such terms as Wyndham and the Trustee deem reasonable. The purchasers or lessees of such Points shall have such Membership rights as Wyndham and the Trustee deem appropriate._

As I dissect this agreement, two things appear possible to me.

1) Wyndham might be the biggest mega-renter of all.

_…Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, for its own purposes,…_

What might those purposes include? The additional phrase, “_including renting to the public_” grants Wyndham the right to be an unrestricted mega-renter.

2) Wyndham acquires the right to rent to the public because it is a “_member and owner of points_.”

_Wyndham Use. … the right of Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, to make reservations using those Points at any time, … including renting to the public…_

So does Wyndham acquire the right to rent to the public, because it is a “_member and owner of points_”? Isn’t every Club Wyndham Owner a member and owner of points? This suggests to me that if Wyndham acquires the right to rent to the public, because it is a member and owner of points, all Club Wyndham Owners should be granted the same right. If Club Wyndham Owners are not granted that right, then Wyndham itself should not be granted the right to rent to the public, as well.

Has anything changed in the VOI Trust Agreement? I leave it to others to investigate.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 29, 2022)

jebloomquist said:


> Back to the original question in this thread.
> 
> Back on April 1, 2013, pacodemountainside stated the following from the 1991 VOI Trust Agreement:
> 
> ...


It seems the use of ellipses here obscures the sentence structure and changes the meaning/conclusion:


jebloomquist said:


> Wyndham Use. … the right of Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, to make reservations using those Points at any time, … including renting to the public…


Because the "renting to the public" clause in the original text follows from this: "_Wyndham, *in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans*, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, *for its own purposes, including renting to the public*.." _That is, the "renting to the public" clause is part of the 60-day use of unused inventory, and is clearly stated to be allowed as part of Wyndham's capacity as developer, not owner and member. But what Wyndham is allowed to do with its reservations made with points as member and owner is ambiguous, at best. Wyndham could probably make an argument that because they are the developer in addition to owner and member, that reservations made with their own points further out than 60 days can also be rented. I'm not a legal mind and don't know if it's a plausible legal argument. I'd also observe that the only time that renting is mentioned in the Fairshare trust agreement is in the context of what Wyndham can do with its points, even if it also mentions Wyndham's ability to use its points as an owner and member. Never does it mention renting in the context of what individual owner/members can do with their points. So I would guess Wyndham can make the argument that those clauses are meant to solely describe what Wyndham can do, and should not be extrapolated back to apply to all owners.


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 29, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It seems the use of ellipses here obscures the sentence structure and changes the meaning/conclusion:
> 
> Because the "renting to the public" clause in the original text follows from this: "_Wyndham, *in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans*, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, *for its own purposes, including renting to the public*.." _That is, the "renting to the public" clause is part of the 60-day use of unused inventory, and is clearly stated to be allowed as part of Wyndham's capacity as developer, not owner and member. But what Wyndham is allowed to do with its reservations made with points as member and owner is ambiguous, at best. Wyndham could probably make an argument that because they are the developer in addition to owner and member, that reservations made with their own points further out than 60 days can also be rented. I'm not a legal mind and don't know if it's a plausible legal argument. I'd also observe that the only time that renting is mentioned in the Fairshare trust agreement is in the context of what Wyndham can do with its points, even if it also mentions Wyndham's ability to use its points as an owner and member. Never does it mention renting in the context of what individual owner/members can do with their points. So I would guess Wyndham can make the argument that those clauses are meant to solely describe what Wyndham can do, and should not be extrapolated back to apply to all owners.



Could it be argued that this is the determining part of that sentence?  "_Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, *may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy*, for its own purposes, including renting to the public.." _

I don't think anyone disagrees that Wyndham is the biggest renter and is doing commercial renting.. The ultimate question will be can they make different rules for themselves_ "*in its capacity as the developer"* _and does that apply to Extra Holidays being a commercial enterprise?

If the class action lawsuit RENTER is pushing goes before a judge the attorneys for each side will present their arguments and the judge will rule. Lawsuits typically have a number of points. A win might only be on one or several small and largely irrelevent points with the judge ruling against the main points and not the big payout the participants and attorneys hoped for. That's what happened in the class action lawsit that's been brought up several times in discussions here on TUG. Not a one time thing either. If it settles out of court which is the most likely scenario we'll never know the outcome and nothing will change.

It would be extremely naive not to be aware that money sometimes changes hands, favors get called in, etc. to ensure a favorable ruling. Anyone wanna bet on which side has deeper pockets? I'm not saying that's what will happen but it's something we know that unfortunately does happen.

RENTER has repeatedly stated that the participants in this class action lawsuit won't be on the hook for any expenses whatsoever if the lawsuit loses. I have a really hard time wrapping my head aroung that. See point #3 below. Just a reminder that those expenses all come off the top of any settlement or judgement award before the money is divided among the participants.

There are several other things owners should be asking before they sign on with this or any class action lawsuit.
1. Do the attorneys have previous experience with class action lawsuits?
2. What were the outcomes of those previous suits?
3. How well funded are the attorneys? Class action lawsuits typically take several years and someone has to lay out money to cover the expenses. Filing fees. copies, mailings, travel expenses, deposition costs, etc. add up. Think of those expenses as a bet placed. Can the attorneys afford to risk that loss if they don't win or there isn't a settlement?
4. Is there anything in what you sign when you join the lawsuit that authorizes the attorneys to accept a setttlement on the participants behalf or do they have to present each settlement offer and get the agreement of the participants on whether or not to accept? Attorneys often push for a settlement because it takes the risk out of possibly losing before a judge and they end up with nothing.
5. Is it reasonable to think the attorneys won't push and push hard for the participants to accept a settlement after they've invest several years of work and laid out considerable money? The settlement might not be that great a deal for the participants but guarantees a certain amount of money for the attorneys.
6. Does any settlement or judgement award get divided equally among all the participants?


----------



## jebloomquist (Aug 29, 2022)

I agree that the sentence structure leaves the meaning and intent to be ambiguous. Why would the Wyndham attorney do this? Was it to hide the true meaning and right of all owners?
Why not write it as follows?

_Wyndham’s Use of Its Points:
In addition to other rights, Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, may make reservations using those Points at any time.
Furthermore:
Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, for its own purposes which may include renting to the public._

There is either something hidden in the weeds or Wyndham needs a better attorney, one that doesn’t open the door for potential litigation.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Aug 29, 2022)

The way I read it, it is clear to me, as follows:



> Wyndham Use. In addition to the right of Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, to make reservations using those Points at any time, Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, for its own purposes, including renting to the public, provided it pays or otherwise causes a third party to pay the occupancy related expenses of such Accommodations for each night to be used.



Interpretation:  This clause is defining Wyndham Use.  Wyndham is defining two explicit sets of rights in this statement.  One, Wyndham can rent any/all inventory as a member and owner of points, at any time and not subject to any limitations.  Two, as the developer, retains the right to set aside Accommodations (last minute discount window inventory) within 60 days, for it's own purposes, which may include renting, provided the third party pays for the Accommodations. 

