# Koala warns Wyndham is cancelling reservations based on Wyndham's "updated policy"  Anyone know what's up?



## Jethro37 (Apr 13, 2022)

Got an email from Koala warning Wyndham had cancelled several reservations and I should check mine. 

Mine appear to be in tact, though I have yet to apply a guest certificate and add the guests name.  I planned on doing a couple a year in keeping with their blackout policy on non-accompanied guests and my freebie guest certificates. 

Do y'all think I'll have trouble when i go to add the cerficates?  Also, do I need to apply the guests to the reservation before the 48 hour to checkin day window?

Thanks for your input.


----------



## r4rab (Apr 13, 2022)

Jethro37 said:


> Got an email from Koala warning Wyndham had cancelled several reservations and I should check mine.
> 
> Mine appear to be in tact, though I have yet to apply a guest certificate and add the guests name.  I planned on doing a couple a year in keeping with their blackout policy on non-accompanied guests and my freebie guest certificates.
> 
> ...



I've seen a couple of FB posts where people are complaining that they had reservations cancelled. These were cases where a user had multiple (often 2) overlapping reservations in the same name.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 13, 2022)

got the e-mail as well.  None of mine (and I have a bunch because of all my co-vid points that were moved forward).  Any of mine that overlap are not in the same name or have a guest cert already applied.  They also don't run afoul of the blackout dates


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

r4rab said:


> I've seen a couple of FB posts where people are complaining that they had reservations cancelled. These were cases where a user had multiple (often 2) overlapping reservations in the same name.


That is exactly right.  That is what is happening. It happened to some of ours.  None of ours were rented already, so no big deal.  Be sure to update guest names as you get money deposits from your renters, if you rent, and you should be okay.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 13, 2022)

I think Koala is just being pro-active, trying to avoid having to tell customer-renters that the listing is in error and that the underlying reservation does not exist.  

[edit} It's a credibility issue for Koala.  Along the same vein, Koala sends rather frequent emails requesting listings be reviewed.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

chapjim said:


> I think Koala is being pro-active, trying to avoid having to tell customer-renters that the listing is in error and that the underlying reservation does not exist.


It's their reputation on the line.  I think it's a wise move, especially since 3 of ours were cancelled.  We are fortunate that we have all of our kids' names on the account and can have five names on the same dates.  

Wyndham is a mess.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

From what we have gathered, it's due to one of two primary causes:

1.  Overlapping reservations in the same name that haven't been corrected by the owner (who should know better than to do this in the first place).
2.  Owners who have already received "cease and desist" letters for commercial activity - that continue to rent for commercial purposes.  This very small subset of owners should not be surprised that rental reservations are being canceled as they have been legally warned already to cease and desist.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> From what we have gathered, it's due to one of two primary causes:
> 
> 1.  Overlapping reservations in the same name that haven't been corrected by the owner (who should know better than to do this in the first place).
> 2.  Owners who have already received "cease and desist" letters for commercial activity - that continue to rent for commercial purposes.  This very small subset of owners should not be surprised that rental reservations are being canceled as they have been legally warned already to cease and desist.


Oh, yes, all of those evil people who rent should be punished by Corporate Wyndham for doing what they have always done and were encouraged to do by salespeople.  

It is really about overlapping reservations with the same name on them.  Add names if you have rentals that comply with Wyndham's new rules against renting on weekends, etc.  Whatever the dates and rules are.  I have not a clue.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 13, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> 1. Overlapping reservations in the same name that haven't been corrected by the owner (who should know better than to do this in the first place).


This is exactly what I've been seeing in multiple FB groups. They all seemed to hit at once. Many owners even seemed to know the policy, they just apparently assumed that since they'd been able to get by without having same-name overlapping reservations canceled up to this point, that they could continue to do so. Welp.


----------



## troy12n (Apr 13, 2022)

Once again, here's my "world's smallest fiddle" playing in sorrow for all the renters who got caught with their panties down at 3am. 

This is not a "new policy", this is not "big bad wyndham", this is enforcement of a rule which has to my knowledge existed* for years.* 

This is about people trying to avoid paying for something (a GC) that they *KNOW *they have to. 

This is about wanting a free ride. This is about lack of responsibility and accountability. By people who know, or should know it. 

One of the people complaining on facebook says their MF exceed $15,000 per month and had 16 concurrent reservations cancelled, which to me is a dead giveaway that they are a mega renter... 

Boo hoo... I applaud Wyndham for taking steps toward thwarting system abuse.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 13, 2022)

I’m getting a little tired of the “we’ve always done it” defense. That doesn’t fly. Even if you did it for years and got away with it, you have been warned for at least the last couple of years, and really, going back to 2017, that it’s over. If I broke the speed limit for 10 years and didn’t get caught, that doesn’t mean the police are giving me permission to keep doing it. If they catch me, they will write me a ticket and if I tell the judge I’ve been speeding for 10 years and getting away with it so they can’t fine me now, the judge will laugh me out of court. If you are running a commercial enterprise with your Wyndham timeshare, you are breaking the terms of the contract THAT YOU SIGNED! Does your signature mean nothing?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> This is exactly what I've been seeing in multiple FB groups. They all seemed to hit at once. Many owners even seemed to know the policy, they just apparently assumed that since they'd been able to get by without having same-name overlapping reservations canceled up to this point, that they could continue to do so. Welp.



Wondering aloud if they just ran a script to shore up these duplicate reservations manually - or if the back end team has implemented a new process that will do this automatically on an ongoing basis moving forward.  Only time will tell.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 13, 2022)

troy12n said:


> One of the people complaining on facebook says their MF exceed $15,000 per month and had 16 concurrent reservations cancelled, which to me is a dead giveaway that they are a mega renter...


The $15k person and the 16 reservations person are two different people. Also, the 16 reservations person never said that all 16 were all concurrent with each other. They could have had 8 different timeframes with 2 concurrent reservations for all we know.

EDIT: And it was $15k per year, not per month.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 13, 2022)

Such nastiness, a huge reason I've not been posting so much. But here goes...

Overlapping reservations hasn't been allowed for a really long time. So comments about finally getting caught, looking for free rides, are really out of line (and make you look ugly).

There used to be warnings/alerts so people were aware of an overlapping reservation. That functionality was lost a few years back. Wyndham was warning if you had more than 2 overlapping reservations. I assumed due to them either on purpose allowin 2 or to compensate for the lost alerts, they were allowing 2 before even warning (and I would assume cancelling - all along folks - again, this is not a new policy).

My guess is someone tweaked the algorithm back to 1. A shame that people likely found out the hard way not to overlap at all.

And again, the reporting fuctionality super sucks. Since we got the lovely 3 per page transaction view, it is no longer visible on the coming reservations page who the owner or guest on the reservation is.

I've identified 2 system issues that made owners vulnerable to what's going on. If people got caught with their pants down, it's cause Wyndham pulled em down. Were owners set up?



Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chapjim (Apr 13, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> The $15k person and the 16 reservations person are two different people. Also, the 16 reservations person never said that all 16 were all concurrent with each other. They could have had 8 different timeframes with 2 concurrent reservations for all we know.
> 
> EDIT: And it was $15k per year, not per month.



Troy has a narrative.  Don't mess it up with facts.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 13, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Such nastiness, a huge reason I've not been posting so much. But here goes...
> 
> Overlapping reservations hasn't been allowed for a really long time. So comments about finally getting caught, looking for free rides, are really out of line (and make you look ugly).
> 
> ...



I have received the warning about overlapping reservations when I have booked reservations that overlapped by six or seven nights.  I knew what I was doing -- I was going to change the traveler or cancel one of them.

However, if you book reservations that start with different days of the week, it's pretty easy to book reservations that overlap by one night.  I've never been warned about those.  I only find those on my Excel sheet.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 13, 2022)

troy12n said:


> Once again, here's my "world's smallest fiddle" playing in sorrow for all the renters who got caught with their panties down at 3am.
> 
> This is not a "new policy", this is not "big bad wyndham", this is enforcement of a rule which has to my knowledge existed* for years.*
> 
> ...



Do you know any other songs?  This one has been old for a long time.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

Extra Holidays has a lot of May rentals at Bonnet Creek.  What's good for the gander is not always good for the Wyndham goose (who lays the golden egg).


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I’m getting a little tired of the “we’ve always done it” defense. That doesn’t fly. Even if you did it for years and got away with it, you have been warned for at least the last couple of years, and really, going back to 2017, that it’s over. If I broke the speed limit for 10 years and didn’t get caught, that doesn’t mean the police are giving me permission to keep doing it. If they catch me, they will write me a ticket and if I tell the judge I’ve been speeding for 10 years and getting away with it so they can’t fine me now, the judge will laugh me out of court. If you are running a commercial enterprise with your Wyndham timeshare, you are breaking the terms of the contract THAT YOU SIGNED! Does your signature mean nothing?


We had a lawyer look at our contract from 2007.  No such wording.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

Wyndham's website is so much harder to use than it used to be.  Now they messed up WorldMark's website.  It was so nice before.


----------



## lost patience (Apr 13, 2022)

@HitchHiker71 


HitchHiker71 said:


> From what we have gathered, it's due to one of two primary causes:
> 
> 1.  Overlapping reservations in the same name that haven't been corrected by the owner (who should know better than to do this in the first place).
> 2.  Owners who have already received "cease and desist" letters for commercial activity - that continue to rent for commercial purposes.  This very small subset of owners should not be surprised that rental reservations are being canceled as they have been legally warned already to cease and desist.


When you say "from what we have gathered" - is the "we" your Wyndham contacts?  Or, some other group?    

I've only seen FB posts where reservations with name duplicates were cancelled.  Have you seen other cases?  Ones that support further targeting of commercial activity?  I'm also curious as to how owners were "legally" notified?   I saw posts of owners who were sent letters.  I suppose the sending of letters is legal, your choice of words sounded like it was something more official than that.  
I'm asking as we have a large account that we share with our family and extended family, as well as some rentals.  (yep, as suggested by the lovely sales team).  

We are modifying how we use our Wyndham membership.  Our family is now trying to go on fewer longer trips with our extended family so that an owner is present.  Long term, we might add our extended family to one of our smaller contracts.  Frustrating that we are having to even consider doing this.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 13, 2022)

In the blue corner, weighing in at 10,234,000 points we have the mega renters. In the red corner it is the remaining owners weighing in at 10,500,000 points. The referee officiating the match has a heavy bias on one side....


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> In the blue corner, weighing in at 10,234,000 points we have the mega renters. In the red corner it is the remaining owners weighing in at 10,500,000 points. The referee officiating the match has a heavy bias on one side....


So very true.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> EDIT: And it was $15k per year, not per month.



That’s not out of sight really - I pay about half of that now for just over 1.4mm points annually with my PICs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> We had a lawyer look at our contract from 2007. No such wording.



IIRC it’s not in the frontline contracts it’s embedded in the underlying trust documentation that the contracts reference. The generic statement in the Member Directory wasn’t put in until 2012 timeframe I think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandy VDH (Apr 13, 2022)

I assume they just finally got a batch to run that searches and deletes any duplicates.  I had 1 that I had not realized was a duplicate, but that ok, it really was a duplicate.  It was one I was trying to jury rig an update on.  

Now WYNDHAM can you fix the upgrade batch to run and work successfully?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Oh, yes, all of those evil people who rent should be punished by Corporate Wyndham for doing what they have always done and were encouraged to do by salespeople.
> 
> It is really about overlapping reservations with the same name on them. Add names if you have rentals that comply with Wyndham's new rules against renting on weekends, etc. Whatever the dates and rules are. I have not a clue.




Whether we agree or not - the current ELT at Wyndham is clearly not going to honor old undocumented sales tradecraft used to sell points. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Such nastiness, a huge reason I've not been posting so much. But here goes...
> 
> Overlapping reservations hasn't been allowed for a really long time. So comments about finally getting caught, looking for free rides, are really out of line (and make you look ugly).
> 
> ...



Based upon my assessment since becoming an owner and interacting with several Wyndham IT personnel that have all since departed - I don’t think there’s anyone left in IT that could even represent the way things used to be. Not saying ignorance is acceptable - but it does appear to be the reality with regard to the “good old days.” 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Wyndham's website is so much harder to use than it used to be. Now they messed up WorldMark's website. It was so nice before.



My distant hope is that they are moving from a “best of breed” approach to an integrated approach to system design - meaning if at the end of all of this we have one online system that can be used to manage ownership across all of Wyndham’s brands - well that might be worthwhile - especially to Wyndham as they would move from multiple disparate inventory management systems to a single integrated system. This may or may not benefit owners across those disparate systems though. That said, if at the end of this I could somehow see inventory online across Shell, Worldmark, Wyndham, etc., well at least that would give me something I can’t do today. I’m suspect this is the end goal though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

lost patience said:


> @HitchHiker71
> 
> When you say "from what we have gathered" - is the "we" your Wyndham contacts? Or, some other group?
> 
> ...



Yes I have the observed both to answer your question. More of the former to be sure. And no it’s not from my Wyndham contacts unfortunately as most of my IT contacts have exited Wyndham over the past several months. I’m in the midst of rebuilding relations at present. Wyndham hired a new CIO late last year and either that person is cleaning house or people are leaving for better opportunities due to the great resignation - likely a bit of both. 

Bottom line is if you haven’t received a cease and desist letter - your account is safe at least for the time being - I would not alter your usage unless and until you see good reason to do so. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandy VDH (Apr 13, 2022)

With so many cancellations happening at roughly the same time, it might finally be a time to see how long it really takes for cancellations to return or if they are deliberately random. 

My cancelation happened sometime between 1 am and 730 am CDT when I noticed it.  So the clock is started?  When does stuff start to show up again?


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 13, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Whether we agree or not - the current ELT at Wyndham is clearly not going to honor old undocumented sales tradecraft used to sell points.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nor do they seem interested in improving their reputation. Same oh Same oh...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2022)

Sandy VDH said:


> With so many cancellations happening at roughly the same time, it might finally be a time to see how long it really takes for cancellations to return or if they are deliberately random.
> 
> My cancelation happened sometime between 1 am and 730 am CDT when I noticed it.  So the clock is started?  When does stuff start to show up again?


It's random.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

Sandy VDH said:


> With so many cancellations happening at roughly the same time, it might finally be a time to see how long it really takes for cancellations to return or if they are deliberately random.
> 
> My cancelation happened sometime between 1 am and 730 am CDT when I noticed it. So the clock is started? When does stuff start to show up again?



From what I’ve seen from FB group posts over 12,000 reservations were canceled due to this change. Now the website is offline until tomorrow morning. Coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidence.  

We have asks into our Wyndham contacts for more info on what changed and why - and what can we tell to those owners who were negatively impacted as well as remaining owners who also have overlapping reservations under different names that are justifiably nervous based upon what occurred today. 







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 13, 2022)

It was announced, in the banner, about 2 days ago that there was scheduled maintenance tonight.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 13, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> It was announced, in the banner, about 2 days ago that there was scheduled maintenance tonight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk



I haven’t logged into the site over the past couple of days so in this case I guess it was indeed coincidence.  Still, I would hope that Wyndham would use this outage to restore reservations that were cancelled that should not have been. We have had some reliable reports of overlapping reservations that were cancelled even when those reservations were already using different names on the accounts in question. Not good. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 13, 2022)

Oh boy. And I was just hoping they'd fix the accessible indicator. 

The level of incompetence with this system seems to be trending in the wrong direction. What timing.



Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 13, 2022)

I volunteer Troy's account for testing the fix.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## WManning (Apr 14, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I’m getting a little tired of the “we’ve always done it” defense. That doesn’t fly. Even if you did it for years and got away with it, you have been warned for at least the last couple of years, and really, going back to 2017, that it’s over. If I broke the speed limit for 10 years and didn’t get caught, that doesn’t mean the police are giving me permission to keep doing it. If they catch me, they will write me a ticket and if I tell the judge I’ve been speeding for 10 years and getting away with it so they can’t fine me now, the judge will laugh me out of court. If you are running a commercial enterprise with your Wyndham timeshare, you are breaking the terms of the contract THAT YOU SIGNED! Does your signature mean nothing?


The elimination of rentals seems to be Wyndhams priority now. Wyndham gave away free rides for years and it might take years to correct their past mistakes. All of the new and enforcement of existing rules is a big win for owners looking to book for personal use. The owners crying the loudest seem to be the largest abusers of system.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 14, 2022)

WManning said:


> The elimination of rentals seems to be Wyndhams priority now. Wyndham gave away free rides for years and it might take years to correct their past mistakes. All of the new and enforcement of existing rules is a big win for owners looking to book for personal use. The owners crying the loudest seem to be the largest abusers of system.



I disagree on that this is a big win for owners.  It helps some, hurts some ("regular" owners not "mega-renters") and some see no difference.  The problem is they keep using sledge hammers instead of fly swatters.  I have no issue with enforcing existing rules.  I do have an issue when that is the excuse for degraded service, reduced benefits that i paid for (think the reduction in free GC's) and clueless VC's, who as often as not, give out miss-information rather than help.  As an IT professional for almost 30 years, I find the continued struggles of a multi billion dollar company on that front inexcusable.  I think in addition to the 2 reasons Hitchiker mentions for IT staff leaving, i would expect embarrassment to be associated with this train wreck to be a strong possibility for the mass exit as well.  I have been a Fairfield/Wyndham owner for almost as long as I have been in IT, and my family and I have made great use of what we own.  It just takes a lot more effort these days.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

WManning said:


> The owners crying the loudest seem to be the largest abusers of system.



That's a bit of a generalization that is probably the result of being on one side of the issue.  I've seen quite a bit of schadenfreude that I would characterize as "crying" by the other side.

I'm also not sure I would characterize anyone that ever rents out a timeshare that they own and have paid for the use of as an "abuser".  It's a property, after all.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> I disagree on that this is a big win for owners. It helps some, hurts some ("regular" owners not "mega-renters") and some see no difference.



What he said.

It also helps Wyndham's side business of renting out extra vacations and is intertwined with these efforts being to enforce unwritten rules for where "commercial use" starts.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

The net result of all of this, seems to me, is more guest certificate revenue. Period.  We've been reduced from unlimited GCs (cha ching), then changed the algorithm that determines how many so it truncates instead of rolling up (cha ching), now, perhaps tweaked the overlapping reservation algorithm so that reservations are cancelled and oops maybe cancelled some we shouldn't have (cha ching). All along the way, encouraging all of us to add those GC's just as soon as we possibly can (cha ching).  Don't forget we used to have until 15 days before checkin before we had to be concerned about overlapping reservations, no worries just be sure to add that GC just as early as you can, ideally at booking (cha ching).

Wyndham can still point the finger at those boogey man mega renter's. I look today and there is nothing to book at Bonnet Creek pretty much until mid June. Why? I can only guess Wyndham is taking rooms offline while they try to fix (reinstate) reservations they accidentally cancelled. How is that a win for owners?

At what point are companies like Koala, VRBO, etc - going to decide renting Wyndham reservations isn't worth the risk/their reputation? What then - more business for extra holidays! Wyndham wants all the monies! None of this does anything for an individual owners availability.

And yet owners are cheering. Thank you Wyndham. Drink some more kool-aid, and buy some more GC's.


----------



## emeryjre (Apr 14, 2022)

Koala will keep up with all of the issues concerning Wyndham and adapt.  VRBO is clueless about any timeshare issues and the problems and requirements of timeshare owners.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 14, 2022)

Response from Wyndham as of this morning on the reported issue:



> Here is our current messaging the call center should be sharing when owners are calling in:
> 
> Please be advised a system update was deployed last night (April 12, 2022) that is impacting Overlapping Reservations and has caused reservations to be cancelled. We are working with our IT partners to triage the issue and will provide additional updates as we receive them.
> 
> We are reinstating all reservations and that should be completed in the next couple of days. We are prioritizing them by check in date. The first group reinstated are all for this weekend.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WManning (Apr 14, 2022)

Eric B said:


> What he said.
> 
> It also helps Wyndham's side business of renting out extra vacations and is intertwined with these efforts being to enforce unwritten rules for where "commercial use" starts.


The unwritten rule is intentional. This way Wyndham can move goal posts (or rules) when they feel its necessary.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Response from Wyndham as of this morning on the reported issue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hard to unring a bell! Scary to have this in the competent, cough cough, hands of Wyndham IT. 

I would be most worried right now if I had booked a reservation in the last day or two (since the issue was introduced) and was checking in in the next 2 weeks, especially next few days. And no matter if you are an owner or guest or renter, not if Wyndham is going to try to take back what they accidentally gave away.  Of course it would also super suck to have had a reservation cancelled.

Anyone hear of extra holidays reservations being cancelled? I would guess not. Wonder if there is a special flag in the system for reservations turned over to EH's, a whatever you do, don't mess with this reservation flag. No conflict of interest, of course.

Happy Easter (nice timing, Wyndham)!


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> cough cough



Hope you're ok!  Best go out and get tested....


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 14, 2022)

“THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!” 

Oh, it only affects those with overlapping reservations? And those reservations are being restored? Oh, Never mind.


----------



## tschwa2 (Apr 14, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> “THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!”
> 
> Oh, it only affects those with overlapping reservations? And those reservations are being restored? Oh, Never mind.


There are reposts from 3 or 4 people on facebook that they had overlapping reservations in different owners names and they also had one or more reservations cancelled.  It isn't a large number but it still happened.   Not everyone is getting reservations restored.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

I didn't see anyone else mention it, but my favorite part of the response by Koala was the statement on their website after confirming some bookings I had rented out with them to use up COVID points.  It's copied below.  I'm betting that they don't have an actual legal department that reviews that sort of thing - good luck trying to enforce it!

The Host shall indemnify KOALA against all liabilities, costs, expenses, damages, and losses (including but not limited to any direct, indirect, or consequential losses, loss of profit, loss of reputation and all interest, penalties, and legal costs and all other reasonable professional costs and expenses suffered or incurred by KOALA arising out of or in connection with:


Incorrectly affirming that a confirmed booking has NOT been canceled as a result of Club Wyndham’s updated policy in relation to overlapping reservations that went into effect on April 12th, 2022.
All cost(s) incurred by KOALA due to the host not identifying cancellations as a result of the above policy update will be forwarded onto the Host. Incorrect affirmation of above is considered a breach of contract. Penalties will be applied in accordance with the above clause.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 14, 2022)

tschwa2 said:


> Not everyone is getting reservations restored.