Note that Accommodations is capitalized, which means it is a defined term already, likely from elsewhere in the same referenced materials (or from the founding trust documents).

Any attempt to conflate the two different points, is just that, conflation.  The rental of distressed (last minute) Accommodations within the 60 day discount window as the developer has nothing to do with Wyndham's right to rent inventory that they already own.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 29, 2022)

jebloomquist said:


> one that doesn’t open the door for potential litigation.


I don't really think it opens the door for potential litigation unless you also ignore the various places throughout the agreement that it basically states Wyndham can update policies, etc whenever it wants, and only if you assume that Wyndham has to be treated like any other owner (although it is obviously also the developer), which also isn't spelled out anywhere.

EDIT: Just so everyone's operating from the same Fairshare trust version: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1361658/000095012308005337/y57618exv10w1.htm


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 29, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> IIRC the way Wyndham HOAs structure their financials - they have funding that covers standard renovations on a rolling scheduled basis.  I cannot recall the last time I heard from a Wyndham owner that had to pay a special assessment for anything really.  While the sales and marketing division continues to disappoint with their deceptive sales practices both currently and historically, the resort management arm of the company and the local resort management HOAs are doing a good job overall.  There's always room for improvement without a doubt, but I have always valued and appreciated the way the Wyndham resorts are managed.


We paid a special assessment for Kingsgate in 2009.  We also paid a special assessment for Sea Palms of $1,000.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 29, 2022)

If I were the lawsuit people, I'd be more likely to focus on this statement:
"All Points which Members use to avail themselves of any of the foregoing 'internal' exchanges or programs shall be deemed to belong to Wyndham for the Use Year attributable to such Points and Wyndham shall be entitled to use such Points *in the same fashion as any other Member, including, without limitation, making reservations for Accommodations and renting out those Accommodations to the public*."
Because that would seem to imply that being able to rent out accommodations is something that any member can do. If Wyndham wanted to draw a distinction between how Wyndham can use points vs other regular members, I don't see why they would use the word "including" there - rather saying something like "and in addition," or something to that effect. However, you're still up against the commercial language in the program disclosures in the directory. Because again, it's peppered throughout that Wyndham gets to make the operational rules.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 29, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> If I were the lawsuit people, I'd be more likely to focus on this statement:
> "All Points which Members use to avail themselves of any of the foregoing 'internal' exchanges or programs shall be deemed to belong to Wyndham for the Use Year attributable to such Points and Wyndham shall be entitled to use such Points *in the same fashion as any other Member, including, without limitation, making reservations for Accommodations and renting out those Accommodations to the public*."
> Because that would seem to imply that being able to rent out accommodations is something that any member can do. If Wyndham wanted to draw a distinction between how Wyndham can use points vs other regular members, I don't see why they would use the word "including" there - rather saying something like "and in addition," or something to that effect. However, you're still up against the commercial language in the program disclosures in the directory. Because again, it's peppered throughout that Wyndham gets to make the operational rules.


I want to see a line drawn to let us know what is acceptable for renting and what is not.  How many rentals in total are acceptable or how many points rented are acceptable? No policy means some people are renting while the rest of us have been stopped.  Set some rules and standards, Wyndham, so we know what we can and cannot do.

I am still trying to decide what to do with all of our contracts.  I have no idea how much we will actually use. 

I booked Bonnet Creek for early January for us and the kids, and that transaction used a little over 400,000 points, a 1 bed for us and a 3 bed for their five.  But if I get a discount of 60% when the dates are within 60 days, that reduces the points we need for this reservation.

I have no idea how many points we can actually use, and that is the question I keep rolling around in my head.  I know that all of the kids would really enjoy Glacier Canyon, and we are able to go late May, when school lets out.  I see availability for that.  That would use quite a few points right now. 

Branson and Nashville are trips in our immediate future, maybe that will be a driving trip.  I would also like to stay at Grand Desert on our way to Anaheim next month. 

We would really like to try the Myrtle Beach Wyndham resorts.  Which ones are the nicest?  And someday National Harbor or Alexandria. 

I really enjoy Marriott accommodations, but Marriott doesn't have Wisconsin Dells, nothing in Nashville, a single resort in Branson that isn't all that special (we own there and think it's not all that grand), and I think Grand Desert would rival Marriott's Grand Chateau for accommodations and location. 

If only Wyndham had Maui, I would go 8 weeks a year.  I truly would enjoy our currently owned 5 weeks and add another 3 weeks during summer with points.  That hope is alive in my mind as I think about what Wyndham lacks.  They have all other islands.  I would bet they are working on acquiring something on Maui.  I am always hopeful. I see them filling that need at some point, which is one of the many reasons I will never give up everything Wyndham.   The WorldMark resort in Kihei is just okay.  Big competition for that.  I tried to fill in a few days between our other stays and couldn't get anything, checking multiple times a day for months. 

We do love Shearwater and have stayed there via exchange much cheaper than we could ever do with Wyndham points. Bali Hai is just okay, the clubhouse is nice and that pool is much better for kiddos.


----------



## geist1223 (Aug 29, 2022)

If there is an ambiguity (I am not saying there is) then in a normal court with intelligent Judges an ambiguity is to be interpreted in favor of the non-drafters of the ambiguous clause.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 29, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I want to see a line drawn to let us know what is acceptable for renting and what is not. How many rentals in total are acceptable or how many points rented are acceptable? No policy means some people are renting while the rest of us have been stopped. Set some rules and standards, Wyndham, so we know what we can and cannot do.


I know you want this, but they aren't going to do it. If an owner comes to be viewed as "renting commercially," they are going to be on Wyndham's naughty list. Once you are on the naughty list, you're pretty much screwed as a rental business. Wyndham is not going to tell you how small your rental business can be to be "acceptable."



rickandcindy23 said:


> I have no idea how many points we can actually use


Switch this around, and figure out how many you want to pay for.

First, decide which of your timeshares are going to be primarily for you, and which you will keep in your "mostly renting" pool. Second, figure out what you want to spend each year on "timeshares we use for ourselves or our kids," and keep the things that fit in that budget, ordered by how useful you will find it. If you own it, you will figure out a way to use it. 



rickandcindy23 said:


> We do love Shearwater and have stayed there via exchange much cheaper than we could ever do with Wyndham points.


For example, just book the Shearwater week. It's more expensive than an exchange? Fine. If the exchange comes through, switch to it and roll the points forward. Otherwise, just go and have fun. That's what we are doing this upcoming summer, because we have points to burn. Why not burn them!

Heck, if they are in the budget, might as well keep them even if it means sending friends/more distant family on vacation as a gift. You could be the cool aunt who sends people on vacation.


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 29, 2022)

An interesting side note is that owners who received the letters can still rent thorugh Extra Holidays. Two owners I know were recently contacted by Extra Holidays about listing rentals even though they've received the letter. Extra Holidays even has a list of reservations they're looking for to help you with what to book.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 29, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> An interesting side note is that owners who received the letters can still rent thorugh Extra Holidays. Two owners I know were recently contacted by Extra Holidays about listing rentals even though they've received the letter. Extra Holidays even has a list of reservations they're looking for to help you with what to book.


That's ridiculous that Extra Holidays is still making money off of owners.  I will never do that.  

I would just as soon just let everything go back to Wyndham, which would mean stopping MF payments. 

Funny thing is that I am not the stubborn owner in all of this.  Rick and our daughter (all of our kids are on our deeds) are being so incredibly stubborn.  Our sons do not care.  Our oldest son said he didn't want any of it.  Our second son has not stayed at any Wyndham property recently, except Bali Hai, and he was very unimpressed.  He supposedly had a presidential unit.  He said it needed updating.  That's what happens when your kid usually stays in Marriott and Westin resorts in Hawaii.  

I cannot even talk to our daughter and Rick about this problem without both of them acting like I am giving up and letting Wyndham win.  They already won.  We lost.  They need to move forward. 

When we talked to Wyndham about our options for giving up our contracts, the one thing that really stood out for me was the "up to 8 months" it would take to give most of the contracts back, and our fees would continue, but we wouldn't be able to use anything in the process.  8 months of fees without being able to use anything?  That is major bullying.  I would rather force them to foreclose and walk away from all of it.  We could stop paying right now.


----------



## paxsarah (Aug 29, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> When we talked to Wyndham about our options for giving up our contracts, the one thing that really stood out for me was the "up to 8 months" it would take to give most of the contracts back, and our fees would continue, but we wouldn't be able to use anything in the process. 8 months of fees without being able to use anything? That is major bullying. I would rather force them to foreclose and walk away from all of it. We could stop paying right now.


I would guess the up to 8 months is just the typical CYA for how long Certified Exit may take, and probably not take that long (unless there are some weird jurisdictions in terms of hassle of recording deeds). Transferring to another owner would be no shorter. And if those two options are out because they take too long, then I guess just stopping paying would be the only answer, since you can do that on your own schedule.


----------



## jebloomquist (Aug 29, 2022)

I exited 12 contracts over the past year. One of the things that takes time is the need to get documents notarized. There were 3 per contract, each coming months apart. There seemed to be a black hole at Wyndham until suddenly I noticed that my maintenance fees had gone down. However, it was completed in less than 6 months


----------



## Jan M. (Aug 29, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> When we talked to Wyndham about our options for giving up our contracts, the one thing that really stood out for me was the "up to 8 months" it would take to give most of the contracts back, and our fees would continue, but we wouldn't be able to use anything in the process. 8 months of fees without being able to use anything?



Is there some reason you don't just sell off the contracts you don't want to keep rather than give them back through Certified Exit? Earlier this year we sold all six of our resales. It took 2.5-3 months from the time I listed them in the Facebook group until they were out of our account. Two of the contracts were National Harbor and those took longer because someone has to go in person to the courthouse in that county. Two of them were Hawaii resorts. LT Transfers handled them all. 

I wasn't willing to not be able to make any new reservations once the paperwork was returned to CE until the transfers were completed. It takes longer for CE to get you that paperwork than is does to get the transfers completed once you return your paperwork.


----------



## ronparise (Sep 1, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I want to see a line drawn to let us know what is acceptable for renting and what is not.  How many rentals in total are acceptable or how many points rented are acceptable? No policy means some people are renting while the rest of us have been stopped.  Set some rules and standards, Wyndham, so we know what we can and cannot do.




Back in the day, I was criticized a lot for my  "open-ness" on Tug., especially by others that were renting on a large scale.  No one seemed to understand what I was doing or why

I knew that there were ongoing lawsuits, (megarenters vs Wyndham) regarding rule changes that made renting more difficult and less profitable. I had read the Spearman article in "Timesharing Today" about his experience. And whenever I asked for advice about renting on the old Wyndham Forum,  was told It cant be done (profitably) anymore, Certainly if not VIP. And to become VIP was way too expensive.   But I had already done some rentals and was making some money. and I wanted to grow

I wanted to grow, and I didnt want Wyndham to shut me down because I had grown too big. I wanted what you want....

_"I want to see a line drawn to let us know what is acceptable for renting and what is not.  How many rentals in total are acceptable or how many points rented are acceptable?"_

So I went public. I hoped to goad Wyndham into either shutting me down when I was small, or give me some guidelines.    But they did neither.  Not then, and I dont think they will do anything like that now.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 1, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Back in the day, I was criticized a lot for my  "open-ness" on Tug., especially by others that were renting on a large scale.  No one seemed to understand what I was doing or why
> 
> I knew that there were ongoing lawsuits, (megarenters vs Wyndham) regarding rule changes that made renting more difficult and less profitable. I had read the Spearman article in "Timesharing Today" about his experience. And whenever I asked for advice about renting on the old Wyndham Forum,  was told It cant be done (profitably) anymore, Certainly if not VIP. And to become VIP was way too expensive.   But I had already done some rentals and was making some money. and I wanted to grow
> 
> ...


They will never say what is acceptable, yet you see people still renting, still getting by with it, and because the market is no longer flooded with rentals, those owners are making big bucks.  

Meanwhile, I am looking at what we have to sell or give away, and it's even been suggested by more than one TUG member via PM that I just walk away from all of the MF payments and force Wyndham to foreclose, which would cost them a lot of money in foreclosure fees.  It's an idea, but I didn't really want to give up the platinum founder's membership that we have.  We actually have two.  Thinking of giving up one but just breaking it up into small contracts to sell.  

6-8 months to transfer out of our names by Wyndham is excessive and pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Zeke_62 (Sep 1, 2022)

I used certified exit last year for 2 contracts with high MF and Ebay with LT for a couple more.    Time span was 5.5 mo for certified exit and 3-7 mo for LT.    I called title about a different topic this week and as part of the conversation she said they were shut down for I think 3 weeks at the beginning of the transfer to  paymentus.    So I expect we need to add a month to the times we saw last year and maybe more as more hybrid owners shed their resale.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 2, 2022)

ronparise said:


> _"I want to see a line drawn to let us know what is acceptable for renting and what is not.  How many rentals in total are acceptable or how many points rented are acceptable?"_
> 
> So I went public. I hoped to goad Wyndham into either shutting me down when I was small, or give me some guidelines.    But they did neither.  Not then, and I dont think they will do anything like that now.