Considering that they haven't done them yet...


HitchHiker71 said:


> Response from Wyndham as of this morning on the reported issue:
> 
> We are reinstating all reservations and that *should be completed in the next couple of days*. We are prioritizing them by check in date. The first group reinstated are all for this weekend.


...I'm not sure you can really say that yet.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 14, 2022)

troy12n said:


> Oh, according to Jim I now have an "agenda"... really laughable coming from Mr. "responsibility" and "pick yourselves up from the bootstraps" guy.
> 
> Point is, these things are in the rules. You all know this. I just find it laughable the lengths some of you "law and order" types go to ignore rulebreakers when it fits your own behavior.



I never said you had an agenda.  I said you have a narrative, and you play it fast and loose with facts in supporting that narrative.

Not sure where the "responsibility" and "bootstraps" references come from.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 14, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Hard to unring a bell! Scary to have this in the competent, cough cough, hands of Wyndham IT.
> 
> I would be most worried right now if I had booked a reservation in the last day or two (since the issue was introduced) and was checking in in the next 2 weeks, especially next few days. And no matter if you are an owner or guest or renter, not if Wyndham is going to try to take back what they accidentally gave away.  Of course it would also super suck to have had a reservation cancelled.
> 
> ...



Way back last fall or earlier, I put one week in EH as an experiment.  It's May 7-14 at Bonnet Creek, a week that should be sufficiently attractive to someone.  Reservation detail does not have the usual options to Modify Reservation or Cancel Reservation.  I would hope that the reservation system has similar controls.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 14, 2022)

I was looking at early June dates for our kids and grandkids because we have a one bedroom for them for four nights that I am waiting and hoping to book at a discount.  I see nothing at all for early June this morning, when before the "update" I could see 3 of the four nights they needed.  I was waiting and watching for all four nights before I cancel what they have.  Not even one day that they need.  What happened to the inventory overnight?


----------



## scootr5 (Apr 14, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> you are breaking the terms of the contract THAT YOU SIGNED! Does your signature mean nothing?



I don't have a dog in this fight, but as a resale-only owner I have never signed a contract with Wyndham (not have I ever actually seen the original contracts).


----------



## tschwa2 (Apr 14, 2022)

scootr5 said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight, but as a resale-only owner I have never signed a contract with Wyndham (not have I ever actually seen the original contracts).


It's also part of the membership guide explaining the rules.  That particular rule with the warning that reservations may be cancelled was instituted just under 5 years ago.


----------



## WManning (Apr 14, 2022)

tschwa2 said:


> It's also part of the membership guide explaining the rules.  That particular rule with the warning that reservations may be cancelled was instituted just under 5 years ago.


Are all rules subject to change without notice?


----------



## scootr5 (Apr 14, 2022)

tschwa2 said:


> It's also part of the membership guide explaining the rules.  That particular rule with the warning that reservations may be cancelled was instituted just under 5 years ago.



Correct. I was just pointing out that there are likely several people this has happened to (as well as people that this particular thing does not affect whatsoever) that have never seen or signed a contract from Wyndham.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 14, 2022)

WManning said:


> Are all rules subject to change without notice?



Basically.



pacodemountainside said:


> ARTICLE XI
> TRUST PROPERTY RESERVATIONS
> 11.01 Directory. Set forth below in summary form are certain of the most important features of the Plan. The rules, regulations, guidelines, policies and procedures related to the allocation of Points to the Trust Properties and the use of Points by Members in connection with the Trust Properties and the Plan are fully described in the Directory. In the event of a conflict between the information described in this Article XI and the information set forth in the Directory, the information set forth in the Directory shall be controlling. Wyndham, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to amend the Directory and the provisions therein from time to time as may be necessary to implement the Plan.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

WManning said:


> Are all rules subject to change without notice?


That's one thing you CAN count on.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I was looking at early June dates for our kids and grandkids because we have a one bedroom for them for four nights that I am waiting and hoping to book at a discount.  I see nothing at all for early June this morning, when before the "update" I could see 3 of the four nights they needed.  I was waiting and watching for all four nights before I cancel what they have.  Not even one day that they need.  What happened to the inventory overnight?


Kind of same for me. I need some nights mid June and was waiting for the discount window. I've been watching inventory, for which there was plenty - til this morning - now nothing.  Sure am glad those owner priority rules are working for us.  Although I'm guessing it'll be back once they get this fiasco under control.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Way back last fall or earlier, I put one week in EH as an experiment.  It's May 7-14 at Bonnet Creek, a week that should be sufficiently attractive to someone.  Reservation detail does not have the usual options to Modify Reservation or Cancel Reservation.  I would hope that the reservation system has similar controls.


Isn't that conflict of interest though?  Much safer, from a renters perspective, to book with EH?


----------



## WManning (Apr 14, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Basically.


Why are so many disgruntled if this is the case?


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> “THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!”
> 
> Oh, it only affects those with overlapping reservations? And those reservations are being restored? Oh, Never mind.


You really think this is okay?  If I understand correctly, these are rooms in OWNERS name, errorneously cancelled. What made it a rental issue?  Someone (cough cough) wanting that boogie man megarenter to somehow be responsible.  When it seems perhaps an IT issue with the algorthim used to determine overlapping reservations? Always nice to have a fall guy. 

If you had a reservation for Easter weekend and it got cancelled by a system error, the sky would be falling. Maybe your sky isn't falling or my sky isn't falling, but someone's sky is falling. We all should care and hold Wyndham responsible. 

Rule of thumb, always, if Wyndham is working to fix the issue, Wyndham is the one that caused the issue, passively accepting the responsibility.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 14, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> You really think this is okay?  If I understand correctly, these are rooms in OWNERS name, errorneously cancelled. What made it a rental issue?  Someone (cough cough) wanting that boogie man megarenter to somehow be responsible.  When it seems perhaps an IT issue with the algorthim used to determine overlapping reservations? Always nice to have a fall guy.
> 
> If you had a reservation for Easter weekend and it got cancelled by a system error, the sky would be falling. Maybe your sky isn't falling or my sky isn't falling, but someone's sky is falling. We all should care and hold Wyndham responsible.
> 
> Rule of thumb, always, if Wyndham is working to fix the issue, Wyndham is the one that caused the issue, passively accepting the responsibility.


Yes, this is okay. I worked in IT for 30 years and almost without fail, there would be a few problems with any system update of any size. And in the post you are responding to on this specific issue did I say anything about mega-renters? I said it's only affecting those with overlapping reservations which is what I understand to be the case, and those reservations are being restored. Until you can show me evidence that owners are actually losing their reservations for this weekend, you're just spouting off "what ifs" that have no basis in fact. 

Believe me, I know that Wyndham IT has issues and I have criticized them many times in the past. This, however, is not a big deal, especially if the few owners who are affected do not lose their reservations. Is it an inconvenience? Yes. But, if this is the worst thing that happens to you this week, you've had a pretty good week.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 14, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> the few owners who are affected


I'm not sure we can judge this. I know online owners in forums like here and on FB are the minority, but it's been a long time since I've seen a single issue affecting so many owners literally overnight all at once in the FB groups. And that's only the ones who happened to stop by the group yesterday when it all unfolded - because they didn't get notified by Wyndham, they only found out by checking their account (often after hearing it from other owners). And I've seen at least one trusted owner on FB state that they lost a reservation when the overlapping reservations were split between her and her husband, and another owner (that I can't vouch for or not) who stated a non-overlapping single (non-guest) reservation was also cancelled. So we don't know how far it extends. Hopefully Wyndham has all the records they need to put everything back the way it was, and if so, there should be very little lasting damage. But I'm not sure we can describe the extent of the situation as "few."


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 14, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I'm not sure we can judge this. I know online owners in forums like here and on FB are the minority, but it's been a long time since I've seen a single issue affecting so many owners literally overnight all at once in the FB groups. And that's only the ones who happened to stop by the group yesterday when it all unfolded - because they didn't get notified by Wyndham, they only found out by checking their account (often after hearing it from other owners). And I've seen at least one trusted owner on FB state that they lost a reservation when the overlapping reservations were split between her and her husband, and another owner (that I can't vouch for or not) who stated a non-overlapping single (non-guest) reservation was also cancelled. So we don't know how far it extends. Hopefully Wyndham has all the records they need to put everything back the way it was, and if so, there should be very little lasting damage. But I'm not sure we can describe the extent of the situation as "few."


Thank you for a very reasoned response. I'm not on fb so I'm not seeing those posts but it would be logical for there to be more complaints there. My only quibble with what you stated is that nobody, as far as I know, has "lost" anything yet. The reservations are being restored. Until somebody can show me that someone is not being allowed to check in because of this issue, I still see it as an inconvenience to a few people who do have to go through the process of ensuring their reservations are restored.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 14, 2022)

Nothing really affected us in any way.  The lack of early June dates did come as a bit of a surprise.  I asked our daughter-in-law if Cypress Palms would be okay for their four nights.  I think it would be fine with them.  They are not picky, and it's much less expensive than Bonnet Creek and mostly available.  When you just use the room for sleeping and eating breakfast, BC is nice but not mandatory.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 14, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I'm not sure we can judge this. I know online owners in forums like here and on FB are the minority, but it's been a long time since I've seen a single issue affecting so many owners literally overnight all at once in the FB groups. And that's only the ones who happened to stop by the group yesterday when it all unfolded - because they didn't get notified by Wyndham, they only found out by checking their account (often after hearing it from other owners). And I've seen at least one trusted owner on FB state that they lost a reservation when the overlapping reservations were split between her and her husband, and another owner (that I can't vouch for or not) who stated a non-overlapping single (non-guest) reservation was also cancelled. So we don't know how far it extends. Hopefully Wyndham has all the records they need to put everything back the way it was, and if so, there should be very little lasting damage. But I'm not sure we can describe the extent of the situation as "few."


So maybe only a few owners not going on vacation   Hopefully the worst thing that might happen to any of us this weekend.  (Personally not staying in Wyndham this weekend, phew, the 5 hour layover in Chicago (which includes a 3 hour delay) must have been my penance).

Glad I'm not the one having to piece this back together. If people booked the reservations that were cancelled, and a resort is sold out, it doesn't sound like much fun to have to go to the new owner of those nights and ask for them back.  A while back, Wyndham came to me, by calling me, and took back a reservation that a VC accidentally deleted and I subsequently booked. So they do do it. (Do do, haha).


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 14, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> So maybe only a few owners not going on vacation   Hopefully the worst thing that might happen to any of us this weekend.  (Personally not staying in Wyndham this weekend, phew, the 5 hour layover in Chicago (which includes a 3 hour delay) must have been my penance).
> 
> Glad I'm not the one having to piece this back together. If people booked the reservations that were cancelled, and a resort is sold out, it doesn't sound like much fun to have to go to the new owner of those nights and ask for them back.  A while back, Wyndham came to me, by calling me, and took back a reservation that a VC accidentally deleted and I subsequently booked. So they do do it. (Do do, haha).


Again, all "what if's"? What if every owner who is constantly irate with Wyndham gets rid of their ownership so they won't have anything to be mad about any more?


----------



## r4rab (Apr 14, 2022)

As I see it, the big no-no here is the lack of cancellation emails with reason for cancellation that is the real issue. Anyone who had non-overlapping reservations cancelled should have them restored by Wyndham. Overlapping reservations that were cancelled were correctly cancelled.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 14, 2022)

r4rab said:


> As I see it, the big no-no here is the lack of cancellation emails with reason for cancellation that is the real issue. Anyone who had non-overlapping reservations cancelled should have them restored by Wyndham. Overlapping reservations that were cancelled were correctly cancelled.


I agree with this very succinct explanation.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 14, 2022)

Another update from our Wyndham contacts related to this recent change as follows:



> Recently an update was deployed to the Club Wyndham website to enforce an existing Overlapping Reservation rule. This update is to support the existing program rule that a Guest Confirmation must be added within 48 hours of a reservation if the dates overlap, or the second reservation will be cancelled. Reservations that were impacted due to the early launch will be systematically reinstated within the next 2-3 days.



So while it appears Wyndham will correct this due to an early launch - this will become normal expected behavior moving forward with regard to overlapping reservations in the same name.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 14, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> So while it appears Wyndham will correct this due to an early launch - this will become normal expected behavior moving forward with regard to overlapping reservations in the same name.


So I guess the question is, will there be a general notification letting people know and get their accounts in order before this deploys for real? While the policy hasn't changed, owners had obviously become accustomed to the system not properly enforcing it and deserve a chance to get things right with their reservations before this hits again. And then once it's deployed for real, at least the policy and system will be in agreement going forward.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 14, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> So I guess the question is, will there be a general notification letting people know and get their accounts in order before this deploys for real? While the policy hasn't changed, owners had obviously become accustomed to the system not properly enforcing it and deserve a chance to get things right with their reservations before this hits again. And then once it's deployed for real, at least the policy and system will be in agreement going forward.



Not sure - I've made the follow up ask to see if we can get more explicit guidance.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 14, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Not sure - I've made the follow up ask to see if we can get more explicit guidance.



Follow up guidance as requested:



> Reservations booked as of April 14th the system will enforce the existing rule that the guest must be added within 48 hours. All reservations booked prior to the 14th that were inadvertently cancelled, will be reinstated. While we have always cancelled reservations that were not following this rule, there have been delays in our process, but the website now properly enforces the rule.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Follow up guidance as requested:



IIRC, the real rule is that guest confirmations have to be added within 48 hours to reservations when an overlap exists with another reservation, not in all cases when you won't be occupying the booked stay.  Not to be a pain (though that's ok, too), could you confirm with your POCs that this is what they implemented rather than requiring guest confirmations be added within 48 hours in all cases.  I do trust them, of course, but believe there is a lot of value to be gained through verifying....


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 14, 2022)

Eric B said:


> IIRC, the real rule is that guest confirmations have to be added within 48 hours to reservations when an overlap exists with another reservation, not in all cases when you won't be occupying the booked stay. Not to be a pain (though that's ok, too), could you confirm with your POCs that this is what they implemented rather than requiring guest confirmations be added within 48 hours in all cases. I do trust them, of course, but believe there is a lot of value to be gained through verifying....



This issue explicitly deals with overlapping reservations only. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B (Apr 14, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> This issue explicitly deals with overlapping reservations only.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Okey dokey.  To avoid misunderstanding, typically I don’t just quote a part of a “rule”.  Doing so raises the question of what they actually implemented.  If you’re ok with it, that’s fine.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 15, 2022)

Always fun to figure out Wyndham's motivation, etc. 

Interestingly they aren't not acknowledging there was a bug in their code and they cancelled reservations they should not have. 

Why say reservations starting April 14? The rules have always been there, they could just say moving forward we are going to enforce them. 

Whatever, a lot of unnecessary angst.  Just get those GC's on as soon as you can folks and everything will be okay, cha ching!


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 15, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Why say reservations starting April 14? The rules have always been there, they could just say moving forward we are going to enforce them.



Likely because IT simply added a date qualifier to the code that is running to effect this change - such that any reservations made prior to 4/14/2022 won't be cancelled automatically after 48 hours with the new process.  That's what I would do if I were going to update the code in question.  Simple to do - and it doesn't change the core logic at all - it simply adds an if/then "don't run on any objects dated older than 4/14/2022" statement.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 15, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Likely because IT simply added a date qualifier to the code that is running to effect this change - such that any reservations made prior to 4/14/2022 won't be cancelled automatically after 48 hours with the new process.  That's what I would do if I were going to update the code in question.  Simple to do - and it doesn't change the core logic at all - it simply adds an if/then "don't run on any objects dated older than 4/14/2022" statement.


Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.

And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.

Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 15, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.
> 
> And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.
> 
> Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.



I think there's two core issues.  One, in today's day and age - customer success principles would dictate that end users need to be informed ahead of time if a major policy initiative is going to actually be enforced.  It's simply customer service best practice these days.

Two, in thinking a bit more about it - I'd bet Wyndham didn't anticipate that overlapping reservations would be cancelled that weren't actually using duplicate names.  It's likely that back end data integrity is in play here.  What I mean is that for the supposedly smaller subset of owners that had reservations cancelled that didn't have overlapping reservations with duplicate owner names - that the fields that the new process was executing on - actually did see duplicate names - hence there are data integrity issues in the back end systems - which we all know to be the case from the various account related issues reported on our forum frequently.  Normally this would motivate me to run quite a bit of testing in a mirrored production environment in an effort to minimize data integrity related after effects.  I doubt the code logic was wrong - the problem lies with data integrity in the back end.  I've seen this pattern multiple times now whenever Wyndham implements a new function like this.  They really need to modernize the back end database structure and resolve the data integrity issues as part of the modernization program.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 15, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.
> 
> And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.
> 
> Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.


I agree!  We had some that were flagged for cancellation.  Rick called because it showed they were "cancelled" but still in our account.  Lewis said they were going to be cancelled in 48 hours.


----------



## Shelnscott (Apr 19, 2022)

I’m a newbie to TUG once again (I was a member until Facebook came out and thought it had disappeared) so please forgive me if this is out of place. We attended a “workshop” this past weekend and were told by salesperson (yes it was not a workshop), that Wyndham will now be canceling guest reservations (even outside the blackout dates) if there is demand at the resort. They were not talking about overlapping reservations but all guest reservations. The only we could actually rent out our extra points this year (first time we have ever rented) was to go through their rental program. Is this yet another salesperson lie?  We’ve owned for 25 years, upgraded our membership last year and were shown all of the Margaritaville St Thomas rental prices on Airbnb to convince us to do our upgrade there.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 19, 2022)

Shelnscott said:


> Is this yet another salesperson lie?



Yep.  Your BS detector is working....


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 19, 2022)

Shelnscott said:


> I’m a newbie to TUG once again (I was a member until Facebook came out and thought it had disappeared) so please forgive me if this is out of place. We attended a “workshop” this past weekend and were told by salesperson (yes it was not a workshop), that Wyndham will now be canceling guest reservations (even outside the blackout dates) if there is demand at the resort. They were not talking about overlapping reservations but all guest reservations. The only we could actually rent out our extra points this year (first time we have ever rented) was to go through their rental program. Is this yet another salesperson lie?  We’ve owned for 25 years, upgraded our membership last year and were shown all of the Margaritaville St Thomas rental prices on Airbnb to convince us to do our upgrade there.



If their lips are moving it's likely a half truth at best - and oftentimes a complete fabrication.  Ask them to point you to the rules that support their assertions - they never will - because they don't exist - and all membership rules must be documented.  The sales team engages in "daze and confuse" FOMO tactics like this constantly - all to convince unsuspecting owners to purchase more points - this is the singular end goal for these meetings.  We recommend avoiding all sales update meetings as a general rule due to these questionable tactics.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 19, 2022)

I was not affected by the cancellation of overlapping reservations flap and certainly sympathize with those who were.  I can only hope that Wyndham's attempts to remedy the situation are successful.  Some here seem to treat Wyndham's statement that canceled reservations would be restored as if it were a done deal.  We should know better.

I can say that it seems identification of overlapping reservations at the time of booking is a lot tighter than it has been.  I've had maybe a half-dozen flagged for overlapping reservations in the last few days.  Mostly they were reservations to replace one I already had and the old reservation would be canceled once the new one was booked successfully (e.g., no unexpected somethings, no no longer available, etc.).  Sometimes, I forget to check whose name is on the reservation, my wife's or mine, and that triggers the alert.  

I'm happy for the alerts as long as they correctly identify a problem.  Otherwise, they are merely another annoyance.  I am not yet convinced that the lack of an alert means there is no problem.

I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.

Additionally, it would be nice if one reservation starting on Saturday when another ends the next day are not considered to be overlapping but that's probably too much.  I sometimes find myself locked in to Saturday-Saturday reservations to avoid overlaps when I might like to start a reservation on Friday or to have one end on Sunday.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 19, 2022)

For those who may not have received the email (that weren't impacted or who have email issues) here's the official Wyndham communication on the reported issue that went out last Friday:



> Dear Guest,
> 
> Recently, an update was made to the Club Wyndham website to enforce an existing Overlapping Reservation rule. Under this rule, a guest confirmation must be added within 48 hours of a reservation if the dates overlap, or the second reservation will be canceled.
> 
> ...



I can confirm that all reservations that were impacted have been restored.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 19, 2022)

“I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”

I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 19, 2022)

One of the things Wyndham does that causes me to chuckle, is that they pretty consistently will refer you to call 800-251-8736 if you have any questions or concerns. 

Pretty much, you can be guaranteed that the folks answering 800-251-8736 will be pretty clueless and you can expect to spend an hour on the phone, likely needing a transfer to owner care/owner resolution to address any concerns (and maybe be able to help you).

Resonates Wyndham's insincerity to truly support (and care) about their owners.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 19, 2022)

chapjim said:


> I was not affected by the cancellation of overlapping reservations flap and certainly sympathize with those who were.  I can only hope that Wyndham's attempts to remedy the situation are successful.  Some here seem to treat Wyndham's statement that canceled reservations would be restored as if it were a done deal.  We should know better.
> 
> I can say that it seems identification of overlapping reservations at the time of booking is a lot tighter than it has been.  I've had maybe a half-dozen flagged for overlapping reservations in the last few days.  Mostly they were reservations to replace one I already had and the old reservation would be canceled once the new one was booked successfully (e.g., no unexpected somethings, no no longer available, etc.).  Sometimes, I forget to check whose name is on the reservation, my wife's or mine, and that triggers the alert.
> 
> ...


Additionally, it sure would be nice if there was visibility and clarity into the owner prior rules. Starting with 1) have I used my 2 exceptions (and if so, when) 2) is a reservation 'safe', did I understand the rules and follow them, or have I accidentally put a reservation at risk of cancellation?  3) Still looking for clarity on the date specifications. Are the dates listed not valid whatsoever, or are we okay if checking in (or out) on those days. Example. If priority dates for a resort are MAY 27 - MAY 29, 2022  - Can I book May 20-27 for a guest, or does it need to be May 20-26?   I've heard yes and I've heard no (and if I call 800-251-8736 and ask I'll get that VC's interpretation, not consistent answers).  Same on the back end can I book May 29- June 1 or should it be May 30-June 1?  Personally I would not risk booking any of the dates, but I see questions asked and it would be nice to have that clarified.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.



That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties.  The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 19, 2022)

Eric B said:


> That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties.  The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.