Judging by the number of cease and desist letters people have received from Wyndham since late last year - and the number of "renters" who have had all ability to utilize GCs suspended due to multiple violations, and blocks of entire GCs cancelled by Wyndham with no recourse, especially those owners who have utilized public forums to advertise their rentals, the facts seem to disagree with your observations with regard to Wyndham not doing anything this time around.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 2, 2022)

They are doing something for sure. But I think Ron's point is that they did not and will not define an "acceptable" level of commercial activity.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 2, 2022)

bnoble said:


> They are doing something for sure. But I think Ron's point is that they did not and will not define an "acceptable" level of commercial activity.



He said either shutting him down or giving guidance to be specific. I agree no explicit guidance will be given, but Wyndham is definitively shutting commercial renters down systemically as has been evidenced repeatedly here on TUG and on the social media forums, unlike in times past when Ron was doing his thing. He would likely therefore not be able to do the same thing today in comparison since Wyndham has closed all of the loopholes and is actively pursuing and shutting down commercial renters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 2, 2022)

Someone on that Wyndham owners' Facebook group received the letter and is unsure why because he (claims) is not a mega renter.  That had me wondering...how many people who are allowing family members to use their ownerships are being sent letters?  Just because all family doesn't have your same last name doesn't make them less family.  Must we make sure we travel at the same time as our family, so we don't get our reservations cancelled?

How many guests added does it take for you to get a letter saying you cannot add guest to anything anymore.  Wait until it happens to all of you Wyndham defenders.  If there is no defined limit, when will you get a letter?  Maybe after two guests are added?  

This guy on Facebook is wondering why he got a letter.


----------



## paxsarah (Sep 2, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Someone on that Wyndham owners' Facebook group received the letter and is unsure why because he (claims) is not a mega renter.  That had me wondering...how many people who are allowing family members to use their ownerships are being sent letters?  Just because all family doesn't have your same last name doesn't make them less family.  Must we make sure we travel at the same time as our family, so we don't get our reservations cancelled?
> 
> How many guests added does it take for you to get a letter saying you cannot add guest to anything anymore.  Wait until it happens to all of you Wyndham defenders.  If there is no defined limit, when will you get a letter?  Maybe after two guests are added?
> 
> This guy on Facebook is wondering why he got a letter.


I'm not in that group right now (so I don't know if it applies to that owner), but in the past when people on FB wondered why they got the letter, I looked them up in the groups and most (though not all) of them had at least one post offering a reservation for rental. In some cases, all it took was one.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 2, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> He said either shutting him down or giving guidance to be specific.


Yeah, I get that. But Cindy wasn't asking to be shut down, so I'm reading between the lines a little bit.



rickandcindy23 said:


> How many guests added does it take for you to get a letter saying you cannot add guest to anything anymore.


I think there might be more than one way to attract the attention of Wyndham's watchful eye. The number of GCs is only one of them. We've seen a couple of other ways based on what owners have reported. As @paxsarah points out, openly advertising a rental to unknown third parties in an identifiable way is one way. Using Wyndham's photos in your own ads is another. Doing either of these even once can attract that attention, depending on how blatant one is about it.z

I have yet to hear anyone get the nastygram for only giving (or renting) stays to people they happen to have known before the gift/transaction, especially if that's not the majority of usage in the account. Has it happened? Maybe. But again, I haven't heard of it. Of course, once you've gotten the nastygram, then all bets are off, and lots of things might be difficult, even though they would have been innocuous in isolation.


----------



## MaryBella7 (Sep 2, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Someone on that Wyndham owners' Facebook group received the letter and is unsure why because he (claims) is not a mega renter.  That had me wondering...how many people who are allowing family members to use their ownerships are being sent letters?  Just because all family doesn't have your same last name doesn't make them less family.  Must we make sure we travel at the same time as our family, so we don't get our reservations cancelled?
> 
> How many guests added does it take for you to get a letter saying you cannot add guest to anything anymore.  Wait until it happens to all of you Wyndham defenders.  If there is no defined limit, when will you get a letter?  Maybe after two guests are added?
> 
> This guy on Facebook is wondering why he got a letter.



If it’s the one I think it is, he seemed to think it was ok with wyndham to defray MF but not to profit. He didn’t realize that it didn’t matter if it was for profit or not until people told him, so I am sure he was openly renting somewhere.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 2, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Yeah, I get that. But Cindy wasn't asking to be shut down, so I'm reading between the lines a little bit.



She definitely was never asking for this, but my point is that Wyndham is doing their homework and shutting people down regardless.  Ron explicitly said "But they did neither. Not then, *and I don't think they will do anything like that now.* "  I disagree that Wyndham would not do anything now - and I bet Cindy agrees - that they are very much already doing things now that have impacted many TUGGERs and many on the social media forums in point of fact when it comes to rental activities.  This does not mean I agree or disagree with what Wyndham is choosing to do - I am simply saying - Wyndham is actively doing it now, unlike in times past.  It's a different world without a doubt.



> I think there might be more than one way to attract the attention of Wyndham's watchful eye. The number of GCs is only one of them. We've seen a couple of other ways based on what owners have reported. As @paxsarah points out, openly advertising a rental to unknown third parties in an identifiable way is one way. Using Wyndham's photos in your own ads is another. Doing either of these even once can attract that attention, depending on how blatant one is about it.z
> 
> I have yet to hear anyone get the nastygram for only giving (or renting) stays to people they happen to have known before the gift/transaction, especially if that's not the majority of usage in the account. Has it happened? Maybe. But again, I haven't heard of it. Of course, once you've gotten the nastygram, then all bets are off, and lots of things might be difficult, even though they would have been innocuous in isolation.



Yes, and if I were to speculate, this isn't a keystone cops operation.  It's likely been outsourced, and Wyndham is possibly paying a third party service to mine social media data and utilize it to match up data within their own systems to identify renters - in this case specifically data from the Facebook groups (which likely also are unaware of what's transpiring).  If anyone believes that Facebook doesn't sell their data, despite saying otherwise, think again:









						How much Facebook earns from your data each year
					

Facebook may be free to use, but the trade-off isn't just annoying adverts: your data is being harvested and sold for way more money than you might imagine.




					www.techadvisor.com
				




Even if Facebook doesn't technically directly sell their data (if you take them at their word), they run a huge social media platform upon which many other large entities build applications that mine data indirectly - and those third parties then sell your data without your knowledge - because the Terms of Use allow for it.  If I were a betting man, this is exactly how Wyndham is connecting the dots - using mined data from the social media platforms via a third party that specializes in services like this.  There are many out there that provide this type of service for money.


----------



## Jan M. (Sep 2, 2022)

Remember that poorly worded email and letter that went out to many owners a few months back? That letter or perhaps a better written one is still going out. Not sure about the emails. Both then and now some owners you wouldn't think would be getting those letters are getting them. Then and now the owners are asked to sign and return a statement saying something like they know commercial renting isn't permitted and they weren't or wouldn't engage in such renting. There's been a lot more discussion about this in the Facebook groups than here on TUG. Some owners have refused to sign that statement.