I know you’re trying but you’re just not that dumb. Extra Holidays is part of Wyndham/Travel & Leisure. I suggest you read your contract. Maybe pay special attention to what rights Wyndham has in using it’s units as opposed to what rights you have in using/renting those same units. And, please, don’t bring up “the salesman said”. It doesn’t matter. The contract matters and Wyndham has a pretty good record in court when it comes to that. Remember, even Ron Parise, who all the renters look up to as Superman, didn’t fight Wyndham in court because, as he stated on this forum, he knew he was eventually going to be caught. He cheated as long as he could get away with it, then he made a deal and ran. He still talks big on occasion, but when confronted with the facts, and the law, he quit. So, stop with the Extra Holidays bs. Wyndham uses it because they can. Wyndham is, once again, cracking down on owner renters because, legally, they can’t.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 19, 2022)

Eric B said:


> That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties. The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.



The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chapjim (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> “I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”
> 
> I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.



What is wrong with you?


----------



## WManning (Apr 19, 2022)

Eric B said:


> That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties.  The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.


Wyndham makes the rules and if they eliminate all the other renters who benefits ?


----------



## WManning (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> “I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”
> 
> I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.


Wyndham knows who was running a commercial rental business and they are slowly putting a end to the abuse of the system.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 19, 2022)

chapjim said:


> What is wrong with you?


I want the rules enforced for the benefit of the vast majority of owners. You think that’s wrong?


----------



## WManning (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I want the rules enforced for the benefit of the vast majority of owners. You think that’s wrong?


It depends on if he was running a commercial rental business.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 19, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:



If the definition in the terms & conditions for points protection and the underlying trust documents (for CWA?) actually applied to the use of CWS points for rent, wouldn’t it make sense to actually enforce it as written?  Don’t get me wrong, I do believe it would be odd for Wyndham to allow folks to buy points protection for commercial use of the points, though they haven’t written the restriction all that well.  That would be on the level of a lot of the other things they have done, though, like the cancel and rebook thing to subsidize VIPs.  Part of the problem is that they have conflicting incentives—if they crack down on all rentals in a visible way it could impact sales that are driven by the ability to rent excess points at the urging of the salesmen.

It also seems odd and self-serving of them to sell points protection that is only good if Extra Holidays fails to rent an entire stay that is deposited.  What would stop them from consciously renting out partial stays that had points protection when an alternative was available that would have resulted in a need to pay?  They make the rules—do they rent developer owned points before owner deposited ones or after?


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 19, 2022)

Can't we all just get along


----------



## chapjim (Apr 19, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Can't we all just get a long



A long what?


----------



## Eric B (Apr 19, 2022)

chapjim said:


> A long what?



Little dogie


----------



## chapjim (Apr 19, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Little dogie



But you edited your post!! Put it back the way it was!


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 19, 2022)

chapjim said:


> But you edited your post!! Put it back the way it was!


What post did @Eric B edit?


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I know you’re trying but you’re just not that dumb. Extra Holidays is part of Wyndham/Travel & Leisure. I suggest you read your contract. Maybe pay special attention to what rights Wyndham has in using it’s units as opposed to what rights you have in using/renting those same units. And, please, don’t bring up “the salesman said”. It doesn’t matter. The contract matters and Wyndham has a pretty good record in court when it comes to that. Remember, even Ron Parise, who all the renters look up to as Superman, didn’t fight Wyndham in court because, as he stated on this forum, he knew he was eventually going to be caught. He cheated as long as he could get away with it, then he made a deal and ran. He still talks big on occasion, but when confronted with the facts, and the law, he quit. So, stop with the Extra Holidays bs. Wyndham uses it because they can. Wyndham is, once again, cracking down on owner renters because, legally, they can’t.


Ron did not cheat, nor was he confronted with " the law"  Wyndham cut off his ability to use his account and then they bought him out.  If they had " the law" on there side they simply would have blocked him and told him tough. Owners can in fact rent. Get your facts straight and you might be more convincing.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 19, 2022)

Does every single Wyndham thread have to devolve to the same thing?


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 19, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Does every single Wyndham thread have to devolve to the same thing?


Apparently only the ones that reference renting in some way...


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 19, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> Ron did not cheat, nor was he confronted with " the law"  Wyndham cut off his ability to use his account and then they bought him out.  If they had " the law" on there side they simply would have blocked him and told him tough. Owners can in fact rent. Get your facts straight and you might be more convincing.


The idol worship of Ron is just sad. Ron settled out of court because he knew he couldn’t win in court. If he had the facts and the law on his side, why didn’t he fight Wyndham? Yes, owners can rent, occasionally. They can’t run a commercial enterprise (a fact as spelled out in the documentation copied in post #97) as Ron was clearly doing. That is a fact. That is why he settled without a fight.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 19, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've never read points protection terms and conditions nor have I seen anyone post this before. Is points protection only applying to reservations in an owners name or their immediate family something new? Also is this definition of "Commercial Use" new?

For those who don't know Wyndham defines immediate family as the owners spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents and siblings.. 

Well owners can stop saying that Wyndham has never defined commercial use! It clearly states that if an owner seeks a renter or other "non-Permitted User (meaning anyone other than immediate family) by advertising or an online website that is commercial use. That would include Last Minute Rentals and the Marketplace here on TUG, the Wyndham Facebook group that welcomes rentals, eBay, Redweek, Koala, Craigslist, VRBO, airbnb, etc. And yes by rights it should also include rentals done through Extra Holidays too but I have no interest in going up against Wyndham to try to argue that.

I'm editing this post to add the following. 1 renter or 100 renters is still renting. Just recouping your maintenance fees and the guest certificate cost on one or a few rentals is still renting. It's like saying you're not really pregnant because you're only a month along.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 19, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> The idol worship of Ron is just sad. Ron settled out of court because he knew he couldn’t win in court. If he had the facts and the law on his side, why didn’t he fight Wyndham? Yes, owners can rent, occasionally. They can’t run a commercial enterprise (a fact as spelled out in the documentation copied in post #97) as Ron was clearly doing. That is a fact. That is why he settled without a fight.


Because they met his price.  Rather than fight a multi billion dollar corporation, he negotiate a comfortable settlement.  Why fight when the other side is willing to meet your price. No one worships Ron.  He was a smart guy who shared many of his techniques with the rest of us.  The bigger question is why do you hate Ron?  All Wyndham could really do is prevent him from renting.  What they did was prevent him from using ot transferring his points at all.  There is no rule against selling your contract, yet thy prevented him from doing so.  He could have beaten that ban in court, but again, why fight when Wyndham was happy to buy him out at a tidy profit?  Just because you are right doesn't mean the fight is worthwhile So now you agree owners can rent. Good to see that at least you do corrext when wrong.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> Because they met his price.  Rather than fight a multi billion dollar corporation, he negotiate a comfortable settlement.  Why fight when the other side is willing to meet your price. No one worships Ron.  He was a smart guy who shared many of his techniques with the rest of us.  The bigger question is why do you hate Ron?  All Wyndham could really do is prevent him from renting.  What they did was prevent him from using ot transferring his points at all.  There is no rule against selling your contract, yet thy prevented him from doing so.  He could have beaten that ban in court, but again, why fight when Wyndham was happy to buy him out at a tidy profit?  Just because you are right doesn't mean the fight is worthwhile So now you agree owners can rent. Good to see that at least you do corrext when wrong.


Corrext? Sure, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Corrext? Sure, if it makes you feel better.


Thanks for pointing out my typo.  Typing on a phone is not my forte


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> Thanks for pointing out my typo.  Typing on a phone is not my forte


Now, that’s something we have in common.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Wyndham is kind of creepy.  They get everyone riled up against renters.  Sleazy snakes.  They want you to be mad at your fellow owners, and then they will rent everything they want and you will turn a blind eye because it's them doing it. 

Gee, what other company has done this?


----------



## chapjim (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> What post did @Eric B edit?



#104

The original post said, "Can't we all get a long."  So, I said, "A long what?"


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Wyndham is kind of creepy.  They get everyone riled up against renters.  Sleazy snakes.  They want you to be mad at your fellow owners, and then they will rent everything they want and you will turn a blind eye because it's them doing it.
> 
> Gee, what other company has done this?


Owners got riled up at renters when they continued to see other owners running ads and renting multiple units at multiple locations but there weren’t any reservations available to them. Wyndham told us about Extra Holidays before we ever bought. We knew they had the right to take unreserved units at various times and that we could also use EH to rent weeks/points that we couldn’t use. There are a lot of Wyndham sales tactics to complain about, but at least for us, they were honest about Extra Holidays.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

chapjim said:


> #104
> 
> The original post said, "Can't we all get a long."  So, I said, "A long what?"


Since you were pointing out my bad grammar, I was simply pointing out your mistake too. I edited the mistake in my post but you quoted Eric B. You should have been quoting my post. You still didn't answer the question though.


----------



## chapjim (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Since you were pointing out my bad grammar, I was simply pointing out your mistake too. I edited the mistake in my post but you quoted Eric B. You should have been quoting my post. You still didn't answer the question though.



What?? 

Eric B asked a question.  I answered it with a quote from your post #104.  I make a lot of mistakes but I don't see one in this exchange.

It is becoming apparent that we can't all get along.  Too many self-righteous know-it-alls and too many thin skins.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

chapjim said:


> What??
> 
> Eric B asked a question.  I answered it with a quote from your post #104.  I make a lot of mistakes but I don't see one in this exchange.
> 
> It is becoming apparent that we can't all get along.  Too many self-righteous know-it-alls and too many thin skins.


I assume you’re definition of a “self-righteous know-it-all” is someone who knows the rules and abides by them. What do you call someone who knows the rules and refuses to abide by them?

 I think we can disagree and get along fine as along as everybody is honest about what the rules are, or even that there are rules governing what someone is allowed to do with their timeshare. Some owners seem to have the opinion that ”I bought it. It’s mine. I can do whatever I want”. As pointed out numerous times on this board, just because you got away with doing something in the past, that doesn’t mean you have the right to do it. Running a commercial enterprise is not allowed. Period.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Since you were pointing out my bad grammar, I was simply pointing out your mistake too. I edited the mistake in my post but you quoted Eric B. You should have been quoting my post. You still didn't answer the question though.





chapjim said:


> What??
> 
> Eric B asked a question.  I answered it with a quote from your post #104.  I make a lot of mistakes but I don't see one in this exchange.
> 
> It is becoming apparent that we can't all get along.  Too many self-righteous know-it-alls and too many thin skins.



Well, I'm just going to stay out of this one....


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

chapjim said:


> What??
> 
> Eric B asked a question.  I answered it with a quote from your post #104.  I make a lot of mistakes but I don't see one in this exchange.
> 
> It is becoming apparent that we can't all get along.  Too many self-righteous know-it-alls and too many thin skins.


I asked what post was edited, you said #104. #104 was MY post but you asked Eric why he edited his post. Did he edit his post? If he did, it wasn't #104. I don't understand why you asked Eric to put his post back since it was #104 that was edited.

What I get from all of this is, when one can't argue on the merits of the issue they devolve to calling out grammar and typos.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> Owners got riled up at renters when they continued to see other owners running ads and renting multiple units at multiple locations but there weren’t any reservations available to them. Wyndham told us about Extra Holidays before we ever bought. We knew they had the right to take unreserved units at various times and that we could also use EH to rent weeks/points that we couldn’t use. There are a lot of Wyndham sales tactics to complain about, but at least for us, they were honest about Extra Holidays.


Look under some of the Marriott and Westin resorts under Redweek.  When do you see anyone complaining about the dozens of ads on Redweek for Marriott and Westin resorts that owners are renting.  

Low-class Wyndham is the only company targeting "mega renters." And you are all going along with it. It's mob mentality. Reserve what you need way ahead of time and stop expecting inventory to be there when you want it. *No one who owns Staroptions or DP is complaining that nothing is available to them within 60 days.  *

Wyndham has major IT issues and it's reflecting on my WorldMark and Shell ownerships because they are managing those as well.  Why is Wyndham not the target of your ire, when they are the ones that created this animosity by selling more points as a rental product.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Look under some of the Marriott and Westin resorts under Redweek.  When do you see anyone complaining about the dozens of ads on Redweek for Marriott and Westin resorts that owners are renting.
> 
> Low-class Wyndham is the only company targeting "mega renters." And you are all going along with it. It's mob mentality. Reserve what you need way ahead of time and stop expecting inventory to be there when you want it. *No one who owns Staroptions or DP is complaining that nothing is available to them within 60 days.  *
> 
> Wyndham has major IT issues and it's reflecting on my WorldMark and Shell ownerships because they are managing those as well.  Why is Wyndham not the target of your ire, when they are the ones that created this animosity by selling more points as a rental product.


Does Marriott and Westin resorts have comparable rental arms (to Extra Holidays)?


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I assume you’re definition of a “self-righteous know-it-all” is someone who knows the rules and abides by them. What do you call someone who knows the rules and refuses to abide by them?
> 
> I think we can disagree and get along fine as along as everybody is honest about what the rules are, or even that there are rules governing what someone is allowed to do with their timeshare. Some owners seem to have the opinion that ”I bought it. It’s mine. I can do whatever I want”. As pointed out numerous times on this board, just because you got away with doing something in the past, that doesn’t mean you have the right to do it. Running a commercial enterprise is not allowed. Period.



True, but as a lawyer I would point out that since "commercial enterprise" is not specifically defined, one could argue that Wyndham's ignoring, and active encouragement, of what people like Ron were doing was proof that it did not fit the definition.  When they changed their mind and declared that it did, (within their right) they were obligated to compensate, or at least not punish, those whose past actions were no longer allowed.  On a practical note, after the great mega renter purge, I did not notice a large uptick in availability, so I have to wonder if Wyndham's motivation was more selfish, than altruistic.  After, decades of Wyndham claiming they were going to reign in the salespeople, and the mess they have made of the website upgrades/transition, I find most explanations from Wyndham to be suspect.  That said, I do enjoy their product and have for almost 30 years.  Alot of that is due to the sharing of knowledge here on TUG.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Does Marriott and Westin resorts have comparable rental arms (to Extra Holidays)?


Well, sure.  They have the hotel site and rent for outrageous prices, just like Wyndham.  They do rent Westin Ka'anapali and Westin Princeville and the Marriott resorts on all of the islands.  You can extend your stay by adding a night or two (and very expensively, I might add).  They rent not just the hotels, but they rent the villas.  I would say it's separate inventory, maybe. 

Not that I am trying to rile owners of Marriott and Westin for their slew of mega renters.  I am not doing that at all.  I am just pointing out that those owners are not being targeted by Marriott/ Westin/ Hilton/ Hyatt and all of the other systems out there.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Poor Ron Parise, he is not even here to defend himself against the accusations people are making about him.  He broke no rules.  He credit pooled points into the current use year then tried to give away his contracts empty, which was within his right to do.  Why are people still accusing him of stealing from the people who agreed to take his contracts?


----------



## chapjim (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I asked what post was edited, you said #104. #104 was MY post but you asked Eric why he edited his post. Did he edit his post? If he did, it wasn't #104. I don't understand why you asked Eric to put his post back since it was #104 that was edited.
> 
> What I get from all of this is, when one can't argue on the merits of the issue they devolve to calling out grammar and typos.



Okay, I see it now.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Poor Ron Parise, he is not even here to defend himself against the accusations people are making about him.  He broke no rules.  He credit pooled points into the current use year then tried to give away his contracts empty, which was within his right to do.  Why are people still accusing him of stealing from the people who agreed to take his contracts?


He posted in this forum as recently as Sunday, so I think he'll be okay.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Well, sure.  They have the hotel site and rent for outrageous prices, just like Wyndham.  They do rent Westin Ka'anapali and Westin Princeville and the Marriott resorts on all of the islands.  You can extend your stay by adding a night or two (and very expensively, I might add).  They rent not just the hotels, but they rent the villas.  I would say it's separate inventory, maybe.
> 
> Not that I am trying to rile owners of Marriott and Westin for their slew of mega renters.  I am not doing that at all.  I am just pointing out that those owners are not being targeted by Marriott/ Westin/ Hilton/ Hyatt and all of the other systems out there.



With Westin, at least, the CC&Rs, etc., for the developments I own in specifically allow for rental by an owner of weeks in the season and unit type they own.  Not sure if they police VSN bookings outside of those criteria to any particular extent, but they are supposed to prohibit that.  As a result, it's not really a megarenter situation (or at least I'm unaware of it if it is).

My understanding of Marriott's system is that they do allow sale/rental of points from one owner to another, which could kind of alleviate the issues.



rickandcindy23 said:


> Poor Ron Parise, he is not even here to defend himself against the accusations people are making about him.  He broke no rules.  He credit pooled points into the current use year then tried to give away his contracts empty, which was within his right to do.  Why are people still accusing him of stealing from the people who agreed to take his contracts?



Actually, I believe he is and does.  There've been a couple of postings by @ronparise lately.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

Most Marriott resort CC&Rs and Exchange Company procedures have provisions against commercial use. Like Wyndham, they don't define it. They actually are worse than Wyndham. Per the screen shot earlier in this thread, Wyndham seems to define rentals as commercial use. For Marriott CC&Rs they have no definition at all, it could be defined as running a barber shop in your unit while on vacation. There are a few big renters on the Marriott side, but none I would call a mega renter. I think the biggest I know of has about 30 weeks. I would think the big ones in Wyndham rent much more than that.

I am not aware that Wyndham could stop someone from renting their home resort deeded week, it just so happens that not many of those really exist since most are just part of Club Wyndham, which is an exchange company bound by its terms.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

I am in Orlando with the kids and grandkids for three weeks and haven't been following as closely as I usually do.  I didn't see Ron posting.   

I do rent a lot of Sheraton Broadway Plantation, we own quite a few of those, and not one person has pointed out that I am a mega renter of that product.  That is all I rent in the Vistana system. Those are deeded floating weeks.  

I have considered getting into the Marriott system with my floating weeks, but I don't think I would do all that well with it just owning Willow Ridge.  So I am staying away from that idea for now.  At some point, I may choose to enroll weeks, but I will need to buy something better than my four annual Willow Ridge to do it.  These are great for getting us great exchanges to places that I never see for exchange with my Sheraton weeks.  

The thing is, Marriott owners do rent.  They book great resorts and rent them out.  Owners get first crack at what they own.  Then it's a free-for-all. 

So Marriott owners get first opportunity for their owned units.  Wyndham owners also can book what they own. 

Marriott owners can book anywhere in the system after a certain length of time passes.  It's the same for Wyndham owners. 

The real difference is the discounts that Platinum and Gold owners get at < 60 days that really is the target of the anger I see here.  Wyndham took care to make sure resale doesn't get any discounts.  That should have created a lot of inventory to owners.  Did it?  I don't see it. 

Look at RCI for rentals of Wyndham.  It will make you cringe.  Who owns RCI?


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> True, but as a lawyer I would point out that since "commercial enterprise" is not specifically defined, one could argue that Wyndham's ignoring, and active encouragement, of what people like Ron were doing was proof that it did not fit the definition.  When they changed their mind and declared that it did, (within their right) they were obligated to compensate, or at least not punish, those whose past actions were no longer allowed.  On a practical note, after the great mega renter purge, I did not notice a large uptick in availability, so I have to wonder if Wyndham's motivation was more selfish, than altruistic.  After, decades of Wyndham claiming they were going to reign in the salespeople, and the mess they have made of the website upgrades/transition, I find most explanations from Wyndham to be suspect.  That said, I do enjoy their product and have for almost 30 years.  Alot of that is due to the sharing of knowledge here on TUG.


Looking at this posted by @HitchHiker71 earlier. It looks like they define "commercial use" better than most;


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> He posted in this forum as recently as Sunday, so I think he'll be okay.


Not that I was worried because Ron has practically posted his life story here, and some are constantly berating him.  I am tired of the animosity toward mega renters.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Looking at this posted by @HitchHiker71 earlier. It looks like they define "commercial use" better than most;
> View attachment 52502


When is that from?  I agree they define it now.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Looking at this posted by @HitchHiker71 earlier. It looks like they define "commercial use" better than most;
> View attachment 52502


That is not in the contract we signed.  So they can just change their rules whenever, and we are all just supposed to bow down and let them take over the rentals.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> There are a few big renters on the Marriott side, but none I would call a mega renter.


That's likely in part because the economics are very different. Wyndham's cost basis for acquisition is next to nothing, so the per-rental margins can be low and still make sense as a volume business. Marriott's cost basis is quite a bit higher, and that means you need a much better margin to make it worth the effort, and a high-volume business would be prohibitively expensive. If you have that kind of capital laying around, there are almost certainly better (more lucrative) uses for it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> That is not in the contract we signed.  So they can just change their rules whenever, and we are all just supposed to bow down and let them take over the rentals.


I am sure many people didn't sign a contract if they purchased resale. They just have a deed at a resort and their ownership is part of Club Wyndham. Club Wyndham is an exchange company which has terms of use. Terms of use often indicate that they can change them with or without notice. Owners have remedy, which is litigation. It just usually isn't worth the fight. The other option is to take the week out of Club Wyndham (is that possible?) and use the weeks as deeded weeks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

bnoble said:


> That's likely in part because the economics are very different. Wyndham's cost basis for acquisition is next to nothing, so the per-rental margins can be low and still make sense as a volume business. Marriott's cost basis is quite a bit higher, and that means you need a much better margin to make it worth the effort, and a high-volume business would be prohibitively expensive. If you have that kind of capital laying around, there are almost certainly better (more lucrative) uses for it.


Good point. I am sure many of those 30 Marriott weeks cost tens of thousands of dollars each to acquire. So the margins may be good when looking at rental rate vs maintenance fee, but the percentage return on the whole investment would be lower. If someone buys a week for $30K and gets $2000 over MFs, that is a return of only 6.7%. One year like 2020 could wipe out years of gains.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I am sure many people didn't sign a contract if they purchased resale. They just have a deed at a resort and their ownership is part of Club Wyndham. Club Wyndham is an exchange company which has terms of use. Terms of use often indicate that they can change them with or without notice. Owners have remedy, which is litigation. It just usually isn't worth the fight. The other option is to take the week out of Club Wyndham (is that possible?) and use the weeks as deeded weeks.


Totally agree that it is not worth the fight.  I am actually hoping to get a resolution like Ron received.  He is my hero.  