Clearly there has to be some legal benefit to Wyndham in sending out the letters and getting the statements signed. Does it or could it help them establish some sort of precedence? It is just intended as intimidation? Bark with no bite? Maybe someone with a legal background can explain what they think Wyndham is trying to accomplish or could accomplish with those statements.


----------



## ronparise (Sep 4, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Judging by the number of cease and desist letters people have received from Wyndham since late last year - and the number of "renters" who have had all ability to utilize GCs suspended due to multiple violations, and blocks of entire GCs cancelled by Wyndham with no recourse, especially those owners who have utilized public forums to advertise their rentals, the facts seem to disagree with your observations with regard to Wyndham not doing anything this time around.



I dont question that they are doing something, What Im saying is that they are not and will not define what (if anything )is ok


----------



## ronparise (Sep 4, 2022)

bnoble said:


> They are doing something for sure. But I think Ron's point is that they did not and will not define an "acceptable" level of commercial activity.


 Exactly


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 4, 2022)

ronparise said:


> I dont question that they are doing something, What Im saying is that they are not and will not define what (if anything )is ok



Agree 100%, they will not define the rules for renting, until and unless they are forced to do so. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise (Sep 4, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> He said either shutting him down or giving guidance to be specific. I agree no explicit guidance will be given, but Wyndham is definitively shutting commercial renters down systemically as has been evidenced repeatedly here on TUG and on the social media forums, unlike in times past when Ron was doing his thing. He would likely therefore not be able to do the same thing today in comparison since Wyndham has closed all of the loopholes and is actively pursuing and shutting down commercial renters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Of course I couldnt do what I was doing today the way I was doing it in 2015.    Thats not my point.  Although  in 2017 I aske the Wyndham attorney If I could assist others, as their consultant to rent. The answer was, as long as they didnt get "too big"   Too big, I asked..."whats that?"  

There was a day when I had no VIP  and only a few points, (relatively)  So no VIP, no cancel and rebook. and no ARP.  There are numerous posts here where I argued that you didnt need VIP or loopholes to rent profitably.  Shutting me down or giving me guidance is exactly what I was looking for then ,  They did neither.  

Doing what I did then is not a get rich quick plan, but I was able to make $25000/year  reserving and renting what I called special times at special places

I didnt get big until I bought the right contracts to become VIP


----------



## ronparise (Sep 4, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Agree 100%, they will not define the rules for renting, until and unless they are forced to do so.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 

And that takes me to my point. dont sue Wyndham, let them sue you. But they wont because then they would have to define just what commercial renting is


----------



## Jan M. (Sep 4, 2022)

ronparise said:


> And that takes me to my point. dont sue Wyndham, let them sue you. But they wont because then they would have to define just what commercial renting is



Based on the response from Wyndham an admin on the Facebook group posted, the verbiage Hitchhiker has posted and the statements Wyndham's trying to get owners to sign this is my take.

It seems like Wyndham is trying to establish that rentals outside of Extra Holidays constitute commercial renting.

Someone I know personally who received "the letter" and currently cannot add guest names to any reservations was recently contacted by Extra Holidays. EH provided guidance and accepted the OP's rentals.


----------



## scootr5 (Sep 4, 2022)

ronparise said:


> dont sue Wyndham, let them sue you. But they wont because then they would have to define just what commercial renting is





Jan M. said:


> It seems like Wyndham is trying to establish that rentals outside of Extra Holidays constitute commercial renting.
> 
> Someone I know personally who received "the letter" and currently cannot add guest names to any reservations was recently contacted by Extra Holidays. EH provided guidance and accepted the OP's rentals.



Right. Don’t sue Wyndham, they will just let you die on the vine before they confirn anything.


----------



## RENTER (Sep 4, 2022)

The owners who should be upset the most are those who had their guest pass reservations cancelled for their family and were not renting. Other owners are still renting and openly advertising their rentals. I know 6 owners who had their rental guests check in this weekend with guest passes. Wyndham defenders will say that Wyndham just did not get around to those owners still renting. REALLY? That shows how incompetent this company is. Owners openly advertising renting is low hanging fruit. They should have been the first owners Wyndham went after. Cancelling family guest pass reservations because Wyndham declared them commercial renting is total BS. Just more evidence for non-owners considering buying to stay away. The question is did Wyndham just not get around to those rental owners or did those owners win a lawsuit against Wyndham and signed a non-disclosure agreement. This company needs new management. They are being attacked from all quarters. I just watched YouTube postings of other owners warning people to stay away.


----------



## CO skier (Sep 5, 2022)

ronparise said:


> And that takes me to my point. dont sue Wyndham, let them sue you. But they wont because then they would have to define just what commercial renting is


Wyndham does not need to sue to achieve their objectives.  They can suspend accounts at will and show owners the door, or send cease and desist letters/emails and cancel reservations at will.

Owners on the other hand need to sue for a different outcome.


----------



## paxsarah (Sep 5, 2022)

RENTER said:


> or did those owners win a lawsuit against Wyndham and signed a non-disclosure agreement.


You must mean a settlement. A lawsuit that goes to trial would be public record.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Sep 5, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> You must mean a settlement. A lawsuit that goes to trial would be public record.


And I don't think Wyndham is offering the settlements they were in 2017. Now, they are being so kind as to allow you to give back your contracts via certified exit (if they qualify), and pay maintenance on them until the transfer back to them is complete. I have not heard of anyone being offered anything to the contrary.


----------



## Rolltydr (Sep 5, 2022)

RENTER said:


> The owners who should be upset the most are those who had their guest pass reservations cancelled for their family and were not renting. Other owners are still renting and openly advertising their rentals. I know 6 owners who had their rental guests check in this weekend with guest passes. Wyndham defenders will say that Wyndham just did not get around to those owners still renting. REALLY? That shows how incompetent this company is. Owners openly advertising renting is low hanging fruit. They should have been the first owners Wyndham went after. Cancelling family guest pass reservations because Wyndham declared them commercial renting is total BS. Just more evidence for non-owners considering buying to stay away. The question is did Wyndham just not get around to those rental owners or did those owners win a lawsuit against Wyndham and signed a non-disclosure agreement. This company needs new management. They are being attacked from all quarters. I just watched YouTube postings of other owners warning people to stay away.


Why in hades would someone sign an NDA AFTER THEY WON THE LAWSUIT?


----------



## 55plus (Sep 6, 2022)

Question: Not that ever would, but if you rent through Extra Holidays do they take one of your guest certificates? If not, then you should be able to use your guest certificates for 'guests', even if the 'guests' compensate you. If Wyndham says, no then what are guest certificates used for?

Disclaimer: I do not do rentals.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 6, 2022)

55plus said:


> Question: Not that ever would, but if you rent through Extra Holidays do they take one of your guest certificates? If not, then you should be able to use your guest certificates for 'guests', even if the 'guests' compensate you. If Wyndham says, no then what are guest certificates used for?
> 
> Disclaimer: I do not do rentals.



No GC is used when renting through EH. This exception was debated in other threads regarding a potential worst case outcome of Wyndham removing GCs altogether - which in reality Wyndham is already effectively doing by suspending usage of GCs for repeat offenders so to speak. 

On a related note, I’ve also seen more than one thread on the FB forums indicating that some guests are being asked when checking in if the guests actually know the owner. I would surmise for those who answer no, that this is being documented on the owner account. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 6, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> And I don't think Wyndham is offering the settlements they were in 2017. Now, they are being so kind as to allow you to give back your contracts via certified exit (if they qualify), and pay maintenance on them until the transfer back to them is complete. I have not heard of anyone being offered anything to the contrary.



I’m not entirely certain of the exact verbiage of the NDAs in use, but in some cases we may never hear about settlements because the NDA in use may prevent any admittance of any settlement with Wyndham. Perhaps someone with legal experience will comment with regard to this assertion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyrus24 (Sep 6, 2022)

55plus said:


> Question: Not that ever would, but if you rent through Extra Holidays do they take one of your guest certificates? If not, then you should be able to use your guest certificates for 'guests', even if the 'guests' compensate you. If Wyndham says, no then what are guest certificates used for?
> 
> Disclaimer: I do not do rentals.


The forum has a record of your rentals.  Just saying.








						Wyndham Emerald Grande (3 Bedroom Deluxe) Destin Florida : 7 nights, Feb 23 to Mar 1
					

Wyndham Emerald Grande - 3 Bedroom Deluxe, February 23 to March 1: $800 Our plans changed. We have the following at Emerald Grande Resort, Destin Florida *** Feb 23 to March 1 in a 3 Bedroom Deluxe: $800 *** March 1 to 8 in a 3 Bedroom Deluxe: $800 www.EmeraldGrande.com




					tugbbs.com


----------



## 55plus (Sep 6, 2022)

Cyrus24 said:


> The forum has a record of your rentals.  Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not is a long time. I don't want to end up on Wyndham's naughty list.


----------



## 55plus (Sep 6, 2022)

I'm currently in Nashville and based on conversations I overheard, and witnessed, owners, at least one owner checks in for their guests. She checked in two families over Labor Day weekend. She has a Tennesse license plate with a Nashville car dealer license plate frame, so I assume she's local. That's one-way owners are skinning Wyndham's cat.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 7, 2022)

55plus said:


> I'm currently in Nashville and based on conversations I overheard, and witnessed, owners, at least one owner checks in for their guests. She checked in two families over Labor Day weekend. She has a Tennesse license plate with a Nashville car dealer license plate frame, so I assume she's local. That's one-way owners are skinning Wyndham's cat.


That's a lot of effort that most people will not even attempt.  

My stepdad asked me if I can get him and his daughters a few days at the new Atlanta resort I was telling him about that is about 30 minutes from my stepsister's house.  He left two days ago to see my stepsisters for about two months, so any time in the next two months.  I told him I cannot get him anything because I cannot add guests to any reservations because I cannot guarantee that Wyndham won't cancel it.  

I am afraid to even have my sister stay in San Francisco.  She asked me for five nights and I had to book through Shell.  At least I have the Shell as backup.  

Our sons are on the account, so we are going in October and having his friends join us in another unit, which we will keep in my name, I guess.  What else can we do?


----------



## ronparise (Sep 7, 2022)

RENTER said:


> The owners who should be upset the most are those who had their guest pass reservations cancelled for their family and were not renting. Other owners are still renting and openly advertising their rentals. I know 6 owners who had their rental guests check in this weekend with guest passes. Wyndham defenders will say that Wyndham just did not get around to those owners still renting. REALLY? That shows how incompetent this company is. Owners openly advertising renting is low hanging fruit. They should have been the first owners Wyndham went after. Cancelling family guest pass reservations because Wyndham declared them commercial renting is total BS. Just more evidence for non-owners considering buying to stay away. The question is did Wyndham just not get around to those rental owners or did those owners win a lawsuit against Wyndham and signed a non-disclosure agreement. This company needs new management. They are being attacked from all quarters. I just watched YouTube postings of other owners warning people to stay away.




Wyndham has been getting  bad reviews since the Cendant days, Not so much for the quality of the vacation experience, but for the business side of things, specifically their high pressure sales and financing.. It continues to amaze me, that in spite of those terrible  reviews and when everyone has a google machine in their pocket to read those reviews they continue to buy points at a resort for tens of thousands of dollars  (and finance it at 18%)  when they could get the same thing on EBay  for next to nothing. 

Wyndham does not measure their success by those reviews, . As long as they keep selling they are happy...and they do keep selling


----------



## ronparise (Sep 7, 2022)

55plus said:


> I'm currently in Nashville and based on conversations I overheard, and witnessed, owners, at least one owner checks in for their guests. She checked in two families over Labor Day weekend. She has a Tennesse license plate with a Nashville car dealer license plate frame, so I assume she's local. That's one-way owners are skinning Wyndham's cat.




I never had to do that, but but i was making plans to do it if I had to. I was in New Orleans for more than one Mardi Gras to meet and greet my guests.  and help the staff in anyway I could. I even rented my own reservation to a guy (sent my way by the front desk  staff) in the lobby.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 7, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham has been getting  bad reviews since the Cendant days, Not so much for the quality of the vacation experience, but for the business side of things, specifically their high pressure sales and financing.. It continues to amaze me, that in spite of those terrible  reviews and when everyone has a google machine in their pocket to read those reviews they continue to buy points at a resort for tens of thousands of dollars  (and finance it at 18%)  when they could get the same thing on EBay  for next to nothing.
> 
> Wyndham does not measure their success by those reviews, . As long as they keep selling they are happy...and they do keep selling



Somehow some way this pattern of sales continues to work for Wyndham.  It's a sequence type thing I think.  As you said - Wyndham delivers a quality vacation experience - so for otherwise unknowing people who end up at a Wyndham resort either through GCs or some other type of incentive vacation package or via EH rental from corporate - those prospective customers are likely generally impressed with the vacation experience - they are having a good time on vacation - their guard is down - and they are probably in the mindset that they would like enjoy these types of vacations moving forward.  That opens the prospective customer to the sales pitch.  The sales pitch seems to give them whatever they are looking for - largely because the sales reps are often willing to tell the prospective customer whatever they want to hear to make the sale.  After the impulse buy sale comes the buyers remorse - the question is simply how quickly that remorse sets in and the customer starts their due diligence process online.  More often than not, even these days, with mobile computers in our pockets that have instant access to a plethora of reputational data online regarding pretty much every company in existence, oftentimes the customer doesn't really perform their due diligence until their vacation is over.  There's a reason that the marketing team presses every customer to attend the sales update meetings early on in your vacation schedule.  They know all too well that the customer is less likely to rescind in time if they sell you on day one of your weeklong vacation for example, than if you were to attend and buy on the last day of your vacation schedule.  The entire structure of the sales process is designed with explicit intention - Wyndham is entirely complicit in how the entire sales process is working, all the way down to the different personas used during the sales process.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 7, 2022)

On the Facebook group I just joined for Wyndham (thanks to all who mentioned it), a gentleman went to check into PCB (which I realized after thinking a bit that it's Panama Beach), and he was asked on a presentation.  He was a firm no.  The salesperson actually said he wanted to ask his wife if she would like to go.  She was in the car.  He walked to their car and asked the gentleman's wife, and let's just say she wasn't as gentle as he was.  She was livid.  Needless to say, many others chimed in about their similar experiences. 