I have gotten plenty back from Wyndham and am frankly tired of paying the fees and having the rules change constantly.  It's been a good ride, but we are tired of Wyndham and their incessant need to berate us for doing what we have always done.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Look under some of the Marriott and Westin resorts under Redweek.  When do you see anyone complaining about the dozens of ads on Redweek for Marriott and Westin resorts that owners are renting.
> 
> Low-class Wyndham is the only company targeting "mega renters." And you are all going along with it. It's mob mentality. Reserve what you need way ahead of time and stop expecting inventory to be there when you want it. *No one who owns Staroptions or DP is complaining that nothing is available to them within 60 days.  *
> 
> Wyndham has major IT issues and it's reflecting on my WorldMark and Shell ownerships because they are managing those as well.  Why is Wyndham not the target of your ire, when they are the ones that created this animosity by selling more points as a rental product.


Wyndham is not the target of my ire because the Wyndham corporation or IT department did not make any owner start running a business with their points. That is a decision the owner made 100% on their own. Whether they got bad advice, didn't read their contract, etc. etc. The owner is totally responsible for that decision.

I have plenty of ire for the Wyndham IT department at times. However, they have a website and phone numbers that I can call to make reservations. The website is clunky but their isn't anything in the contract, that I am aware of, where they promised to provide a world-class website that would do everything I want it to do, when I want it to do it, and how I want it to do it. The website is usable the great majority of the time. They have issues, as all websites do, at times. They fix them and we move on, just like every other major corporation. It's not something I can stay mad about 24/7. 

I only own Wyndham points and have no interest in purchasing another brand. Wyndham works very well for us. Maybe everyone that hates Wyndham should sell their contracts and purchase Marriott and Westin. Sounds like they would be a lot happier.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

@Rolltydr That's such irony right there.  They rent way more than you even know about (because why would you know how much?), yet your issue is with owners who were told one thing and are now being told another thing.  

It's so easy for a big corporation with stockholders to get by with this.  It's hilarious.  Where is the outrage?  I just want an easy way out of the points we own.  Give me an easy way out, and I will take it, Wyndham (giant corporation).


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The real difference is the discounts that Platinum and Gold owners get at < 60 days that really is the target of the anger I see here. Wyndham took care to make sure resale doesn't get any discounts. That should have created a lot of inventory to owners. Did it? I don't see it.



That issue could be addressed if Wyndham did something like decline to issue guest confirmations for any discounted bookings or limit them to "permitted guests".  They haven't done that because they really aren't all that concerned about rentals of discounted bookings - the reason they are discounted is because of low demand anyway for non-VIP bookings that are made available for specific resorts that have demonstrated low occupancy rates or for VIP discounts within 60 days where high-demand availability should have already been booked.  Prohibiting those as rentals would cut down own the flow of prospective buyers to sales presentations at the resorts and impact the bottom line.

That was reasonable as a target of anger when Wyndham allowed the cancel and rebook method of getting a discount.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> That is a decision the owner made 100% on their own.



LOL!


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> @Rolltydr That's such irony right there.  They rent way more than you even know about (because why would you know how much?), yet your issue is with owners who were told one thing and are now being told another thing.
> 
> It's so easy for a big corporation with stockholders to get by with this.  It's hilarious.  Where is the outrage?  I just want an easy way out of the points we own.  Give me an easy way out, and I will take it, Wyndham (giant corporation).


I believe you have plenty of outrage for all of us.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Eric B said:


> That issue could be addressed if Wyndham did something like decline to issue guest confirmations for any discounted bookings or limit them to "permitted guests".  They haven't done that because they really aren't all that concerned about rentals of discounted bookings - the reason they are discounted is because of low demand anyway for non-VIP bookings that are made available for specific resorts that have demonstrated low occupancy rates or for VIP discounts within 60 days where high-demand availability should have already been booked.  Prohibiting those as rentals would cut down own the flow of prospective buyers to sales presentations at the resorts and impact the bottom line.
> 
> That was reasonable as a target of anger when Wyndham allowed the cancel and rebook method of getting a discount.


I agree that cancel and rebook was great while it lasted for us as "mega renters", and I also agree that it was not a level playing field for regular owners to be able to take advantage of the cancellations.  I agree 100% with that.  That was not fair to everyone.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I believe you have plenty of outrage for all of us.


That's the thing.  I am not outraged.  Nothing has really changed.  Read what Eric just posted.  100% agree with his post.  Very succinct and accurate.  Still guest certificates are allowed.  Pay for those, and you still can rent, just not certain things.  It's all a game for Wyndham.  

Anyone who thinks Wyndham is not making mega renters look like the devil is beyond gullible.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> When is that from?  I agree they define it now.



It's been on the website for as long as I have been an owner - including on the Voyager website - under the Points Protection section when performing a booking, screenshot below for reference:


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> It's been on the website for as long as I have been an owner - including on the Voyager website - under the Points Protection section when performing a booking, screenshot below for reference:
> 
> View attachment 52510


It's not written in stone, and it's not in my contracts (I have two platinum founder's contracts).  They can change the website, yes, but not my contract.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> That's the thing.  I am not outraged.  Nothing has really changed.  Read what Eric just posted.  100% agree with his post.  Very succinct and accurate.  Still guest certificates are allowed.  Pay for those, and you still can rent, just not certain things.  It's all a game for Wyndham.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Wyndham is not making mega renters look like the devil is beyond gullible.


That really doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> It's not written in stone, and it's not in my contracts (I have two platinum founder's contracts).  They can change the website, yes, but not my contract.



It is written and whether or not it's in your contracts is irrelevant. Owners are constrained by the program guidelines/rules as determined by Wyndham.

Timeshare companies employ attorneys to protect their interests and to make very sure the company can do whatever they deem necessary. The hard truth for all timeshare owners is if you don't like what your timeshare company is doing then you have the choice of learning to adjust or get out by giving it back, giving it away, selling it or even walking away.

I'm not saying this to be mean. To quote the Borg in Star Trek, "resistance is futile."


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> It's been on the website for as long as I have been an owner - including on the Voyager website - under the Points Protection section when performing a booking, screenshot below for reference:
> 
> View attachment 52510


How long is that?  Not trying to argue, just trying to get a timeline?


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> How long is that? Not trying to argue, just trying to get a timeline?





HitchHiker71 said:


> The definition is included within the underlying trust documents.


I'm also trying to find it in the trust documents. Do you mean the Fairshare trust, and if so, is there a version more recent than the March 14, 2008 agreement?  Because I'm seeing no definition of commercial use nor of "permitted users" in the 2008 version of the Fairshare trust agreement.

And as someone who's resigned to the fact that the agreement also states that Wyndham can basically change the rules at any time, I'm not sure it matters in practice (though as far as I can tell, nobody who hasn't tried to add points protection would otherwise be able to find Wyndham's current definition of commercial use), but it would be interesting to trace the provenance of this language.

EDIT: I did find a February 15, 2010 amendment to the agreement that doesn't mention it either. I wonder if there are any later amendments.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> That is not in the contract we signed.  So they can just change their rules whenever, and we are all just supposed to bow down and let them take over the rentals.



People seem to be under the impression that just because something isn't in a contract that you signed many years ago - that it actually means anything with respect to opt-in agreement of Terms of Use.  Are you aware that whenever you use the website - you're already agreeing to additional contractual terms of use for the services in scope?  Screenshot below for reference.  Here's a link to the complete website terms of use:









						Terms of Use
					

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




					clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com
				








This means that if you have ever used the website - you have already agreed to these updated Terms of Use by default.  This includes the verbiage in the Terms and Conditions for the aforementioned for the Points Protection.  It also includes the following as it relates to use of any/all content for commercial use:





With the above in mind - how many renters use graphics from the Wyndham website to advertise their rentals?  Do those renters know that per the above verbiage - they are in violation of the above listed commercial use clauses?  While Wyndham isn't currently enforcing these violations - if/when the times comes - it won't be hard to demonstrate such violations in a court of law worst case.

I don't have a personal investment in the rental game beyond the occasional GC used for friends and family - so restrictions on commercial rentals don't impact me directly.  But it has become clear to me that Wyndham is now enforcing owner based rental restrictions much more aggressively than at any point in their history.  Sure this wasn't always the case - but it is the current reality - and I suspect it will only become more restrictive over time based upon what I've seen since becoming an owner.  I would not be surprised to see GCs go away altogether - and be replaced by a Friends & Family type program that won't allow for the flexibility to rent like owners can today.  There was even a survey put out some months ago about a Friends & Family program for example.  Pure speculation on my part to be clear.  Just connecting the dots as I see it.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

comicbookman said:


> How long is that?  Not trying to argue, just trying to get a timeline?



I became an owner in July 2018.  I suspect the PP T&Cs have been in place since Voyager was put in place - I believe this was in 2016 timeframe - but others can speak to more specific timelines.  Prior to that - I simply don't know.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I became an owner in July 2018.  I suspect the PP T&Cs have been in place since Voyager was put in place - I believe this was in 2016 timeframe - but others can speak to more specific timelines.  Prior to that - I simply don't know.


You are a newbie.  

I am just tired of everyone saying that a timeshare company can change the rules any time they want, as though it's in the best interests of owners, when in fact it is in the best interest of Wyndham Corporate.  

I guess there are not many people here on TUG that think corporations are greedy.  I am a person who does believe that corporations are greedy, along with their CEO's and CFO's and the other executives who are overpaid to find loopholes to keep regular people from using what they own.  

Just wait until they change a rule that goes against your own interests.  Then you will be singing a different tune.  

The reason Wyndham isn't getting blowback from regular owners is because so far they haven't made them angry.  Specifically, a new change could easily affect a large percentage of owners: When you have points at the end of the year that get wasted because you forgot to bank them by 3/31, then you might sing a different tune.  That is a change that really hurts every owner.  I don't mind having a deposit into RCI at the end of the year, but some people mind paying exchange fees and bought Wyndham specifically to use without those fees.  

I feel badly for those who own Wyndham and don't keep updated on the rules.  My aunt and uncle bought Wyndham points in Branson.  She didn't bank her points by 3/31 and was going to use them next year.  I told her she cannot bank them now.  She was quite upset at the rule change.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I guess there are not many people here on TUG that think corporations are greedy.



Here I am!!!    Of course, that's why they exist in the first place - the business of business being business in the pursuit of maximizing shareholder profits.  Some corporations are more long-term profit driven and reflect that in the valuation of good will.  The only thing we can do to effect the calculus is to continue to strive to educate the uninformed owners and customers that are out there and call out Wyndham when they do things that are egregious.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I'm also trying to find it in the trust documents. Do you mean the Fairshare trust, and if so, is there a version more recent than the March 14, 2008 agreement?  Because I'm seeing no definition of commercial use nor of "permitted users" in the 2008 version of the Fairshare trust agreement.
> 
> And as someone who's resigned to the fact that the agreement also states that Wyndham can basically change the rules at any time, I'm not sure it matters in practice (though as far as I can tell, nobody who hasn't tried to add points protection would otherwise be able to find Wyndham's current definition of commercial use), but it would be interesting to trace the provenance of this language.
> 
> EDIT: I did find a February 15, 2010 amendment to the agreement that doesn't mention it either. I wonder if there are any later amendments.



It's in the underlying trust documents for CWA that I signed in 2018.  I cannot comment as to whether it's in documentation prior - but my general understanding based on litigating this topic in the past is that verbiage was inserted starting in 2012 timeframe - at least for CWA.  

In any case - it's really moot whether the contracts signed contain the verbiage - as the Terms of Use have had this verbiage in place since I became an owner in 2018 - and there's an implicit opt-in whenever using the web services and/or various other products and services that is legally binding by use of those services.  As @Jan M. said - resistance is futile.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> [T]here's an implicit opt-in whenever using the web services and/or various other products and services that is legally binding by use of those services.



It's really not all that simple.  The stuff you had posted earlier in #157 seem to cover a prohibition on commercial use of the content of the web site rather than commercial use of the properties that you own and are managed by Wyndham through the use of the web site.  What you had there regarding the use of graphics, etc., from the Wyndham site seems spot on to me, but that only covers the intellectual property on the web site, not staying at a resort.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> You are a newbie.
> 
> I am just tired of everyone saying that a timeshare company can change the rules any time they want, as though it's in the best interests of owners, when in fact it is in the best interest of Wyndham Corporate.



For my part, I'm not saying anything other than I've read the founding trust documentation - which has verbiage that clearly states that the program manager - currently Wyndham - can change the program rules when necessary.  I'm not going to go back and pull up the screenshots that I've posted in the past again - but it's there for anyone who wants to go find it.



> I guess there are not many people here on TUG that think corporations are greedy.  I am a person who does believe that corporations are greedy, along with their CEO's and CFO's and the other executives who are overpaid to find loopholes to keep regular people from using what they own.



Public corporations have a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders - not to timeshare owners.  This fact seems to escape many timeshare owners - I suppose being an "owner" makes people think that this somehow changes the primary mission of the corporation.  I don't disagree that greed is a problem - but I also don't see the point of complaining about it on a public forum - I'd rather attempt to change the system from within by leveraging key relationships with Wyndham personnel and executives over time.  This has been my approach from the outset of my becoming an owner.  So while I'm a newbie by years - I feel as though I've actually accomplished more on behalf of owners than most others on this forum in comparison.  Why?  Because I don't see the point of complaining without taking action.  I field constructive criticisms here on TUG and do my level best to communicate those criticisms internal to Wyndham with the intention of effecting positive change to the extent possible.  We have certainly seen mixed results so far - we've had a few positive changes but there's still a lot outstanding that disappoints me on many levels.  Still - I keep on keeping on.  I suppose on some level this is why TUG asked me to become the forum moderator - based upon what contributions I've made to lobby on behalf of Wyndham owners to effect change.  



> Just wait until they change a rule that goes against your own interests.  Then you will be singing a different tune.



TUG represents a small minority of timeshare owners in reality - power users so to speak.  The 1% of owners who own millions of points.  Wyndham doesn't get much blowback from regular owners that only own between 100-300k points because they don't make many changes that negatively impact this ownership segment over time.  The website changes that most here on TUG complain about - really only impact a very small minority of the ownership base.  I know this because I've had multiple conversations with Wyndham over time and they are not fielding such complaints from the vast majority of normal timeshare owners.  That might not go over so well here on TUG (it never has in fact), but it is what it is at the end of the day.  We aren't ever going to see advanced search functions or significantly better transaction history functionality for example - because Wyndham never hears about this from the website feedback mechanisms for example.  I wish this weren't the case - but it is what it is.



> The reason Wyndham isn't getting blowback from regular owners is because so far they haven't made them angry.  Specifically, a new change could easily affect a large percentage of owners: When you have points at the end of the year that get wasted because you forgot to bank them by 3/31, then you might sing a different tune.  That is a change that really hurts every owner.  I don't mind having a deposit into RCI at the end of the year, but some people mind paying exchange fees and bought Wyndham specifically to use without those fees



Are you referring to VIP hybrid owners here?  Or was there a time when non-VIP owners could deposit points beyond the first three months of their use year?



> I feel badly for those who own Wyndham and don't keep updated on the rules.  My aunt and uncle bought Wyndham points in Branson.  She didn't bank her points by 3/31 and was going to use them next year.  I told her she cannot bank them now.  She was quite upset at the rule change.



As long as I've been an owner this has been the deposit rule - but I'm sure this wasn't always the case.  This is why we have a members directory that contains the rules like this.  Owners should review the updated members directory with this in mind to ensure they understand what they own and whether any rule changes will impact them year to year.  The only constant in this life is change.  Nothing stays the same over the long term, if anything the rate of change is accelerating.  Again, it is what it is.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 20, 2022)

Eric B said:


> It's really not all that simple.  The stuff you had posted earlier in #157 seem to cover a prohibition on commercial use of the content of the web site rather than commercial use of the properties that you own and are managed by Wyndham through the use of the web site.  What you had there regarding the use of graphics, etc., from the Wyndham site seems spot on to me, but that only covers the intellectual property on the web site, not staying at a resort.



Agreed - that verbiage only covers "Web Services" along with other implicit functions that are a part of the website experience - it is not meant to cover resort stays - unless explicitly stated.  I will try to find the thread where I've posted various screenshots regarding Terms of Use and commercial use restrictions and link to it for reference here.


----------



## troy12n (Apr 20, 2022)

There are a few things that will not change about the topic of mega renters, and people like Ron. 

1. Yes, despite what they lead on about, they know that what they did is, at best, unethical. At worst, fraudulent. There's no other way to skin that cat. 
2. They will never admit as such... they will make excuses like "they let us", even though any analog to the real world such as the "malfunctioning ATM machine" that you keep exploiting "because it let you" would land you in jail for grand theft
3. What Ron did was an act of self preservation. Period. He saw the writing on the wall, in my opinion knew he had no legal standing to refute what was coming, so made a "grand gesture" to Wyndham, who, for reasons we will never know why, bit and offered a settlement. And Ron came out smelling like a rose
4. Ron will always have his defenders. He told a lot of people his tricks, and a lot of people here benefited from his tips to game the system... 
5. And this is the most important one. The people who benefited the most from "gaming the system" will never admit that they, almost exclusively, were the reason things were changed which have deprecated owners rights and VIP benefits over the years... this is undeniable. And they will not admit it and don't like being called out on it. They would rather pass the buck.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 20, 2022)

troy12n said:


> There are a few things that will not change about the topic of mega renters, and people like Ron.
> 
> 1. Yes, despite what they lead on about, they know that what they did is, at best, unethical. At worst, fraudulent. There's no other way to skin that cat.
> 2. They will never admit as such... they will make excuses like "they let us", even though any analog to the real world such as the "malfunctioning ATM machine" that you keep exploiting "because it let you" would land you in jail for grand theft
> ...


Generally loopholes are open, they get found, they get disseminated to "the masses" then they get closed. This happens just about everywhere. Think hotel loyalty programs. Blogs and such find loopholes or "great values" then thousands take advantage of it, the hotel chain realises they are losing money and they figure out a way to limit the losses. Wyndham is no different.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> As long as I've been an owner this has been the deposit rule - but I'm sure this wasn't always the case


The current deposit rule has been in place since mid-2017, and you are correct - prior to that, it was the credit pool (RIP) and you had to pool your points 3 months earlier, by the last day of the _previous_ use year.

The only reason I can guess that it may seem new to some owners is if they didn't use it in 2018 or 2019, then 2020 came along and Wyndham extended the deadline until the end of the year because of COVID. If you weren't familiar with the written policy, you might have been surprised when 2021 and 2022 rolled around and we were back to the normal deadlines. Plus, it's basically all new to the hybrid VIP owners as well.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 20, 2022)

troy12n said:


> There are a few things that will not change about the topic of mega renters, and people like Ron.
> 
> 1. Yes, despite what they lead on about, they know that what they did is, at best, unethical. At worst, fraudulent. There's no other way to skin that cat.
> 2. They will never admit as such... they will make excuses like "they let us", even though any analog to the real world such as the "malfunctioning ATM machine" that you keep exploiting "because it let you" would land you in jail for grand theft
> ...


You make several assumptions that are just that, assumptions.  There is nothing fraudulent or unethical about using the system as designed, as opposed to how "it should work"  I doubt Wyndham offered to settle with Ron if he had no legal standing.  Was it david vs goliath?  Of course, Ron was definitely David.  Did Wyndham want the publicity of from his fighting them?  Probably not, especially if he could make a reasonable sounding argument and they were not clearly in the right.  That is more likely than, Ron was clearly wrong, but they settled anyway.  
Cancel rebook, needed to be fixed.  Separating resale from VIP benefits should have been done a long time ago.  Even restrictions on prime dates, good idea.  Going from no cost guest certs to getting a decent amount to cutting that way back, that is simply greed on Wyndham's part, like airlines finding new ways to charge for luggage and carryon bags. Skimping on spending for the IT infrastructure, greed.  Lack of training of VC's, done to frustrate owners and cover the greed.  Not reigning in salesmen, pure greed. Based on my 30 years as an owner, using the system, I do not see much increased availability from any of these things except maybe prime date restrictions.  However, in typical Wyndham fashion, this is articulated poorly.  Wyndham has a really good product, some really great employees on the ground, but some of the worst customer service on a corporate level i have ever seen.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

I’m genuinely perplexed by those who believe they can run a rental business with their timeshare. Do you also believe you can paint it a different color? Do you also believe you can change out the furniture? Can you open up your timeshare to a few homeless people? Could you run an intimate restaurant out of your timeshare? What about a small daycare? Can you do any of those things? Of course you can’t. Why on earth do you believe you can run a rental business with it? It defies logic!


----------



## The Colorado Kid (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> I’m genuinely perplexed by those who believe they can run a rental business with their timeshare. Do you also believe you can paint it a different color? Do you also believe you can change out the furniture? Can you open up your timeshare to a few homeless people? Could you run an intimate restaurant out of your timeshare? What about a small daycare? Can you do any of those things? Of course you can’t. Why on earth do you believe you can run a rental business with it? It defies logic!


Respectfully perplexed by what any of your examples have to do with renting out a timeshare?


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

The Colorado Kid said:


> Respectfully perplexed by what any of your examples have to do with renting out a timeshare?


They are examples of using the timeshare for a commercial enterprise or doing something with the timeshare that isn’t explicitly banned by the contract.  That seems to be the most common excuse used by the renters. You do agree that renting the timeshare is a commercial enterprise, or can we not even agree on that?

Edited for clarity, hopefully.


----------



## The Colorado Kid (Apr 20, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> They are examples of using the timeshare for a commercial enterprise or doing something with the timeshare that isn’t explicitly banned by the contract.  That seems to be the most common excuse used by the renters. You do agree that renting the timeshare is a commercial enterprise, or can we not even agree on that?
> 
> Edited for clarity, hopefully.


Certainly not trying to make an enemy of you just looking for clarity, thanks much.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 20, 2022)

The Colorado Kid said:


> Certainly not trying to make an enemy of you just looking for clarity, thanks much.


Not looking for any enemies and I apologize if I was a little snappy. I’m just tired of the same old argument. Guess I should ignore this thread for a while.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Apr 20, 2022)

troy12n said:


> There are a few things that will not change about the topic of mega renters, and people like Ron.
> 
> 1. Yes, despite what they lead on about, they know that what they did is, at best, unethical. At worst, fraudulent. There's no other way to skin that cat.
> 2. They will never admit as such... they will make excuses like "they let us", even though any analog to the real world such as the "malfunctioning ATM machine" that you keep exploiting "because it let you" would land you in jail for grand theft
> ...


#6. And THIS is the most important one. Wyndham didn't mind that accounts were being stripped and sold and the new owner was responsible for paying the maintenance fees moving forward, until they were the new owners. You keep holding up Ron as an example, he was not the only one stripping accounts, he may have been the most transparent, but he was not the only one. There are reasons Wyndham settled with many with nondisclosures. Perhaps one of those reasons is they weren't sure if they'd win in court (we'll never know).


----------



## vv813 (Apr 20, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> People seem to be under the impression that just because something isn't in a contract that you signed many years ago - that it actually means anything with respect to opt-in agreement of Terms of Use.  Are you aware that whenever you use the website - you're already agreeing to additional contractual terms of use for the services in scope?  Screenshot below for reference.  Here's a link to the complete website terms of use:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok understand the above quote but also since we have to abide by the website shouldn't they give us one that works correctly.   I am so friggin' mad at constantly having to log in and this has been going on for some time.


----------



## WManning (Apr 21, 2022)

vv813 said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ok understand the above quote but also since we have to abide by the website shouldn't they give us one that works correctly.   I am so friggin' mad at constantly having to log in and this has been going on for some time.


Every Wyndham website upgrade has been a flop. Wyndham has done the same to Worldmarks also.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 21, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I am just tired of everyone saying that a timeshare company can change the rules any time they want, as though it's in the best interests of owners, when in fact it is in the best interest of Wyndham Corporate.


Most timeshare companies _can_ change the rules any time they want. It doesn't really matter who does/does not benefit from it. I also suspect most of us who say this believe that, at best, overall owner benefit is an afterthought. At best.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 21, 2022)

vv813 said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ok understand the above quote but also since we have to abide by the website shouldn't they give us one that works correctly.   I am so friggin' mad at constantly having to log in and this has been going on for some time.



Do you have a trouble ticket open with IT on your reported issue?  I've not had this issue firsthand - so it's not something I can repro.  Does this occur across multiple browsers/devices?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 21, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Most timeshare companies _can_ change the rules any time they want. It doesn't really matter who does/does not benefit from it. I also suspect most of us who say this believe that, at best, overall owner benefit is an afterthought. At best.


Yes, we are definitely at the mercy of those at the top.

Just think of the outrage if Marriott institutes these changes to owners in all of the systems they now manage.  Total outrage throughout the entire TUGBBS.  Because it's just Wyndham for now, a lot of folks aren't paying attention. 

It's just that these changes right now make Wyndham look pretty petty and creepy (to me).  If Marriott does it, we would have the same outrage toward the renters in those systems that we have here with Wyndham owners.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 21, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Yes, we are definitely at the mercy of those at the top.
> 
> Just think of the outrage if Marriott institutes these changes to owners in all of the systems they now manage.  Total outrage throughout the entire TUGBBS.  Because it's just Wyndham for now, a lot of folks aren't paying attention.
> 
> It's just that these changes right now make Wyndham look pretty petty and creepy (to me).  If Marriott does it, we would have the same outrage toward the renters in those systems that we have here with Wyndham owners.


Over the years, I have seen some animosity toward the bigger Marriott renters. Not the vitriol we see here with Wyndham, but I have seen some. I am sure if Marriott started to institute restrictions, we would see a lot more.


----------



## ronparise (Apr 23, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> The idol worship of Ron is just sad. Ron settled out of court because he knew he couldn’t win in court. If he had the facts and the law on his side, why didn’t he fight Wyndham? Yes, owners can rent, occasionally. They can’t run a commercial enterprise (a fact as spelled out in the documentation copied in post #97) as Ron was clearly doing. That is a fact. That is why he settled without a fight.


A couple of things:

I dont think there is anyone that idolizes me. 
"settled out of court"  implies that somebody sued somebody. . But there was no lawsuit. We came to an agreement
Folks settle all the time especially when its an individual dealing with a big corporation
I would argue that Wyndham did what they did  because they were concerned that they might lose

Wyndham's first offer was that "I was to sign everything back to them, and they wouldn't sue".  When I answered... "Bring it on"  and suggested everything was for sale, I never heard the mention of court again.  Not even foreclosure.  They came to me with a purchase offer.   I think they made me an offer, because they knew that they couldnt win in court.  basically, I called their bluff

If I had done something that had violated the rules, why, as soon as I was gone, did they change those rules?   instead of just enforcing them.


----------



## Rolltydr (Apr 23, 2022)

ronparise said:


> A couple of things:
> 
> I dont think there is anyone that idolizes me.
> "settled out of court"  implies that somebody sued somebody. . But there was no lawsuit. We came to an agreement
> ...


IMHO, your own post linked below says it all. You can say whatever you want to now, but in the moment, you admitted you were running a “hustle“, your word not mine. That, at the very least, suggests unethical behavior and you just didn’t care.

Edited to fix link.









						[ 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
				





Say whatever you want, I won’t be responding any further.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 23, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> you admitted you were running a “hustle“, your word not mine. That, at the very least, suggests unethical behavior and you just didn’t care.


A pretty common usage of the term "hustle" over the past 5-10 years is simply as a gig or money-making opportunity that is neither a salaried/payrolled job nor a full-fledged business. ("Lily is a teacher but she also has a side hustle selling frog figurines on Etsy.")  You can assume it suggests unethical behavior, but in doing so you'd be ignoring recent common parlance.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 23, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> A pretty common usage of the term "hustle" over the past 5-10 years is simply as a gig or money-making opportunity that is neither a salaried/payrolled job nor a full-fledged business. ("Lily is a teacher but she also has a side hustle selling frog figurines on Etsy.")  You can assume it suggests unethical behavior, but in doing so you'd be ignoring recent common parlance.


I agree with you.  

Ron had a side business of Wyndham rentals, just like we have had for 15 years.  Getting out for him is easier than it is for us.  That is the only reason I am jealous of Ron.  I am so jealous.  I want out, yet my email to the email address on the letter they sent got me nada.  Not even an answer back.  I am still waiting.  

Why are people so mean about Ron giving away contracts that were empty of points to people who knew what they were buying.  It makes no sense at all.


----------



## bnoble (Apr 23, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I want out, yet my email to the email address on the letter they sent got me nada. Not even an answer back. I am still waiting.


Have you called the Certified Exit folks?


----------



## ronparise (Apr 23, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Most Marriott resort CC&Rs and Exchange Company procedures have provisions against commercial use. Like Wyndham, they don't define it. They actually are worse than Wyndham. Per the screen shot earlier in this thread, Wyndham seems to define rentals as commercial use. For Marriott CC&Rs they have no definition at all, it could be defined as running a barber shop in your unit while on vacation. There are a few big renters on the Marriott side, but none I would call a mega renter. I think the biggest I know of has about 30 weeks. I would think the big ones in Wyndham rent much more than that.
> 
> I am not aware that Wyndham could stop someone from renting their home resort deeded week, it just so happens that not many of those really exist since most are just part of Club Wyndham, which is an exchange company bound by its terms.



I owned 14 deeded weeks at Avenue Plaza


troy12n said:


> There are a few things that will not change about the topic of mega renters, and people like Ron.
> 
> 1. Yes, despite what they lead on about, they know that what they did is, at best, unethical. At worst, fraudulent. There's no other way to skin that cat.
> 2. They will never admit as such... they will make excuses like "they let us", even though any analog to the real world such as the "malfunctioning ATM machine" that you keep exploiting "because it let you" would land you in jail for grand theft
> ...



1) What I did was not unethical or fraudulent. You saying that it is does not make it so, anymore than me saying its not, makes that the case.

Fraud is a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.  There was no deception here, I was pretty upfront about what I was doing and how I was doing it, with Tug and Wyndham

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: *ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions.* *Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong*. 
Call it what you will, but I broke no rules nor did I violate my own principles

2) I freely admit to what I did. I dont admit to doing anything wrong

3) And no question I chose to accept a deal that was less than I wanted, in order to live to see another day

4) And most importantly.  Yes I think we educated Wyndham on how we were using the system and as I have posted in the past Im pretty sure they changed the rules because of that. What I take from that is...Wyndham didnt like that we were making money with their product, but that they also knew we were not doing anything wrong. Of courseI know that to stop it, they had to get rid of us, and change the rules so it couldnt happen again


----------



## bnoble (Apr 23, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham didnt like that we were making money with their product, but that they also knew we were not doing anything wrong.


I'd amend this slightly. I think the Wyndham back-office/management layer was also surprised (and unhappy) that certain program features were being used in unintended ways and combinations. They might have been expected to have known about them--and certainly some Wyn employees on the front lines knew some or most of it---but I think they learned a _lot_ along the way of digging into the accounts of a few folks that were making money with their product. The "making money with the product" was definitely the impetus for the hard look, but not the (only) reason why rules changed.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Apr 23, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> ...... You can say whatever ....
> 
> .., but in the moment, you admitted you were running a “hustle“, .......



How to do the hustle // Dance - Youtube video -at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis - 2017

1) Does this look like Ron ?
Yes or No

2) Do the instructions - 4 steps back / 4 steps forward actually describe the Wyndham Dance Model ?
Yes or No

3) Does the guy in the video remind you of " your favorite" timeshare salesperson ?
Yes or No


----------



## ronparise (Apr 23, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> #6. And THIS is the most important one. Wyndham didn't mind that accounts were being stripped and sold and the new owner was responsible for paying the maintenance fees moving forward, until they were the new owners. You keep holding up Ron as an example, he was not the only one stripping accounts, he may have been the most transparent, but he was not the only one. There are reasons Wyndham settled with many with nondisclosures. Perhaps one of those reasons is they weren't sure if they'd win in court (we'll never know).





Rolltydr said:


> IMHO, your own post linked below says it all. You can say whatever you want to now, but in the moment, you admitted you were running a “hustle“, your word not mine. That, at the very least, suggests unethical behavior and you just didn’t care.
> 
> Edited to fix link.
> 
> ...



Yea, I called it a hustle. and I think that is what it was.  But all I mean by that is that its not a career, its not a job, and its not a business.  Certainly not that I did anything wrong.   Currently I drive my car for Uber and that's referred to as a "side hustle", Its not illegal. unethical or wrong in anyway.


----------



## WManning (Apr 23, 2022)

ronparise said:


> Yea, I called it a hustle. and I think that is what it was.  But all I mean by that is that its not a career, its not a job, and its not a business.  Certainly not that I did anything wrong.   Currently I drive my car for Uber and that's referred to as a "side hustle", Its not illegal. unethical or wrong in anyway.


I like these girls hustle better then Ron`s!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 23, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Have you called the Certified Exit folks?


It's tough to say what they will do vs. what they will refuse to do for a "mega renter."


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 23, 2022)

Rolltydr said:


> IMHO, your own post linked below says it all. You can say whatever you want to now, but in the moment, you admitted you were running a “hustle“, your word not mine. That, at the very least, suggests unethical behavior and you just didn’t care.
> 
> Edited to fix link.
> 
> ...


The term "side hustle" is quite common. That certainly doesn't indicate anything unethical.

_noun Slang.
a job or occupation that brings in extra money beyond one’s regular job and main source of income:_


----------



## CO skier (Apr 24, 2022)

ronparise said:


> 1) What I did was not unethical or fraudulent. You saying that it is does not make it so, anymore than me saying its not, makes that the case.



The same could be said about insider trading in the stock market, before laws (rules) were enacted in response to the abuse.



ronparise said:


> My story is well known here on TUG.  From 2010 -2016 I grew from 325000 points That I won on ebay with a $1 bid to over 30 million  I started with the goal of doing enough rentals each year so that the rental income would pay all my maintenance fees with enough points left over for a week or so for me..
> 
> That worked and I set a new goal to make $2000 a month profit.. That worked and I kept growing.
> 
> ...



Why would Wyndham close those loopholes if the behavior was "legal" and "above board" and "nothing wrong with it"?


----------



## CO skier (Apr 24, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> The term "side hustle" is quite common. That certainly doesn't indicate anything unethical.
> 
> _noun Slang.
> a job or occupation that brings in extra money beyond one’s regular job and main source of income:_


Also (from a Google search for" hustle definition"):

INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
a fraud or swindle.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 24, 2022)

Heading up to New York City on an RCI exchange next week.  As do many people, I thoroughly enjoy visiting the fraud, swindle, and bustle of that city.  Something seems odd about that, though; maybe I've misinterpreted the phrase somehow....


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 24, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Heading up to New York City on an RCI exchange next week.  As do many people, I thoroughly enjoy visiting the fraud, swindle, and bustle of that city.  Something seems odd about that, though; maybe I've misinterpreted the phrase somehow....


Where are you staying?  

I always feel kind of sorry for the people who own at Manhattan Club.  I can stay there so much cheaper than they stay in their own property.  That makes exchanges kind of a hustle, too.  I also think of that when I stay at any Disney property via exchange.  We are here now.  105,000 Wyndham points + exchange and $190 fee.  It's my best hustle.  My next best hustle is Maui Westins with my SBP and SDO weeks.  Two bedrooms for a one bedroom price + upgrade.  I didn't even pay big bucks for those upgrades, just a free timeshare + exchange fee and $59 upgrade fee.  

I feel like such a hustler.  You don't want to see this 67-year-old lady doing the hustle dance.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 24, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Where are you staying?
> 
> I always feel kind of sorry for the people who own at Manhattan Club.  I can stay there so much cheaper than they stay in their own property.  That makes exchanges kind of a hustle, too.  I also think of that when I stay at any Disney property via exchange.  We are here now.  105,000 Wyndham points + exchange and $190 fee.  It's my best hustle.  My next best hustle is Maui Westins with my SBP and SDO weeks.  Two bedrooms for a one bedroom price + upgrade.  I didn't even pay big bucks for those upgrades, just a free timeshare + exchange fee and $59 upgrade fee.
> 
> I feel like such a hustler.  You don't want to see this 67-year-old lady doing the hustle dance.



Well, my best "hustle" this year so far has been a week in a 2 BR residence at Ritz Carlton St Thomas in April that I was able to get by:

1. Exchange Plusing a couple of Colonies weeks into WorldMark, resulting in 16K WM Credits, 2 HKs, and 2 GCs for a cost lower than my 16K account's dues, then
2. Booking a week for 16K with WorldMark and depositing it in ThirdHome to get 9 keys, then
3. Booking the week I wanted in St Thomas for just 6 keys, making the week's all in cost ~$1,700 - not inexpensive, but someone else there the same week had rented their 2 BR week from an owner for $10,000.

I really don't feel like a hustler for doing my best to learn about how to efficiently use my timeshares and taking advantage of the systems that the developers of the resort systems and exchanges set up to meet their own needs.  For me, the bottom line is that the timeshare industry gets the majority of its income from taking advantage of the information inequality of the consumers - in particular the fact that most folks don't know how much less they can buy resale ownerships for as compared to retail.  TUG is a great resource for learning as much as I can about how timeshares can be used after having been a sucker the first time.

If we are going to call @ronparise a swindler or fraud for figuring out that there were some very poor decisions being made by Wyndham in the way they set up their operations that would result in his being able to make some income by renting bookings that cost him little to nothing, then we should call everyone that reads TUG a swindler or fraud because we're all doing it to find out how to best use our ownerships (except for the developer reps that read it to figure out how they hosed up their systems).  Any other interpretation is probably hypocritical.

I don't idolize Ron, but I do respect him for being open and honest about what he was doing.  I also don't think it's a great surprise to learn that Wyndham was motivated to make the changes they made given that the behaviors they were getting (lots of rentals competing with Extra Holidays) from the incentive system they set up (VIP benefits & credit pool) were not the behaviors they wanted (more sales and rental profits for themselves).

One thing I am looking forward to in the fairly near future is the formal roll out of the Marriott/Vistana combination rules - added complexity and another exchange system will create more opportunities to "hustle" a bit and improve the efficiency of my usage.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 24, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Well, my best "hustle" this year so far has been a week in a 2 BR residence at Ritz Carlton St Thomas in April that I was able to get by:
> 
> 1. Exchange Plusing a couple of Colonies weeks into WorldMark, resulting in 16K WM Credits, 2 HKs, and 2 GCs for a cost lower than my 16K account's dues, then
> 2. Booking a week for 16K with WorldMark and depositing it in ThirdHome to get 9 keys, then
> ...



I agree with this.  

A new CEO can change everything with Wyndham.  Could get worse or better.  Who knows?  

Marriott/ Vistana changes are something I am watching closely.  We did just buy mandatory where we want to stay.  Passed ROFR.  Pretty excited.


----------



## comicbookman (Apr 24, 2022)

CO skier said:


> The same could be said about insider trading in the stock market, before laws (rules) were enacted in response to the abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Wyndham close those loopholes if the behavior was "legal" and "above board" and "nothing wrong with it"?


Using your insider trading analogy, because they did not want it to continue  in order to stop it they had to CHANGE THE RULES.  Until the laws preventing it, insider trading was not illegal.  Same here.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Apr 24, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> A new CEO can change everything with Wyndham.  Could get worse or better.  Who knows?
> 
> Marriott/ Vistana changes are something I am watching closely.  We did just buy mandatory where we want to stay.  Passed ROFR.  Pretty excited.



Cindy, where did you just just buy mandatory at?


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 24, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Why would Wyndham close those loopholes if the behavior was "legal" and "above board" and "nothing wrong with it"?


Seems that they changed the rules because they didn't like it, it cost them money, or something else. It wasn't "illegal" until it was written into the rules.


----------



## Sandy VDH (Apr 24, 2022)

Eric B said:


> 1. Exchange Plusing a couple of Colonies weeks into WorldMark, resulting in 16K WM Credits, 2 HKs, and 2 GCs for a cost lower than my 16K account's dues, then



Can you explain what this entails.  In HICV I can take RCI deposits and turn them into HICV points.  So I am curious as to what you did to get other weeks into WM Credits.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 24, 2022)

Sandy VDH said:


> Can you explain what this entails.  In HICV I can take RCI deposits and turn them into HICV points.  So I am curious as to what you did to get other weeks into WM Credits.



In WorldMark, you can convert up to 4 weeks per calendar year into credits, HKs and GCs.  A 2 BR red week gets you 8,000 credits and each week gets you one HK and one GC.  It costs $129 to do this.  Any week that can be deposited into RCI or II can be used.  There are two different forms that were available on the old website, but I can't find them on the new website (what a joy that is).

For me, depositing both sides of a 4 BR week at The Colonies was worth the 16K, 2 HKs, and 2 GCs for a cost of the MF ($879 last time I did it) and $258 = $1,137 as compared to annual dues of $1,433.25 for 16K, 1 HK, and 2 GCs.  Winds up being an efficient way to generate WM credits and that was a decent II trader.  I wound up selling my week there as I've got too many other weeks, but may pick up another one in the future as things evolve.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 24, 2022)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Cindy, where did you just just buy mandatory at?


We bought WKORV-Oceanfront Center, 2 bed l/o X 2.  The perfect weeks were already reserved for next year.  We bought through Syed Sarmad at advantagevacation.com  Passed ROFR within 48 hours after our offer was accepted.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 24, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Where are you staying?
> 
> I always feel kind of sorry for the people who own at Manhattan Club.  I can stay there so much cheaper than they stay in their own property.  That makes exchanges kind of a hustle, too.  I also think of that when I stay at any Disney property via exchange.  We are here now.  105,000 Wyndham points + exchange and $190 fee.  It's my best hustle.  My next best hustle is Maui Westins with my SBP and SDO weeks.  Two bedrooms for a one bedroom price + upgrade.  I didn't even pay big bucks for those upgrades, just a free timeshare + exchange fee and $59 upgrade fee.
> 
> I feel like such a hustler.  You don't want to see this 67-year-old lady doing the hustle dance.



Sorry, just realized I didn’t answer the first question — we’re at the Hilton Club this time.  Picked up a resale W 57th for future trips, we tried the Residences & the Quin as well but couldn’t find a resale for a decent price at those.

Haven’t tried Midtown 45 yet, but the Hilton locations are a bit nicer.


----------



## WManning (Apr 24, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Sorry, just realized I didn’t answer the first question — we’re at the Hilton Club this time.  Picked up a resale W 57th for future trips, we tried the Residences & the Quin as well but couldn’t find a resale for a decent price at those.
> 
> Haven’t tried Midtown 45 yet, but the Hilton locations are a bit nicer.


Midtown very good location, staff very helpful but sales can be very aggressive. Short walk to Central park.


----------



## Eric B (Apr 24, 2022)

WManning said:


> Midtown very good location, staff very helpful but sales can be very aggressive. Short walk to Central park.



Giving it a try later this year, with an open mind.


----------



## LAYGO (Apr 24, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Likely because IT simply added a date qualifier to the code that is running to effect this change - such that any reservations made prior to 4/14/2022 won't be cancelled automatically after 48 hours with the new process.  That's what I would do if I were going to update the code in question.  Simple to do - and it doesn't change the core logic at all - it simply adds an if/then "don't run on any objects dated older than 4/14/2022" statement.


Sounds like they're doing some wild west coding on production vs running the code again prod data in a stage environment to understand the impact.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Apr 25, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> We bought WKORV-Oceanfront Center, 2 bed l/o X 2.  The perfect weeks were already reserved for next year.  We bought through Syed Sarmad at advantagevacation.com  Passed ROFR within 48 hours after our offer was accepted.


Cindy,

Congrats, that is so awesome...To know you will have oceanfront center every trip is so worth it


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 25, 2022)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Cindy,
> 
> Congrats, that is so awesome...To know you will have oceanfront center every trip is so worth it


Amazingly, the fees are not much more than the fees on the Hono Koa oceanfront weeks that we own.  Those fees are running about $2,350 per year in a 2 bedroom unit that is not a lockoff and not fancy, just a great view.  Soleil Management is not doing a good job for owners, and owners are walking away. That is my guess as to why fees have skyrocketed each year.  

I plan to rent the studio side each year on both units.  The net amount will cover most of our fees on the entire lockoff.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 25, 2022)

I don’t follow Wyndham, or really understand everything that’s being discussed in this thread.

It’s just so curious to me that many timeshare companies began with terms of use that were friendly to the owner and were/are used as sales tactics (for example, the ability to rent).  Then later on, when the timeshare company decides to change the paradigm in an owner unfriendly way, *so* many owners defend/accept the change.  “Works for me.”  Or “They always told us they could change the rules.”