The salespeople should just take NO FOR AN ANSWER! 

The guilt these salespeople put on owners for not attending is also ridiculous.  "This would really help me out because I don't get paid unless I get people to the 'seminar,'" which is BS.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Sep 7, 2022)

PCB is where they came back to the room and recovered the gift, they actually took it back. They came to the room for an update and they gave me a trivial, I would say, gift basket (from Bath and Body works if I recall correctly). I left, my sister was sleeping, the guy came back and got it, said he wasn't supposed to have left it. He woke her up and she really didn't know what was going on. She was so worried I would be mad at her.


----------



## bnoble (Sep 7, 2022)

ronparise said:


> It continues to amaze me, that in spite of those terrible reviews and when everyone has a google machine in their pocket to read those reviews they continue to buy points at a resort for tens of thousands of dollars (and finance it at 18%) when they could get the same thing on EBay for next to nothing.


I've written this before (and probably earlier in this thread) but many people _do not want to know_ that this purchase they've been talked into making is a bad idea. When I'm not inclined to learn something, I will probably be successful.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Sep 7, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The guilt these salespeople put on owners for not attending is also ridiculous.  "This would really help me out because I don't get paid unless I get people to the 'seminar,'" which is BS.



It's BS that its a seminar without a doubt.   That said, the marketing reps that are responsible for getting people to attend the sales updates get paid monetary incentives based on a quota for people to attend the updates.  From what I have gathered over time, they actually also get paid more if the prospective customer takes a smaller gift - this is why they always start low and bargain up.  The costlier the gift used to get the customer to the sales update - the less the marketing rep makes on that referral to the sales update.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 7, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> PCB is where they came back to the room and recovered the gift, they actually took it back. They came to the room for an update and they gave me a trivial, I would say, gift basket (from Bath and Body works if I recall correctly). I left, my sister was sleeping, the guy came back and got it, said he wasn't supposed to have left it. He woke her up and she really didn't know what was going on. She was so worried I would be mad at her.


That is disgusting.  I heard some bad stuff about Smoky Mountains in the same thread on the Facebook group.


----------



## 55plus (Sep 7, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> That's a lot of effort that most people will not even attempt.
> 
> My stepdad asked me if I can get him and his daughters a few days at the new Atlanta resort I was telling him about that is about 30 minutes from my stepsister's house.  He left two days ago to see my stepsisters for about two months, so any time in the next two months.  I told him I cannot get him anything because I cannot add guests to any reservations because I cannot guarantee that Wyndham won't cancel it.
> 
> ...


That's a lot of effort if you don't live in the resort area. We moved to the Destin area last month so it would be easy for us to do it, but we don't rent anymore, we travel a lot now.


----------



## am1 (Sep 7, 2022)

55plus said:


> I'm currently in Nashville and based on conversations I overheard, and witnessed, owners, at least one owner checks in for their guests. She checked in two families over Labor Day weekend. She has a Tennesse license plate with a Nashville car dealer license plate frame, so I assume she's local. That's one-way owners are skinning Wyndham's cat.



I did that 4 times in Orlando, Daytona, Pompano over a span of a year.  Spring Break, Octoberfest, Thanksgiving, Christmas.   Flew in with my family and my parents drove 20 hours each time to visit.  Mom was also on the account so after Bonnet Creek limited it to two reservations at a time she would do two as well.  Before that I would do dozens at a time at Bonnet Creek. The shorter the reservation better.   At the start I would check in guests for the next weeks at Daytona Beach.  Life was good. 

This was when my account was locked so I had to adjust length of stays right at the resort by combing reservations and  getting house cleaning to clean the room mid stay (after first guest was in unit for 7 nights).  Saved over 6 figures.  

Visited the parks 19 days that year using my kids fast pass for 3 rides and then mine for 3 rides each day.  Only questioned once by a cast member and told them my son cannot go on the ride alone.


----------



## Snippy (Sep 7, 2022)

Someone here on Tug shared a copy of this years letter with me via private message.     This person told me they have not advertised.  Personal use was a small number of larger point reservations.   Guest use was a larger number of smaller point, mostly 2 night Fri/Sat reservations.  Owner to guest was roughly 50/50 point wise.   If Wyndham decides you are guilty, then you are guilty.    There is no option for discussion with Wyndham.  What has me even more sad and mad is the statement that Wyndham has provided for owners to sign.  The statement that Wyndham provides indicates that owners may never use a guest certificate again!


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Sep 7, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> PCB is where they came back to the room and recovered the gift, they actually took it back. They came to the room for an update and they gave me a trivial, I would say, gift basket (from Bath and Body works if I recall correctly). I left, my sister was sleeping,
> 
> the guy came back and got it, said he wasn't supposed to have left it. He woke her up and she really didn't know what was going on. She was so worried I would be mad at her.



That's low / lower than Westgate low.


----------



## 55plus (Sep 8, 2022)

Snippy said:


> Someone here on Tug shared a copy of this years letter with me via private message.     This person told me they have not advertised.  Personal use was a small number of larger point reservations.   Guest use was a larger number of smaller point, mostly 2 night Fri/Sat reservations.  Owner to guest was roughly 50/50 point wise.   If Wyndham decides you are guilty, then you are guilty.    There is no option for discussion with Wyndham.  What has me even more sad and mad is the statement that Wyndham has provided for owners to sign.  The statement that Wyndham provides indicates that owners may never use a guest certificate again!
> 
> View attachment 64391


But, what is Wyndham's definition of 'personal use'? If they won't provide what commercial use is, they probably won't provide what personal use is.

Example: If you have children and one of them 'borrows' your car for the evening, is that considered commercial use or personal use? I think it's closer to personal use than commercial use because it's within the family. I wonder what Wyndham would call it?


----------



## RENTER (Sep 11, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> You must mean a settlement. A lawsuit that goes to trial would be public record.


more information for those thinking of fighting Wyndam. 8 more owners reported that they had rentals using guest passes go thru this week. Many owners are privately talking to each other because they want to keep a low profile since they have not yet received the letter and their rental guest pass reservations are going thru.