Yes “works for me” leads to them continuing to make owner-unfriendly changes *because the owners obviously don’t care* until one day they make the change that’s the dealbreaker for you and then you just give them back the thing you purchased and feel lucky to be done with it.

Or “they always told us they could change the rules” BUT they implied they wouldn’t, the rules are explained to owners and all the beneficial aspects of ownership are sold, hard.  If the sales pitch included the truth- these are the rules but we’re going to change them in 5 years and charge you whatever we want for GC (for example), more people will think twice before purchasing, so of course we could never be transparent.  We are hard selling you a crappy deal from the consumers point of view, and need to keep that on the down low.  Of course the standard TUG answer is that they’re selling you future vacation time at your home resort which is true.  But that is not what they pitch to buyers- they pitch all these flexible uses- renting, exchanging, GCs, flextime, owner discounts, converting to hotel points, etc- in order to induce folks to buy.  And in the end, that flexibility is what people truly *are* buying in their minds and what they are being *sold* in the sales pitch.  So restrictions on useage flexibility is not trivial, no matter what the signed contract states.

Anyway, this is just a general commentary on the curious consumer behavior.  Timeshares are a questionable product that most of us here find ways to exploit into value.  But why there’s so much defense of the timeshare companies is beyond me. And people continue to buy into a degraded product.  So strange.

I’m not ready to get out of timeshares entirely- I have found a way to use them to travel less expensively than other ways I could travel.  But still I find a lot of the behavior of timeshare companies troubling even when it doesn’t impact me directly (because they are all learning from each other).

Also- I’m not advocating tilting at windmills.  Maybe some of the acceptance I see with the negative changes for owners is just a lack of willingness to put much energy into a pointless endeavor like affecting change in a timeshare system.  I can see not bothering with calling or emailing or writing or trying to organize a class action lawsuit.  But just accepting the changes here in conversation on a user site is curious to me- why folks are passive about changes that are against their own interests.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 25, 2022)

heathpack said:


> Or “they always told us they could change the rules” BUT they implied they wouldn’t, the rules are explained to owners and all the beneficial aspects of ownership are sold, hard.


Counterpoint: for those of us who purchased resale, they never implied anything, and we were not sold hard. I've never attended a Wyndham sales meeting. Everything I knew prior to purchase was from user forums (RIP Atozed) and reading the information in Wyndham's directory. I've seen Wyndham change the rules starting in my earliest days as an owner (the move to the current RCI portal and an early change to VIP levels occurred soon after I purchased), so when I say "they always told us they could change the rules" it's true, and my expectation has always been that if it reaches a point where timeshare ownership is no longer working for me (whether because my needs change or the rules change to a point I can't make it work for me), I'm out. Fortunately, resale ownership makes that decision easy, if and when the time comes.



heathpack said:


> I can see not bothering with calling or emailing or writing or trying to organize a class action lawsuit. But just accepting the changes here in conversation on a user site is curious to me- why folks are passive about changes that are against their own interests.



When I find a policy change particularly upsetting, I do actually write. I like a paper letter, since people so rarely take that step and it does get some attention. (I believe the last time I did that with Wyndham was when they replaced the points credit pool with the points deposit feature.) I don't harbor any illusions that a letter is going to change Wyndham's mind; however, I do consider it a more productive response than whatever I say here in conversation here on a user site. What is any contribution I make to the conversation going to do about a written Wyndham policy change? The things Wyndham does that get me most heated here on the forum is when the website/system is not even supporting what the written policy says, because that's a problem that should be fixed. (An example is when Wyndham changed the way resale points were treated for VIP owners, an unintended consequence led to the system shorting some non-VIPs a housekeeping credit - not following Wyndham's written policy on housekeeping calculation for non-VIP owners.) I feel like the most productive discussions here are the ones that troubleshoot problems such as this, and disseminating information about the way the program works in practice (including the fact that Wyndham can change the rules at any time) to help prospective, new, or uninformed owners understand how Wyndham actually works and not just what a salesperson says it does.

It's also worth noting that the "updated policy" that prompted this thread (though I know we've been through some other topics over the course of 9 pages) isn't really an updated policy at all - it's been in place since 2017 - but an update to the system that abruptly started enforcing it without notice, where previously the system had let things slide.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 25, 2022)

@paxsarah yes I agree that most (many?) of us never bought direct, although most of us have been pitched at sales presentations.  My point is that the owner “extras” are intentionally there to make ownership in the timeshare system sufficiently attractive to new owners.  For most (many?) of owners, it’s the “extras” that make timeshare ownership even worth considering.  For me personally, for example, I own a timeshare at Hyatt Highlands in in Carmel CA in a unit and week I like to use.  That’s my fallback position (using what I own)- but without the ability to exchange it internally in Hyatt, or externally in II or as a private exchange, or to rent it, or let a friend use it- no way would I own, whether direct or resale.  Because I’m not really interested in visiting Carmel CA every vacation every year.  This is true for most people, which is why timeshare companies added all of these other options.  It’s why there are exchange companies, and points overlays, and points systems.  Without the extras, most people pass on the concept, it just too limiting.  (Again, however, I’m not familiar enough with Wyndham to speak intelligently as to what the key selling points are purported to be, I’m just talking in general).

So- regardless of whether you bought from the developer or not, most (many?) of us are buying what the developer is selling in those sales pitches.  

I agree that the ultimate vote is with your feet- when it stops working for you, sell and move on.  I like the concept of writing a letter and in my business, I prefer a well thought out letter of complaint. My biggest point is that owners don’t care when the extras are removed until the extra they value is removed.  And then they walk, and often lose whatever they’ve put into the system and we all act like that’s normal/ok.  It’s a strangely passive consumer behavior.


----------



## Sandy VDH (Apr 25, 2022)

Eric B said:


> There are two different forms that were available on the old website, but I can't find them on the new website (what a joy that is).



Are there restrictions on what type of unit can be converted?  Like with HICV, they can't be in RCI Points. 

Do you know what a 1 BR Red gets for WM Credits?  

If you find the forms can you share?


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 25, 2022)

heathpack said:


> I agree that the ultimate vote is with your feet- when it stops working for you, sell and move on. I like the concept of writing a letter and in my business, I prefer a well thought out letter of complaint. My biggest point is that owners don’t care when the extras are removed until the extra they value is removed. And then they walk, and often lose whatever they’ve put into the system and we all act like that’s normal/ok. It’s a strangely passive consumer behavior.


I guess the point I find is really not normal or ok is the point of retail purchase. (At least with Wyndham, which is the extent of my timeshare experience.) That's the point where the damage is done, and is the reason why I'll advise a new owner rescind if they're still within their window, whether or not they've asked if they should (I used to be polite and only advise it if it was part of the question). (And while there are many owners here who got into Wyndham VIP through retail purchases under more favorable terms in the past, I'm not sure anyone here would advise any new owner to seek VIP status under the current, non-grandfathered terms.) I can certainly sympathize with the frustration that owners who spent five or six figures on their ownership feel when policies change, but it should not be all that surprising that Wyndham has made these changes over time. I personally will be able to get around the issue of "losing whatever I've put into the system" by not having put much into the system, and I know the stakes are different for those who put in a lot. But maybe I'm a cynic and don't see the strangely passive part being the part where we understand who makes the rules and that we're not going to get the company to roll back a recent policy change, but instead we're going to have to learn how best to work with it (or get out if we're not going to be able to work with it).


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 25, 2022)

heathpack said:


> I don’t follow Wyndham, or really understand everything that’s being discussed in this thread.
> 
> It’s just so curious to me that many timeshare companies began with terms of use that were friendly to the owner and were/are used as sales tactics (for example, the ability to rent).  Then later on, when the timeshare company decides to change the paradigm in an owner unfriendly way, *so* many owners defend/accept the change.  “Works for me.”  Or “They always told us they could change the rules.”



AFAIK the Terms of Use never allowed for commercial use - at least not since 2012 best estimate (and many owners have said they have commercial use restrictions on contracts prior to 2012).  That's the crux of much of the recent debate on this particular thread.  If you or anyone else can show us where commercial use was explicitly permitted in the Terms of Use and/or contracts or founding documents, please do.  I've never seen it - so at most it's been a perk of ownership.  Perks are essentially loopholes subject to closure over time - and Wyndham has closed most of the loopholes used in the past by owners to engage in commercial business practices with their timeshare ownerships.



> Yes “works for me” leads to them continuing to make owner-unfriendly changes *because the owners obviously don’t care* until one day they make the change that’s the dealbreaker for you and then you just give them back the thing you purchased and feel lucky to be done with it.



The blackout periods are currently the biggest limitation put in place that directly impact all owners.  Legacy VIP owners aren't really impacted by any of the newer changes because all such VIPs have been grandfathered - including myself and I've only been a Wyndham VIP owner since mid-2018.  Overall - the common thread is that Wyndham (and many other timeshare entities) are whittling away at the value of their VIP type program benefits.  I think the volume of complaints in the FB groups proves that most owners aren't being quiet about their dissatisfaction with either Wyndham or some of the changes being made.  Social media is chock full of unhappy owners by and large.



> Or “they always told us they could change the rules” BUT they implied they wouldn’t, the rules are explained to owners and all the beneficial aspects of ownership are sold, hard.  If the sales pitch included the truth- these are the rules but we’re going to change them in 5 years and charge you whatever we want for GC (for example), more people will think twice before purchasing, so of course we could never be transparent.  We are hard selling you a crappy deal from the consumers point of view, and need to keep that on the down low.  Of course the standard TUG answer is that they’re selling you future vacation time at your home resort which is true.  But that is not what they pitch to buyers- they pitch all these flexible uses- renting, exchanging, GCs, flextime, owner discounts, converting to hotel points, etc- in order to induce folks to buy.  And in the end, that flexibility is what people truly *are* buying in their minds and what they are being *sold* in the sales pitch.  So restrictions on useage flexibility is not trivial, no matter what the signed contract states.
> 
> Anyway, this is just a general commentary on the curious consumer behavior.  Timeshares are a questionable product that most of us here find ways to exploit into value.  But why there’s so much defense of the timeshare companies is beyond me. And people continue to buy into a degraded product.  So strange.



I don't see much defense of the timeshare entities per my commentary above on the social media forums.  That said - a legal contract is just that.  If anyone signs a legally binding document and agrees to the Terms of Use and conditions outlined in that legal document - then regardless of what anyone says - that's what truly matters.  There was a recent case against Wyndham whereby a bunch of accusations, similar to those routinely made here on TUG and on other social media forums, were made that in the final analysis could not be substantiated (such as sales said this, sales said that, we're allowed to use our points however we want, etc.) and Wyndham won because those accusations were never proven in a court of law.  Just one anecdotal example - but it's worth pointing out here.



> I’m not ready to get out of timeshares entirely- I have found a way to use them to travel less expensively than other ways I could travel.  But still I find a lot of the behavior of timeshare companies troubling even when it doesn’t impact me directly (because they are all learning from each other).
> 
> Also- I’m not advocating tilting at windmills.  Maybe some of the acceptance I see with the negative changes for owners is just a lack of willingness to put much energy into a pointless endeavor like affecting change in a timeshare system.  I can see not bothering with calling or emailing or writing or trying to organize a class action lawsuit.  But just accepting the changes here in conversation on a user site is curious to me- why folks are passive about changes that are against their own interests.



Personally I think the entire concept of timeshare ownership will change significantly over the next 10-30 years.  I agree the behavior of many of the timeshare companies is troubling - and I think we're going to enter into an era whereby much more emphasis will be placed upon the greater good (as opposed to individual rights) and if/when that happens I think these timeshare companies will undergo sea changes and many of the questionable tactics that are used to sell timeshare products will no longer be tolerable or possibly even legally permissible.  

For my part - I continue to engage directly with Wyndham and certainly have never adopted a passive attitude about something I've chosen to own.  I believe we don't have to resort to legal remedies as the only path toward promoting changes.  Sometimes that becomes necessary in the final analysis- meanwhile I will continue to build relationships with Wyndham executives and other internal contacts and attempt to change the system from the inside out - based in no small part on the feedback generated from TUG and other Wyndham timeshare social media groups.


----------



## troy12n (Apr 25, 2022)

RE: "changing the rules"... man some of you are really digging deep. This is about the most "fake news" claim being perpetuated by mega renters, mega renter sympathizers and mega renter apologists. 

Commercial use is and always has been against the rules, and I applaud Wyndham for cracking down on this to return the ability for owners to use their timeshares instead of competing with people operating a business out of their basement instead of having a real job.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 25, 2022)

Timeshare has such a bad name.  Just watch the Timeshare Exit company commercials.  "Stuck with it," "Isn't what they said it would be," "fees go up annually," etc.  There is a large percentage of people who believe that timeshares are a waste of money because of the commercials and because they know "someone" who "bought something" and don't ever use it.  The Facebook page for TUG is filled with people who want advice because they were lied to or they never use what they bought.  

For a big timeshare company to suddenly tell owners they cannot use what they bought the way they always did before, well that is not helping their product and their company, nor does it help timeshare as a product in general.  

People in this thread are very defensive of the big Wyndham corporation.  Wait until Wyndham takes something away that YOU enjoyed.  

I am sure owners in other timeshare systems are watching this trend and wondering when it will carry over to them.


----------



## Cyrus24 (Apr 27, 2022)

troy12n said:


> Commercial use is and always has been against the rules,


I'm sure you know this and could put your finger right on it for posting.  How has Wyndham defined Commercial Use?  Please post the Wyndham definition.  Not a megarenter but I have rented.  Not rented enough to have ever purchased a GC.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 27, 2022)

Cyrus24 said:


> I'm sure you know this and could put your finger right on it for posting.  How has Wyndham defined Commercial Use?  Please post the Wyndham definition.  Not a megarenter but I have rented.  Not rented enough to have ever purchased a GC.



Go back to post 97. Also read some of the posts that quoted it.

It's time for some owners to wake up and see that there's more coming. No I don't know what's coming but I'm absolutely convinced that there is. More so that I/we won't like it because I have some guesses about what that more will likely be.

I started warning people after the owners meeting in Austin in November, 2019 that Wyndham would be doing something to separate developer and resale points within a few years. Almost all of you either didn't believe it or just paid no attention. I fully expect the same thing to happen this time.

And once again we'll see wailing and gnashing of teeth when it does happen. Crying that it's not what you were told, isn't fair or Wyndham can't do that won't get you anywhere. And from what I've seen in their posts it just makes some people blame you for whatever Wyndham does.

A smart person would be making a plan.

For all the good it did me I had a plan in preparation of the separation points I was sure was coming but thought we had more time. I've pointed the finger of blame for the escalated timeframe for that on the megarenter with 65M points/4 accounts and 40 reservations at Glacier Canyon over Thanksgiving of 2020.


----------



## Cyrus24 (Apr 27, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FUZZY definition, at best.  Kind of like fake news being in the eye of some loser sitting in the parents basement making true/false decisions.  Anxious to see Wyndham implement this consistently.  To my knowledge, that has not been done.  Until the renters facebook page is shutdown, commercial renting (by definition) is being allowed.  Agree, Jan M, more is coming.


----------



## Ty1on (Apr 27, 2022)

Cyrus24 said:


> FUZZY definition, at best.  Kind of like fake news being in the eye of some loser sitting in the parents basement making true/false decisions.  Anxious to see Wyndham implement this consistently.  To my knowledge, that has not been done.  Until the renters facebook page is shutdown, commercial renting (by definition) is being allowed.  Agree, Jan M, more is coming.


Doesn't seem too fuzzy to me, at least the definition isn't fuzzy.  Their treatment of commercial use has certainly been inconsistent and fuzzy over time.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 27, 2022)

Ty1on said:


> Doesn't seem too fuzzy to me, at least the definition isn't fuzzy.  Their treatment of commercial use has certainly been inconsistent and fuzzy over time.



It's definitely the most specific definition I've seen to date, and the most restrictive. We've gone from the time when Wyndham first started sending commercial use letters and it seemed undefined, but also seemed obvious that it involved large volume, to this definition, which apparently states that if I suddenly couldn't travel within 15 days and hadn't bought points protection, by posting looking for a renter on FB to recoup my MF costs that would be commercial use.

As one of the "Wyndham makes the rules and can change them at any time" people, I guess at least they defined it? But unless you happen to rent by word of mouth at the PTA meeting, apparently any use of FB or TUG to find a renter can get you dinged for commercial use if Wyndham decides to pursue it. So be ready, indeed.


----------



## Ty1on (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It's definitely the most specific definition I've seen to date, and the most restrictive. We've gone from the time when Wyndham first started sending commercial use letters and it seemed undefined, but also seemed obvious that it involved large volume, to this definition, which apparently states that if I suddenly couldn't travel within 15 days and hadn't bought points protection, by posting looking for a renter on FB to recoup my MF costs that would be commercial use.
> 
> As one of the "Wyndham makes the rules and can change them at any time" people, I guess at least they defined it? But unless you happen to rent by word of mouth at the PTA meeting, apparently any use of FB or TUG to find a renter can get you dinged for commercial use if Wyndham decides to pursue it. So be ready, indeed.



All that said, I have a suspicion that Wyndham is still really only interested in the volume renters, not the one-off, "Oh dear, I can't use these points this year, maybe I can rent them" type.  I think reactions to anti-mega-renter actions they've taken have prompted them to understand that they need a concrete written policy.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 27, 2022)

Certainly any definition is going to be open to interpretation. Is five rentals a commercial enterprise, or is just one enough? A "permitted user" looks to just be the owner of their family. Can your extended family or friends use your unit on a GC?


----------



## Cyrus24 (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It's definitely the most specific definition I've seen to date, and the most restrictive. We've gone from the time when Wyndham first started sending commercial use letters and it seemed undefined, but also seemed obvious that it involved large volume, to this definition, which apparently states that if I suddenly couldn't travel within 15 days and hadn't bought points protection, by posting looking for a renter on FB to recoup my MF costs that would be commercial use.
> 
> As one of the "Wyndham makes the rules and can change them at any time" people, I guess at least they defined it? But unless you happen to rent by word of mouth at the PTA meeting, apparently any use of FB or TUG to find a renter can get you dinged for commercial use if Wyndham decides to pursue it. So be ready, indeed.


I had a lot of points to use in 2021 due to COVID and I did rent (at cost).  Since then, 
- I've whittled the balance down,
- I've added my adult kids to the account so as not to use GC's,
- I've unloaded the one and only resale contract I had.
I'm prepared.  But that's me.  Wyndham has a very bad habit of making rules and then not following them.  At some point, it will become obvious that Wyndham is broadly enforcing the ''rule they've set forth, or renting will come right back.  My bet is on the rule not being widely enforced.  I'm on the fence regarding the 'rules'.  I'm prepared but I do feel that owners should be allowed to use points as they see fit.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Certainly any definition is going to be open to interpretation. Is five rentals a commercial enterprise, or is just one enough? A "permitted user" looks to just be the owner of their family. Can your extended family or friends use your unit on a GC?



Straight from the membership directory:





Regarding anyone who attempts to argue that this statement is too vague - straight from a court ruling regarding this assertion.  The judge in the Sirmon v. Wyndham lawsuit thought the membership directory had plenty of "oomph."

"Plaintiffs initially argue that *the disclaimer should be discredited because it is inconspicuously buried within the membership directories*. The disclaimer was perhaps not as openly visible as written statements that other courts have found sufficiently clear to trigger the statute of limitations. ... However, while the disclaimer in the membership directories was arguably more discrete than written statements discussed in other cases, *the Court is unconvinced that this fact alone renders it invalid*."


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 27, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Certainly any definition is going to be open to interpretation. Is five rentals a commercial enterprise, or is just one enough? A "permitted user" looks to just be the owner of their family. Can your extended family or friends use your unit on a GC?


I think there are two things at play in the definition posted above. The first is "permitted users," a new (to me) term that applies only to points protection. It actually seems that the inclusion and definition of commercial use is redundant/unnecessary in the points protection terms, because it already states that points protection is only available when the reservation is an owner or permitted user.

Then there's the definition of commercial use, which while redundant where it appears in the terms for points protection, is also mentioned (though not defined) in the directory. According to the directory, ownership is not to be used for commercial purposes.

But there's a whole middle area that's not restricted. There should be no issue sending your friends or extended family or your neighbor or whoever on a GC as long as it doesn't meet the commercial use definition. You apparently can't use points protection on those reservations, though. And if you find them online, that sounds like it falls under their definition of commercial use.


----------



## Cyrus24 (Apr 27, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> *the disclaimer should be discredited because it is inconspicuously buried within the membership directories........the Court is unconvinced that this fact alone renders it invalid*."


Given the argument that this was because the paragraph was buried, I'd remain unconvinced, as well.  Lousy attorney to use the argument they used.  They should have used the lack of definition in regard to 'commercial renting' or an argument related to lack of consistency on the part of Wyndham.  Both arguments may have failed, but, the argument the plaintiff used was destined for failure.

I'm not an attorney, I just have an opinion based on the belief that I have just a little bit of common sense.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I think there are two things at play in the definition posted above. The first is "permitted users," a new (to me) term that applies only to points protection. It actually seems that the inclusion and definition of commercial use is redundant/unnecessary in the points protection terms, because it already states that points protection is only available when the reservation is an owner or permitted user.



The term Permitted Users does not only apply to Points Protection - it's a contractually defined legal term by Wyndham that is used repeatedly in the founding trust documents and contracts.  Embedded in the Terms of Use is reference to the applicable founding trust documents that contain the legal definitions of various terms like this.  Here's the definition of Permitted Users straight from the CWA Public Offering Statement for ease of reference (since I'm a CWA developer owner I was provided electronic copies of the founding trust documentation):





Any word or phrase used whereby the first letters are capitalized is also defined in the public offering statement as well.  It's all there for anyone who has interest in such things.  I am happy to create a new post and provide screenshots of the complete glossary of terms if it would be useful to have this as a point of reference - we can make it a sticky thread if need be.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 27, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Here's the definition of Permitted Users straight from the CWA Public Offering Statement for ease of reference


Well, then that's _very_ interesting because the definitions are significantly different.

I also don't understand how the CWA public offering statement applies to non-CWA owners. Is there a similar document that applies to select ownerships? The only thing I have as a resale owner to refer back to are my deeds and the Fairshare Trust documents, and it's not defined in the Fairshare Trust agreement.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Well, then that's _very_ interesting because the definitions are significantly different.
> 
> I also don't understand how the CWA public offering statement applies to non-CWA owners. Is there a similar document that applies to select ownerships? The only thing I have as a resale owner to refer back to are my deeds and the Fairshare Trust documents, and it's not defined in the Fairshare Trust agreement.



There's a similar set of documents released to CWS developer purchases - I just don't have access to that version since I've only purchased CWA developer points.  To the best of my current understanding, there's a Club Declaration for all ownership types that is common.  Below are the excerpts from my CWA contract:


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 27, 2022)

It still doesn't answer why the definitions for Permitted User from the CWA documents and in the terms for points protection comprise different groups of people.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It still doesn't answer why the definitions for Permitted User from the CWA documents and in the terms for points protection comprise different groups of people.



Sure it does - that's why I provided the Definitions screenshot - which clearly states "or unless the context otherwise requires" which means specific to the Points Protection verbiage - the definition  of "Permitted Users" has been tailored specific to that subsection - and the Definitions founding trust document allows for this type of variation.  This is commonly used contractual verbiage in my experience.  I've dealt with contract reviews as part of my job for many years now - so I suppose I'm making certain assumptions in my posts that may not be obvious to others in this respect.  My apologies if this is the case.


----------



## paxsarah (Apr 27, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Sure it does - that's why I provided the Definitions screenshot - which clearly states "or unless the context otherwise requires" which means specific to the Points Protection verbiage - the definition  of "Permitted Users" has been tailored specific to that subsection - and the Definitions founding trust document allows for this type of variation.  This is commonly used contractual verbiage in my experience.  I've dealt with contract reviews as part of my job for many years now - so I suppose I'm making certain assumptions in my posts that may not be obvious to others in this respect.  My apologies if this is the case.


It doesn't explain to me why they'd use the term "Permitted users" at all in the definition they use for points protection since it is so different from the definition in the CWA documents. Why not simply say "immediate family" (or better yet, "immediate relative" which is defined in multiple locations in the directory) since it appears that's what is meant for points protection? Whereas the CWA definition appears to me to be in practice synonymous with "owner," but considering situations where an account is owned by a trust or LLC, for example, and the individuals with access to the account in those situations would be "Permitted Users" (with rights to use the points within the account to include booking online or by the phone, etc., just as a direct owner would). So I still don't understand why Wyndham would designate a completely different group of people -- any immediate family member of an owner -- as "Permitted users" in the context of points protection. Was the person writing these terms trying to paraphrase the CWA definition of "Permitted users" and did so incorrectly? Or did they intend to include family members who are not permitted users under the CWA definition (in which case, again, why use the term at all)?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It doesn't explain to me why they'd use the term "Permitted users" at all in the definition they use for points protection since it is so different from the definition in the CWA documents. Why not simply say "immediate family" (or better yet, "immediate relative" which is defined in multiple locations in the directory) since it appears that's what is meant for points protection? Whereas the CWA definition appears to me to be in practice synonymous with "owner," but considering situations where an account is owned by a trust or LLC, for example, and the individuals with access to the account in those situations would be "Permitted Users" (with rights to use the points within the account to include booking online or by the phone, etc., just as a direct owner would). So I still don't understand why Wyndham would designate a completely different group of people -- any immediate family member of an owner -- as "Permitted users" in the context of points protection. Was the person writing these terms trying to paraphrase the CWA definition of "Permitted users" and did so incorrectly? Or did they intend to include family members who are not permitted users under the CWA definition (in which case, again, why use the term at all)?



It’s not really any different - the definition provided in the founding trust documents essentially equates to contractual owners as Permitted Users.  The variance for the Points Protection broadens this a bit is all.  

In my experience its contractual best practice to use the predefined terms stemming from the master agreement, and to then alter the contextual terms in the subsection according to the Definitions section provided in the master agreement. These types of terms should always tie back to the definitions provided in the master agreement. This is how contracts work in my experience. 

This best practice gives Wyndham the ability to easily eliminate the custom context currently defined as “immediate family” at any point in time, and to return to the definition as defined in the master agreement - without having to undergo another legal review process. If this occurred - it would default back to only the contractual owners. Not saying this is going to occur - just providing an example. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Apr 27, 2022)

Ty1on said:


> Doesn't seem too fuzzy to me, at least the definition isn't fuzzy. Their treatment of commercial use has certainly been inconsistent and fuzzy over time.



Honestly the more I process the whole curbing of owner based rental activity focus on Wyndham’s part - the more it feels to me that Wyndham was happy to allow for a subset of owner commercial use for a long time - until something better came along to displace this behavior. Wyndham has likely found something better. It’s likely a combination of corporate rentals (direct by Wyndham) and something that in my view remains to be seen (collecting and retaining resale inventory for another purpose). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## troy12n (Apr 28, 2022)

Can't believe a handful of people on here... the same handful of Mega Renter Sympathizers® are still trying to argue the pro side of the commercial use issue.

One word that comes to mind is *obtuse*... it really is at this point. 

If anyone wants to know who to blame for deprecation of "rights", this is the crowd


----------



## heathpack (Apr 28, 2022)

troy12n said:


> One word that comes to mind is *obtuse*... it really is at this point.



You really have a very sophisticated manner of making a point!  It’s clear to me now, there’s simply no room for a difference of perspective.  The other guy is simply…. Wrong!  Well argued.


----------



## ronparise (Apr 29, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Straight from the membership directory:
> 
> View attachment 53163
> 
> ...



if this was as clear cut as you seem to think and if Wyndhan wanted to enforce it, they would have    They didnt

What you posted still doesn't define the term "commercial purposes" and while this court wouldnt find that this fact (the disclaimer is inconspicuously buried in the membership directory),  renders it invalid. The court left open the possibility that other facts might

The case you cited was an owner vs Wyndham. I think most if not all of the relevant cases have been owners suing Wyndham, because of something Wyndham has done,, not wyndham suing owners.  And I think there is a reason for that

I was caught in the web August 2016 suspensions. (which had nothing to do with renting), In our first conversation. The Wyndham attorney asked me if I knew why they suspended my account. I responded..... "Dont you know?  Shouldnt that be my question for you?"  I then told him I wouldnt be playing any games, and answered his questions. *The reason they did what they did was because I had more points in reservations and in the accounts than my ownership would seem to support. * He told me I was correct and asked how that was possible..... So I told him. I was at a disadvantage because my points manager managed my accounts. but I told him that I used the Credit Pool,  to strip the points.  My points manager made the reservations,  rented them and then I sold the underlying contracts.  I also told him that their system was faulty and I had heard that it was possible to cancel reservations and get the points back, but the next day the reservation would reappear. I didnt know whether that had happened in my accounts (my points manager denied it) but I was happy to come to Orlando to work it out.  So I went to Orlando thinking we would identify the number of excess points I had and then decide what to do about it. At the end of the meeting we discussed different ways to handle the situation. Could I pay for the excess points Or would they just take them back. We did not decide on the number of points in question. The meeting ended with this unresolved but with another meeting scheduled. That meeting never happened. In a phone call they made me an offer..... Sign everything back to them and in return they wouldnt sue me

So Wyndham threatened to sue me but when I said bring it on, they wouldnt.   It was then that I realized that they didnt want the excess points back, they wanted me gone.   And when I suggested that their next communication should be through my attorney; They ignored that and made me a cash offer. Why is that? If they had the rules on their side and the back up of previous court decisions and their deep pockets vs mine (not so deep) why did they propose a settlement, instead of just shutting me down?

Wyndham chose not enforce the commercial use clause .  But it was pretty clear, that as much as they hated what we were doing; and already had us suspended. they didnt have the confidence to take legal action, based on this clause or any other. 

I suspect they weren't as sure of the enforceability of the commercial use clause as you seem to be

What Wyndham has done since they first decided they didnt like large scale renting has been to tighten the rules and institute fees, in order to make renting less profitable and to "level the playing field" ie make it easier for the little guy to get the reservations they wanted

Here's the thing, as long as maintenance fees are less than hotel rates, VRBO and AirB&B,  there will be folks like me that will play the arbitrage game.


----------



## ronparise (Apr 29, 2022)

One more thing. While the group of large scale renters, that were active before my time with Wyndham, may have believed that renting was allowed and even encouraged by Wyndham, None of us that grew our rental "businesses" after 2010 believed that. We all knew of the commercial use clause and we all knew that Wyndham didnt like renting, and could enforce it at any time. And we all knew to have a "plan B" to implement when the time came. What I was doing was unsustainable, and I knew it. When I was asked about my exit plan, I didnt have one, except to say...Im old, Im gonna die owning this stuff and it will someone elses problem then



troy12n said:


> Can't believe a handful of people on here... the same handful of Mega Renter Sympathizers® are still trying to argue the pro side of the commercial use issue.
> 
> One word that comes to mind is *obtuse*... it really is at this point.
> 
> If anyone wants to know who to blame for deprecation of "rights", this is the crowd



No one is making the argument (obtusely or acutely) that there is a "pro side" to the commercial use  clause. any more than I argue that going 80mph in a 70 zone is permitted. But I do it anyway....because the authorities have chosen not to enforce the rule


----------



## chapjim (Apr 29, 2022)

heathpack said:


> You really have a very sophisticated manner of making a point!  It’s clear to me now, there’s simply no room for a difference of perspective.  The other guy is simply…. Wrong!  Well argued.



If sledgehammers are sophisticated, I agree.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 29, 2022)

Ron just demonstrated why so many people thought highly of him for his willingness to help those trying to learn and his knowledge of the system. There were times that not everyone agreed with him on some points but time usually proved he knew what he was talking about. No, not every one was or is a fan of his but I doubt he lost any sleep over that. 

Ron had realistic expectations and didn't cry it's not fair or the salespeople told us. Not even when it didn't work out that he could continue to rent out the many New Orleans fixed weeks he owned. Those weeks weren't part of what he did with the other deeds/contracted he owned and stripped. He's joked about his plan but none the less it was a plan. When he became "no longer an owner" he moved on to his next plan with his boat.

What some of you are overlooking is Wyndham doesn't have to win in court. They have the power to keep tightening things until some owners get their heads on straight and realize they aren't going to be able to continue on like they have in the past. Learning to adapt was always an option in the past but a smart person wouldn't count on it this time and would have an exit or downsize plan. The indications are there that Wyndham will put some real teeth into what they do this time. Ron saw the handwriting on the wall and was proactive. There were other owners who were vehement in their assertations that Wyndham couldn't or wouldn't do what they did. I've wondered how much money those months of denial cost them.


----------



## paxsarah (May 3, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Welp, based on this FB post it looks like Wyndham is serious about the definition of Commercial Use including any web advertising at all, period, even for one rental:




Looking at this person's posting history in the various FB groups, it does really look like this was their one and only rental. They could have canceled, though - they started looking for a renter outside of the 15-day window. I don't know if that's a factor in Wyndham's calculation or not, but it is instructional for anyone who thinks they might want to find a taker for a reservation they can't use but could still cancel.

Edit: Interestingly, they had posted the rental in the only (I think) of the Wyndham FB groups that's public rather than private. It doesn't mean that Wyndham doesn't have people in the other groups watching, but they wouldn't even had had to be a group member to see this particular rental.


----------



## tschwa2 (May 3, 2022)

without knowing that person's history its hard to judge.  Did she have 35 guest certs for 30 different family members and only one rental?  My guess is,it is guest cert usage and not an actual rental posting that triggered that person's letter for suspected violations.


----------



## paxsarah (May 3, 2022)

tschwa2 said:


> without knowing that person's history its hard to judge.  Did she have 35 guest certs for 30 different family members and only one rental?  My guess is,it is guest cert usage and not an actual rental posting that triggered that person's letter for suspected violations.


It seems interesting that she posted that single rental in February for an April booking, and less than a month later she gets the letter. It falls within the definition. On April 10 she asked the definition of "guest certificate" so I'm going to guess that she was not that conversant with them to have used 35 of them.

EDIT: And I see you got your answer - she's used 1.


----------



## Jan M. (May 3, 2022)

It was previously discussed that many sites like Koala are required to divulge to Wyndham who the owner is. It's part of their contract with Travel and Leisure which Wyndham now owns.

We all know that Big Brother is watching on TUG, Facebook, eBay, etc. It remains to be seen what will come of that.


----------



## tschwa2 (May 3, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It seems interesting that she posted that single rental in February for an April booking, and less than a month later she gets the letter. It falls within the definition. On April 10 she asked the definition of "guest certificate" so I'm going to guess that she was not that conversant with them to have used 35 of them.
> 
> EDIT: And I see you got your answer - she's used 1.


She says this is the only one she used in 6 years.  I can't imagine that wyndham will be going after everyone who rents out one unit over several years.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> It was previously discussed that many sites like Koala are required to divulge to Wyndham who the owner is. It's part of their contract with Travel and Leisure which Wyndham now owns.
> 
> We all know that Big Brother is watching on TUG, Facebook, eBay, etc. It remains to be seen what will come of that.


I thought that was AirBnB or Vrbo? I can't remember which one. I don't recall Koala being previously mentioned as I don't think Koala gets inventory from Wyndham nor do they advertise through T&L.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

Jan M. said:


> It was previously discussed that many sites like Koala are required to divulge to Wyndham who the owner is. It's part of their contract with Travel and Leisure which Wyndham now owns.


I highly doubt Go-Koala has any kind of contract with Travel + Leisure, or any other Wyndham entity.


----------



## Jan M. (May 3, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I thought that was AirBnB or Vrbo? I can't remember which one. I don't recall Koala being previously mentioned as I don't think Koala gets inventory from Wyndham nor do they advertise through T&L.



Both maybe. I remember there was a list of sites mentioned. I thought Koala was on it but it might not have been.

Koala has been so proactive in handling the issue that may be what led me to think it was on the list.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> I highly doubt Go-Koala has any kind of contract with Travel + Leisure, or any other Wyndham entity.


I also don't think advertising with Travel & Leisure Magazine would really have an impact since that isn't owned by T&L but rather just licensed by Meredith Corporation and any advertising deals would be through them. From the blog I read about this, which I can't find, it was with either Vrbo or Airbnb (or both). Wyndham was offering up inventory on one of these two sites and certain resorts were somehow considered preferred resorts or something like that. Thus anyone renting at those properties would have the host name divulged to Wyndham.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

#1 on Go-Koala's Terms of Service is "Non Commercial Use"

*"1. Non Commercial Use*

I agree usage of this KOALA’s Platform, Request Hub and Concierge service is for non-commercial use and any income remitted is intended to be used to maintain solvency on my maintenance fees and/or monthly payments related to my timeshare ownership."


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> #1 on Go-Koala's Terms of Service is "Non Commercial Use"
> 
> *"1. Non Commercial Use*
> 
> I agree usage of this KOALA’s Platform, Request Hub and Concierge service is for non-commercial use and any income remitted is intended to be used to maintain solvency on my maintenance fees and/or monthly payments related to my timeshare ownership."


To some, simply replacing their MF costs would constitute commercial use. I do beleive KOALA recently added this to their terms & conditions.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 3, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I thought that was AirBnB or Vrbo? I can't remember which one. I don't recall Koala being previously mentioned as I don't think Koala gets inventory from Wyndham nor do they advertise through T&L.


Koala does have a concierge service for Wyndham owners.  They keep track of all restrictions for adding guest names to abide by the rules.  

At some point these restrictions will affect the smallest of owners.  Restrictions tend to hurt everyone in the long run.


----------



## paxsarah (May 3, 2022)

I've now seen three individuals on FB who state they've gotten the letter, and a common thread is that they've all posted a rental on Facebook. It may or may not be the reason, but that would put them all within Wyndham's commercial use definition. Unlike many other sites, Facebook is typically real names, so low-hanging fruit for Wyndham.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I've now seen three individuals on FB who state they've gotten the letter, and a common thread is that they've all posted a rental on Facebook. It may or may not be the reason, but that would put them all within Wyndham's commercial use definition. Unlike many other sites, Facebook is typically real names, so low-hanging fruit for Wyndham.


Yeah, I suspect the real name aspect of Facebook is making it easy for Wyndham to match reservations (with guest certs) to accounts.


----------



## Sandi Bo (May 3, 2022)

Oh lordy, one of the FB admins posted this:

I think this email may be an error, sent to every owner who has a guest confirmation scheduled. I have 1 guest confirmation scheduled for 2022, a weekend at the end of this month. Not a rental.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 3, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Oh lordy, one of the FB admins posted this:
> 
> I think this email may be an error, sent to every owner who has a guest confirmation scheduled. I have 1 guest confirmation scheduled for 2022, a weekend at the end of this month. Not a rental.



We have submitted this reported issue to Wyndham for clarification given the mixed reports seen today. The email some received seems pretty sloppy (grammatical errors) and overly generic to me. Not saying it’s not legit, but we want formal acknowledgment from Wyndham either way. Screenshot bellow for reference.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (May 3, 2022)

Wyndham ought to consider paying for remedial written English classes for the person who proofread that letter.


----------



## Eric B (May 3, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Wyndham ought to fire the person who proofread that letter



Are we sure it was from Wyndham?  Could have been a phishing email — it wasn’t a letter.  I would expect a letter to be from someone besides a owner services employee even if drafted by one.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 3, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Are we sure it was from Wyndham? Could have been a phishing email — it wasn’t a letter. I would expect a letter to be from someone besides a owner services employee even if drafted by one.



I have the attached letter as well - but it contains private contact and account data so I will not post it as a result. The attached letter (as opposed to the email) does appear legitimate and contained the correct account data for the owner in question. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (May 3, 2022)

Eric B said:


> Are we sure it was from Wyndham?  Could have been a phishing email — it wasn’t a letter.  I would expect a letter to be from someone besides a owner services employee even if drafted by one.



Could be phishing -
LOL -You caught & quoted my post in the 60 seconds between initial post & editing.

If it is a scam to harvest owner phone numbers; then the scammers need remedial English  writing lessons as well.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Wyndham ought to consider paying for remedial written English classes for the person who proofread that letter.


Wyndham has outsourced some (much) of phone reservations to the Philippines.  Maybe they outsourced their "Enforcers" too, instead of getting attorneys involved.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> If it is a scam to harvest owner phone numbers; then the scammers need remedial English  writing lessons as well.


That describes 99% of phishing and harvesting email scams and is a dead giveaway that an email is a fakery.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I have the attached letter as well - but it contains private contact and account data so I will not post it as a result. The attached letter (as opposed to the email) does appear legitimate and contained the correct account data for the owner in question.


An owner with one rental gets a letter, but the serial Wyndham renters (for years) in the TUG Last Minute Rentals are not getting these letters?

Something is not adding up.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> An owner with one rental gets a letter, but the serial Wyndham renters (for years) in the TUG Last Minute Rentals are not getting these letters?
> 
> Something is not adding up.



Agreed which is why we have made asks into Wyndham for validation. The rumors on the FB groups are that FB group renters are being targeted. Most folks on FB post using their real names - whereas most folks on forums such as TUG tend to use aliases for their handles in comparison. Not sure this theory is valid - I think people are grasping at straws at this point. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> An owner with one rental gets a letter, but the serial Wyndham renters (for years) in the TUG Last Minute Rentals are not getting these letters?
> 
> Something is not adding up.


TUG is anonymous. It would require Wyndham to rent one of those last minute rentals to find out who the owner is.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Most folks on FB post using their real names - whereas most folks on forums such as TUG tend to use aliases for their handles in comparison.


This whole situation seems bogus to me.




dioxide45 said:


> TUG is anonymous. It would require Wyndham to rent one of those last minute rentals to find out who the owner is.


Really?  Wyndham is so incompetent that it is easier to pursue individuals on Facebook than to connect specific dates, resorts, units advertised in the TUG Last Minute Rentals to the serial Wyndham renter involved?

Not to name names, but just on the first page of the Last Minute Forum, I can spot three serial Wyndham renters with enough information (if I had access to the data that Wyndham has) to identify the owners.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> This whole situation seems bogus to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can they even search for reservations based on check in and checkout dates without having a name to go along with it? I suspect that would require a custom SQL query run by someone with more technical knowhow, where searching by first name last name is supported in the User Interface utilized by all of customer service.


----------



## CO skier (May 3, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Can they even search for reservations based on check in and checkout dates without having a name to go along with it? I suspect that would require a custom SQL query run by someone with more technical knowhow, where searching by first name last name is supported in the User Interface utilized by all of customer service.


You are over thinking -- maybe Wyndham is, too.  Or maybe they have just not got to TUG, yet.  Hard to believe, considering the "change in benefits" coincidences of the last many years.

One reservation on Facebook gets a letter?  Yeah, maybe the "real" Facebook name plus the dates and unit is enough.

Three different reservations advertised on TUG (anonymously?) with the specific dates, unit type, resort on just the first page of listings? -- it does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.  I believe the term is "triangulation."  Three (or more) reservations that point, unequivocally, to one owner.  The same TUG name is used for all three (or more) rental listings.  It is nothing more than connecting the TUG user name to the actual Club Wyndham owner name through the common reserved dates, resorts, units.  Super simple.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 3, 2022)

CO skier said:


> You are over thinking -- maybe Wyndham is, too.


Doesn't a resort like Bonnet Creek have over 1000 rooms? I would suspect that it would be possible there are multiple reservations with the same dates at any given time. Potentially even for the same room types. I suspect they want a name to confirm a match. I also suspect there is much more rental activity in the Facebook groups than on TUG LMR?


----------



## CO skier (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Doesn't a resort like Bonnet Creek have over 1000 rooms? I would suspect that it would be possible there are multiple reservations with the same dates at any given time. Potentially even for the same room types. I suspect they want a name to confirm a match. I also suspect there is much more rental activity in the Facebook groups than on TUG LMR?


Let me spell it out for you:

Myrtle Beach SC:  Wyndham Towers on the Grove 1 BR Oceanview May 16-20

Wyndham Bonnet Creek, Orlando:  1 BR Deluxe May 26-30

Memorial Day Weekend in Orlando:  May 26-30 2 BR at Star Island or Cypress Palms

How many owners have these EXACT reservations?  One.  And there are many more reservations under the same anonymous TUG name in the Last Minute Rentals, if Wyndham would want to triangulate further.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 4, 2022)

CO skier said:


> Let me spell it out for you:
> 
> Myrtle Beach SC: Wyndham Towers on the Grove 1 BR Oceanview May 16-20
> 
> ...


You are taking far more time than it seems Wyndham is. Again, low hanging fruit.


----------



## CO skier (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> You are taking far more time than it seems Wyndham is. Again, low hanging fruit.