----------



## Jan M. (Sep 12, 2022)

RENTER said:


> more information for those thinking of fighting Wyndam. 8 more owners reported that they had rentals using guest passes go thru this week. Many owners are privately talking to each other because they want to keep a low profile since they have not yet received the letter and their rental guest pass reservations are going thru.



What am I missing?

If those people haven't already received their first certified letter from Wyndham I would expect that their rental stays are going through. However I wouldn't expect it to last once they've reached Wyndham's metrics. It seems that it can be the number of guest confirmations the owner has used or the percentage of points that were used for reservations with a guest name on them. Afaik no one seems to know the number or the percentage.

Have you, any of the owners you handle or other owners you know personally gotten the certified letter and said screw you Wyndham I'm not cancelling any upcoming stays with renter/guest names on them so I don't have to refund anyone's money? If so how did that go?

Once an owner receives that first warning letter and Wyndham decides they're continuing to rent then Wyndham does block them from adding any guest confirmations for however many months and cancels all upcoming stays with a guest name on them. Are you saying that you, other owners you handle or other owners you know personally have been successful in getting Wyndham to drop the block on the account? Did Wyndham reinstate the cancelled stays or allow a new reservation with a guest name so renters monies didn't have to be refunded?

How are you advertising these rentals to stay under Wyndham's radar? Or isn't that something you or they even feel the need to be concerned about?

Here's something else I've wondered about in regards to this or any class action lawsuit involving timeshares. How long will the owners be willing to continue paying maintenance fees if their account is frozen and they can't even use it for themselves? The attorneys should have advised the participants that this has happened and could happen to them. If the owner stops paying their maintenance fees Wyndham will foreclose and there's no chance of Wyndham buying them out to make the problem go away if that's the owner's goal. There's no guarantee of a decision in the participants favor nor a settlement in which case the owner would have risked everything to end up with nothing if they didn't keep paying the maintenance fees. If they did keep paying the maintenance fees and couldn't use the account for however many years it takes then they've wasted a lot of money if there's no payout. It's a given that the attorneys are going to push for a settlement. Negotiating skills are key to settlements as not all offers are good ones. Participants are known to push for a settlement that may not be the best they could get to just get some money and be done. As a participant are you subject to the majority decision to accept an offer? Does whatever you sign with the attorneys give them the authority to accept an offer? Perhaps within certain parameters?

I don't know the answer to these questions either so I'm asking. We all know there can be huge money for the attorneys/law firms in class action lawsuits when there's the hoped for big award or settlement. Does having experienced and previously very successful with class action lawsuits attorneys/law firm matter or help ensure a better outcome? Any attorney can file a lawsuit and as the saying goes "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile." When it comes to timeshares are class action lawsuits seen as having good potential by the top notch attorneys/law firms? Or do they leave them to the littler guys hungry and tying to make a name for themselves? Are the attorneys/law firm's pockets deep enough that they can afford to pay all the staff that will be needed for the lawsuit to have a chance of succeeding and for the length of time the lawsuit will take? Pay for all the travel expenses, airfare, taxi/rental cars, hotels, meals for all the many depositions that will have to be collected? Most of us have seen the TV commercials and billboards, gotten the mailings or phone calls soliciting participants for class action lawsuits. Any of that costs money to do and at least some of it is necessary. Plus there's all the other various expenses you claim the members of this class action lawsuit won't be responsible for in the event there is no win or settlement. Is there a typical or is it some degree of unusual that the participants wouldn't have to pay those various other expenses in the event there is no award or settlement?


----------



## gottashiner (Sep 18, 2022)

I received the dreaded Wyndham email. I do try to recoup some of my maintenance dollars and I have plenty of guest reservation conformations to use. I’m confused -why get 30 guest confirmations if I’m not allowed to use them? The majority of my family does not have my last name so Wyndham has no idea if I’m renting to family or strangers. We are platinum and we bought points through Wyndham to get to that level so it’s not like I got them for low-cost through eBay. If I bought the contracts through eBay, I would be more than happy to give Wyndham back the contracts and be done with this mess.  I would be thrilled to get some money from Wyndham and get out of my contracts. Is anyone having success doing that?


----------



## bnoble (Sep 18, 2022)

gottashiner said:


> I would be thrilled to get some money from Wyndham and get out of my contracts. Is anyone having success doing that?


Unless you bought something that is eligible for Pathways, I think you should assume at best you would get three years' use of any developer-purchased points (without GCs) for no cost after you relinquish your entire holdings.

They are not going to pay you for doing what they think you are not supposed to do.


----------



## RENTER (Sep 18, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> What am I missing?
> 
> If those people haven't already received their first certified letter from Wyndham I would expect that their rental stays are going through. However I wouldn't expect it to last once they've reached Wyndham's metrics. It seems that it can be the number of guest confirmations the owner has used or the percentage of points that were used for reservations with a guest name on them. Afaik no one seems to know the number or the percentage.
> 
> ...


----------



## RENTER (Sep 18, 2022)

Hey Wyndham, you better have your number crunchers crunch the numbers again. How much you will gain eliminating renters competing against extra holidays so you can charge more vs how much business those renters will cost you in lost business telling others to stay away and no longer buying from you. I cost you 3 sales this week. I am staying in Myrtle Beach at one of the resorts and was in the men's room when an elderly potential owner walked in. He was renting from another owner who told him how she was paying for VIP with the rentals. He was in a sales presentation and started to ask if I was an owner and if I rented and if I did was it covering my costs. He said he would only buy if the rents covered the costs. He also said the sales agent renting was allowed and encouraged him to do it. I told him yes, I was successful, and I did recover my money. But I had been doing it for several years before Wyndham changed the rules and no longer allows renting. I explained to him what was happening and directed him to this site and Facebook sites to further check into what was going on. That was enough to scare him away and he informed 2 other potential buyers that the sales agents were lying and that they could not rent. So, they all walked out. Later on, he saw me at the pool and asked if I would talk to the owner he was renting from and explain to her what I told him. She had no clue what was going on, has not been informed or received one of those letters. She had no clue that she could no longer rent or could be stopped from renting on a moment's notice. She immediately became distress because she said she only bought in depending on the rental income and could not afford it. She asked me what to do. I said I do not know the answer, but I would continue to rent until they caught up with her then try to get out or join the lawsuit to force Wyndham to allow owners to do what they want with their points. She is not a commercial business. She is an elderly lady trying to cover her costs. Which leads me back to my first sentence. Those who hate renters think Wyndham is doing this to help them have more resorts and dates available to them. I disagree. Wyndham is doing this because they are losing hotel business to renters who only want to cover their costs. These rental owners are sharing their discounts with those renting from them. Thus, they can cover their loan and maintenance fees and still charge $100 to $ 300 a night less then extra holidays are charging hotel guests. Thus, hurting those owners who were renting from other owners who had the VIP discounts when Wyndham started to cancel reservations, they deemed commercial business.


----------