There is certainly more rental activity from a few Wyndham renters in the TUG Last Minute Rentals forum than just the poor sap who wanted to rent ONE reservation.

If this is the case, Wyndham should take a better look at where the real problem lies.


----------



## Sandi Bo (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> You are taking far more time than it seems Wyndham is. Again, low hanging fruit.


Maybe Wyndham understands some of the dynamics better. The last time I posted a rental it was for a friend who needed help, couldn't cancel as it within 15 days, and didn't want to totally lose out on what they had booked. So I listed for them (made $0 on the transaction) and my name isn't anywhere on the reservation, I didn't book it, I didn't add the GC, etc. How much time should Wyndham spend hunting down that (and hitting a dead end)?   

Low hanging fruit or wild goose chases? I'd prefer Wyndham IT spend their time working on things like performance and broken features. And besides, mission accomplished - made a lot of owners happy yesterday, no doubt (wow, look at Wyndham continue to curtail renting), probably scared at least a few folks into giving some contracts back via certified exit, scared some people into not renting their points, and scared some people into not renting from anyone. 

Two weeks ago they accidentally cancelled 12,000(?) overlapping reservations. Get those GC's on folks. And be sure you continue to do so.  Those people who put on GC's two weeks ago could likely have gotten a commercial renters letter yesterday. Well played, Wyndham, well played!


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> And besides, mission accomplished - made a lot of owners happy yesterday, no doubt (wow, look at Wyndham continue to curtail renting)


I’m not sure about this part. At least one of the folks receiving the letter had only one rental, ever. I think most of the people caught up in this don’t consider themselves problem renters, and I’d guess a lot of their fellow FB group members concur. So many people have such a glut of points in their accounts that it seems rather than canceling a reservation they can’t make, they’ll try to find a renter. When that earlier round of commercial use letters went out, it seemed understood that it took dozens of guest certificates before you’d be in the crosshairs, and nobody really faulted the owners who made a handful of rentals to cover MFs. Except now apparently Wyndham is.

I’m surprised anyone thinks this is an error - there seems to be a direct line between a real name on Facebook, to a rental posted by that owner, to (presumably) a reservation in Wyndham’s system in that name with GC added. I’m surprised they went for the absolute smallest (but easiest) potatoes, but according to Wyndham’s policy they can.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> ......... When that earlier round of commercial use letters went out, it seemed understood that it took dozens of guest certificates before you’d be in........
> 
> ........ I’m surprised they went for the absolute smallest (but easiest) potatoes, but according to Wyndham’s policy they can.



Is this part of the business model ? 
Or is it just "policy " run-amuck  ?


----------



## r4rab (May 4, 2022)

Many of those FB posters who received this email also say they contacted owner care who looked into their accounts and indicated there was no issue and they should not respond to it. Wyndham does not need to figure out who is renting by looking at FB, TUG, etc. They can just use their own databases. Query for accounts using GC's for a room during a time when an owner reservation does not exist. The trick would be in optimizing the query but once it is good it could be run periodically. It can catch both those who put the GC on weeks in advance and those who put it on just before checkin. They could also include how many days before checkin the GC is added, how many GC's the account is using over the use year and other interesting trends such as if an account is using more guest reservations than owner reservations.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 4, 2022)

r4rab said:


> Many of those FB posters who received this email also say they contacted owner care who looked into their accounts and indicated there was no issue and they should not respond to it. Wyndham does not need to figure out who is renting by looking at FB, TUG, etc. They can just use their own databases. Query for accounts using GC's for a room during a time when an owner reservation does not exist. The trick would be in optimizing the query but once it is good it could be run periodically. It can catch both those who put the GC on weeks in advance and those who put it on just before checkin. They could also include how many days before checkin the GC is added, how many GC's the account is using over the use year and other interesting trends such as if an account is using more guest reservations than owner reservations.


Certainly a reservation with a guest cert without a corresponding owner reservation isn't always a rental. Someone CAN actually send friends and family to a resort.


----------



## Eric B (May 4, 2022)

I think a better approach for Wyndham to take would be to actually compete or partner with the folks like Koala that provide a value added outlet for points that can't be used by owners.  Extra Holidays seems to be set up as a reasonable way to rent out developer-owned points but, as others have noted, does a rather poor job of serving owners because of the excessive 40% cut they take and the rental of partial reservations.  I would think that if Wyndham provided a legitimate method (in their view) for folks to cover their MFs for points they won't be using in a year at a reasonable cost, say 10% on top of the 8% Koala takes, it would be a win-win-win outcome.


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

r4rab said:


> Query for accounts using GC's for a room during a time when an owner reservation does not exist.


This is not the definition of renting though. (That’s before even taking into account that the part of Wyndham’s commercial use definition that ensnared these people involves public advertising.)


----------



## Eric B (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Certainly a reservation with a guest cert without a corresponding owner reservation isn't always a rental. Someone CAN actually send friends and family to a resort.



The other possibility is that it could be a third-party exchange through an exchange company like TPI or SFX or it could be a direct exchange arranged through TUG2.


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Is this part of the business model ?
> Or is it just "policy " run-amuck  ?


The only way this really makes sense to me as a strategy by Wyndham is if it’s immediately followed by a big marketing campaign to owners to get every potential rental into Extra Holidays.


----------



## Sandi Bo (May 4, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Is this part of the business model ?
> Or is it just "policy " run-amuck  ?


I say business model.  

Sounds like people aren't getting consistent answers when they call in (surprised)? A lot easier to have someone peruse FB than write a SQL query as described by @r4rab in post 279. 

And again I say, mission accomplished. I think things (continue) to work just like Wyndham would like them to.


----------



## keno999 (May 4, 2022)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Is this part of the business model ?
> Or is it just "policy " run-amuck  ?


Maybe just to create chaos and uncertainty regarding rentals?


----------



## r4rab (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Certainly a reservation with a guest cert without a corresponding owner reservation isn't always a rental. Someone CAN actually send friends and family to a resort.



Yes, but that is a good starting point for further filtering based on other usage characteristics.


----------



## r4rab (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> This is not the definition of renting though. (That’s before even taking into account that the part of Wyndham’s commercial use definition that ensnared these people involves public advertising.)



Agreed. Those in the group returned by the sql query I suggested are not all renters but all renters are in that group. It gives a starting point; then you see how many GCs each account is using and, especially, how many are being used without an owner in attendance. Nothing will be 100% accurate but someone using more GCs than allocated annually on reservations when an owner is not present should be contacted for an explanation to confirm they are not running a business.


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

CO skier said:


> #1 on Go-Koala's Terms of Service is "Non Commercial Use"
> 
> *"1. Non Commercial Use*
> 
> I agree usage of this KOALA’s Platform, Request Hub and Concierge service is for non-commercial use and any income remitted is intended to be used to maintain solvency on my maintenance fees and/or monthly payments related to my timeshare ownership."



I can honestly say that every Wyndham reservation I ever rented was intended to maintain solvency on my maintenance fees.  Does that take them out of the commercial use category (in Koala's view, not Wyndham's)?


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> The only way this really makes sense to me as a strategy by Wyndham is if it’s immediately followed by a big marketing campaign to owners to get every potential rental into Extra Holidays.



Steering rentals into EH has long been suspected to be part of Wyndham's anti-rental strategy.  I'm not sure how effective that strategy would be.  Here's an example:

As a trial, some time ago I placed a reservation with EH -- 2BR Deluxe at Bonnet Creek, May 7-14.  It is a full-price reservation (no discount, no upgrade) that I would have listed for about $1,200 (~$170/night).  I picked that week because it is in Value Season. 

EH's standard price is $400/night (plus $350 other taxes and fees) and there are still five identical reservations available on EH at last look.  Consequently, I don't expect to get anything from EH.  If I do, I'll look for some other Value Season reservations and try again.


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Steering rentals into EH has long been suspected to be part of Wyndham's anti-rental strategy.  I'm not sure how effective that strategy would be.  Here's an example:
> 
> As a trial, some time ago I placed a reservation with EH -- 2BR Deluxe at Bonnet Creek, May 7-14.  It is a full-price reservation (no discount, no upgrade) that I would have listed for about $1,200 (~$170/night).  I picked that week because it is in Value Season.
> 
> EH's standard price is $400/night (plus $350 other taxes and fees) and there are still five identical reservations available on EH at last look.  Consequently, I don't expect to get anything from EH.  If I do, I'll look for some other Value Season reservations and try again.


It's probably not that effective for the owner, especially the average owner. (I do consider you and most of us here above average, though!) But I don't think Wyndham cares how effective it is for the owner. If they get 40% of whatever does end up renting, that's probably effective enough for Wyndham's purposes. They can wash their hands of whatever the owner ends up doing when an EH reservation doesn't rent. I guess there's the issue of word getting around among owners (more than it is already) of how stacked EH is against the owner's potential for success, but the vast majority of owners aren't part of any owner community and will only find this out through trial and error.


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It's probably not that effective for the owner, especially the average owner. (I do consider you and most of us here above average, though!) But I don't think Wyndham cares how effective it is for the owner. If they get 40% of whatever does end up renting, that's probably effective enough for Wyndham's purposes. They can wash their hands of whatever the owner ends up doing when an EH reservation doesn't rent. I guess there's the issue of word getting around among owners (more than it is already) of how stacked EH is against the owner's potential for success, but the vast majority of owners aren't part of any owner community and will only find this out through trial and error.



Agree with everything.  In addition, I wonder how many people will pay $400/night plus $50/night in taxes/fees for a two bedroom condo.  EH's target population must be a lot different than mine was!

Unfortunately, for those of us who have been fingered by Wyndham for "commercial use," EH is the only safe outlet for rentals.  Not necessarily lucrative, safe.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 4, 2022)

Does Club Wyndham not try to rent inventory out through the Wyndham hotel website? Extra Holidays seems a pretty obscure place to try to rent out inventory to the general public. It doesn't have name recognition like wyndhamhotels.com. Ask a member of the general public looking to make a Wyndham reservation and they certainly won't think to go to Extra Holidays. Is there something I am missing here?

Marriott used to have a similar rental program many years ago. You would call them and they would put your week into the rental pool. Those rentals were then rented through Marriott.com. Whatever it rented for, you got 60% and they kept 40%. If it didn't rent, you got nothing. If they only rented three nights of the seven, you got 60%. They changed that to a system where they get a set amount upfront and then all the risk was on them. If it didn't rent, they lost money. If they rented the whole week they came out ahead. The only problem with the new method was that rental proceeds to the owner were usually a lot less than before and Marriott Vacation Club was making more money with the new scheme. Of course though, they were taking on 100% of the risk if they agreed to take your week to rent.


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Does Club Wyndham not try to rent inventory out through the Wyndham hotel website? Extra Vacations seems a pretty obscure place to try to rent out inventory to the general public. It doesn't have name recognition like wyndhamhotels.com. Ask a member of the general public looking to make a Wyndham reservation and they certainly won't think to go to Extra Vacations. Is there something I am missing here?
> 
> Marriott used to have a similar rental program many years ago. You would call them and they would put your week into the rental pool. Those rentals were then rented through Marriott.com. Whatever it rented for, you got 60% and they kept 40%. If it didn't rent, you got nothing. If they only rented three nights of the seven, you got 60%. They changed that to a system where they get a set amount upfront and then all the risk was on them. If it didn't rent, they lost money. If they rented the whole week they came out ahead. The only problem with the new method was that rental proceeds to the owner were usually a lot less than before and Marriott Vacation Club was making more money with the new scheme. Of course though, they were taking on 100% of the risk if they agreed to take your week to rent.



Don't think you're missing anything except it's Extra Holidays, not Extra Vacations.  I don't think that substantially changes your comment about obscurity.


----------



## Sandy VDH (May 4, 2022)

I have booked Worldmark through the wyndham.com website before, and they are there, so I assume that the Wyndham TS are also there.  

Hilton, Holiday Inn, Marriott all do the same thing.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 4, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Don't think you're missing anything except it's Extra Holidays, not Extra Vacations.  I don't think that substantially changes your comment about obscurity.


Thanks for the correction. I updated my post. It just seems odd that they would use some obscure website to market this product instead of listing it on wyndhamhotels.com. As far as I know Marriott Vacation Club lists rental inventory on Marriott.com, Hilton Grand Vacations on Hilton.com and Hyatt on hyatt.com. It seems that Club Wyndham is kneecapping owner rentals by advertising them through a site almost no one has ever heard of.


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

It may end up in other places? "If the reservation is accepted into the rental program, Extra Holidays will market it on its website and on our partners' websites."


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It may end up in other places? "If the reservation is accepted into the rental program, Extra Holidays will market it on its website and on our partners' websites."


In fact, I just checked a particular listing from Extra Holidays (Towers on the Grove, 7/9-11) on wyndhamhotels.com, and the studio and 1BR that are available on EH are also listed there at the same cost. On Wyndham Hotels, there's also a 2BR listed that's not on EH and is cheaper than the two smaller units (oops), but the EH listings did appear over there.


----------



## bnoble (May 4, 2022)

Cheaper than the two collectively (which makes sense) or cheaper than each individually (which does not)?


----------



## paxsarah (May 4, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Cheaper than the two collectively (which makes sense) or cheaper than each individually (which does not)?


Cheaper than each individually. So the owners with the listings from EH are SOL until the 2BR gets booked.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 4, 2022)

We have initial confirmation that the emails/letters do appear to be legitimate - and that anyone who takes issue with the communication with regard to their specific account should follow up via the email address provided in the letter. We have additional asks in for more details however I do not expect additional clarity to be provided based upon past experience surrounding the rental rules asks that have been made. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> It may end up in other places? "If the reservation is accepted into the rental program, Extra Holidays will market it on its website and on our partners' websites."



Good point and one I'd forgotten about.  An EH rep told me they could list on Expedia.com, Booking.com, Hotels.com, TripAdvisor.com and Travelocity.com.  Probably some others but I couldn't scribble any faster.


----------



## bnoble (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> Cheaper than each individually.


D'oh!


----------



## WManning (May 4, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I've now seen three individuals on FB who state they've gotten the letter, and a common thread is that they've all posted a rental on Facebook. It may or may not be the reason, but that would put them all within Wyndham's commercial use definition. Unlike many other sites, Facebook is typically real names, so low-hanging fruit for Wyndham.


Not all are real names on facebook.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 4, 2022)

WManning said:


> Not all are real names on facebook.


True, but people not using their real names are in violation of Facebook policy terms and conditions.


----------



## WManning (May 4, 2022)

CO skier said:


> There is certainly more rental activity from a few Wyndham renters in the TUG Last Minute Rentals forum than just the poor sap who wanted to rent ONE reservation.
> 
> If this is the case, Wyndham should take a better look at where the real problem lies.


 Last minute rentals used to be 90% Wyndham. After the elimination of resale points and the "letters" that were sent out Wyndham rentals are not the majority. I would say Wyndham has started to eliminate some abuse of the system.


----------



## WManning (May 4, 2022)

chapjim said:


> I can honestly say that every Wyndham reservation I ever rented was intended to maintain solvency on my maintenance fees.  Does that take them out of the commercial use category (in Koala's view, not Wyndham's)?


If any of your rentals were above your cost ($/1000) of maintenance fees would Wyndham consider it "commercial use"? If you sold a few million resale points after receiving  a "letter" I would honstly say Wyndham looks more at the number of points used with GC`s then what a owner says "honestly".


----------



## WManning (May 4, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> We have initial confirmation that the emails/letters do appear to be legitimate - and that anyone who takes issue with the communication with regard to their specific account should follow up via the email address provided in the letter. We have additional asks in for more details however I do not expect additional clarity to be provided based upon past experience surrounding the rental rules asks that have been made.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What benefit is it to Wyndham if they clarified what commercial use is? Keep it a moving target where they can enforce what is being abused.


----------



## WManning (May 4, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> True, but people not using their real names are in violation of Facebook policy terms and conditions.


Posters that use real names are the most transparent, considerate and respectful.  It's quite common for posters using a alias to be insulting, obnoxious and rude at times IMHO.


----------



## chapjim (May 4, 2022)

WManning said:


> If any of your rentals were above your cost ($/1000) of maintenance fees would Wyndham consider it "commercial use"? If you sold a few million resale points after receiving  a "letter" I would honstly say Wyndham looks more at the number of points used with GC`s then what a owner says "honestly".



My point was about Koala's definition, not Wyndham's.  Too bad you missed it.


----------



## troy12n (May 5, 2022)

*REMOVED*

A polite reminder of forum rules:

*Be Courteous*



> As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!


----------



## chapjim (May 5, 2022)

*REMOVED*

A polite reminder of forum rules:

*Avoid posting about politics, religion, or contentious social issues*



> Unless directly related to timesharing, such discussions are prohibited in these forums, including TUG Lounge. We've been down that road before, it was ugly, and we are not going there again.


----------



## Eric B (May 5, 2022)

*QUOTED CONTENT REMOVED DUE TO FORUM RULES REMINDER*

Oddly enough, TESS doesn't list any such registered mark.





__





						TESS -- Error
					





					tmsearch.uspto.gov
				




The symbol *® *should be an indication that the mark is registered - if you are seeking such a registration, you need to wait until it happens before using that symbol.  You could use either the symbol SM for it as an unregistered service mark or TM  for it as an unregistered trademark.  To have any protections, of course, you'd need to be able to demonstrate a use in commerce of the mark.  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_mark for an explanation of how service marks work.  Not intended as legal advice, but https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/trademarks/strength-of-marks/descriptive-marks/ also provides a discussion of the limitations on using descriptive terms like that as marks and the weakness of any protection that might be afforded them.

BTW, hoarding and selling to the highest bidder seem more like they would be actions taken by a broker or postcard timeshare exit company than actions I would expect a megarenter to take.  My expectations would be that those folks would try to get as many high value stays booked as they can at as low a cost as possible, then rent them out at a profit.  All indications seem to point to Wyndham cracking down on folks that only rent one stay, so my interpretation might be wrong.


----------



## Eric B (May 5, 2022)

*REMOVED*

A polite reminder of forum rules:

*Avoid posting about politics, religion, or contentious social issues*



> Unless directly related to timesharing, such discussions are prohibited in these forums, including TUG Lounge. We've been down that road before, it was ugly, and we are not going there again.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 5, 2022)

WManning said:


> What benefit is it to Wyndham if they clarified what commercial use is? Keep it a moving target where they can enforce what is being abused.



I've made this same observation myself on multiple threads in the past - so I concur with your assessment in that respect - but it doesn't prevent me from making the ask in hopes that we may gleam tidbits over time that can help us to piece together the overall strategy being executed (assuming there is one).


----------



## chapjim (May 5, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I've made this same observation myself on multiple threads in the past - so I concur with your assessment in that respect - but it doesn't prevent me from making the ask in hopes that we may gleam tidbits over time that can help us to piece together the overall strategy being executed (assuming there is one).



Rather than obsess over a precise definition of "commercial use," which most of us agree will not be forthcoming, a better approach might be identifying account characteristics that alert Wyndham to excessive renting.

I'll start.  I think the trigger in my case was guest confirmations.  I had thirty free GCs starting in January 2021 and ran out in mid-February.  Looking at my tax records, I bought an additional 53 GCs the rest of the year.  It would have been silly to argue that I was not renting.


----------



## chapjim (May 5, 2022)

[Deleted: If you have a response to a moderator, contact them directly.]


----------



## WManning (May 5, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Rather than obsess over a precise definition of "commercial use," which most of us agree will not be forthcoming, a better approach might be identifying account characteristics that alert Wyndham to excessive renting.
> 
> I'll start.  I think the trigger in my case was guest confirmations.  I had thirty free GCs starting in January 2021 and ran out in mid-February.  Looking at my tax records, I bought an additional 53 GCs the rest of the year.  It would have been silly to argue that I was not renting.


Wyndham pocketed a few duckies on the GC's. I'm suprised Wyndham dosent require a GC when using EH.


----------



## WManning (May 5, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I've made this same observation myself on multiple threads in the past - so I concur with your assessment in that respect - but it doesn't prevent me from making the ask in hopes that we may gleam tidbits over time that can help us to piece together the overall strategy being executed (assuming there is one).


Wyndham finds keeping it loose and free works to their benefit. A moving target is harder to hit then a stationary one. As far as strategy goes I think blackout dates and new rules have inflicted max pain on the mega renters to flush out weak hands. Renting under the new rules and blackout dates requires more work for less payoff. The elimination of resale points with VIP bennies is the reason 500,000-1,000,000 point contracts have been showing up on eBay quite frequently over the last year.


----------



## chapjim (May 5, 2022)

WManning said:


> Wyndham pocketed a few duckies on the GC's. I'm suprised Wyndham dosent require a GC when using EH.



Yeah, like $5,247.  Not bad for doing nothing.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 5, 2022)

WManning said:


> Wyndham pocketed a few duckies on the GC's. I'm suprised Wyndham dosent require a GC when using EH.



I’m not surprised that the Wyndham rental arm does not require a GC. Worst case if GC usage is suspended for certain offending accounts due to repeated rental activities - that owner could still use EH. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WManning (May 5, 2022)

chapjim said:


> Yeah, like $5,247.  Not bad for doing nothing.


Consider it as cost of doing business with Wyndham.  They just want a piece of the pie. Better then using EH and getting a 60/40 split. The 60/40 is only if the whole reservation is rented.


----------



## WManning (May 5, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I’m not surprised that the Wyndham rental arm does not require a GC. Worst case of GC usages are suspended for certain offending accounts due to repeated rental activities - that owner could still use EH.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## chapjim (May 5, 2022)

WManning said:


> Consider it as cost of doing business with Wyndham.  They just want a piece of the pie. Better then using EH and getting a 60/40 split. The 60/40 is only if the whole reservation is rented.



I get that but as I've mentioned to some others on the board, for some of us, EH is the only safe way to rent.  Safe does not mean lucrative.  That must make Wyndham happy!


----------



## dioxide45 (May 5, 2022)

WManning said:


> The 60/40 is only if the whole reservation is rented.


What is the split if they only rent part of it?


----------



## Jan M. (May 5, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> What is the split if they only rent part of it?



Same split regardless of what portion of the reservation gets rented.

Some owners in the Facebook groups have posted that they ended up in the hole big time on Extra Holiday rentals. Some owners make out okay with their EH rentals, some just so so and some end up underwater.

It's been years since I looked into EH out of curiosity and this is what I remember. It takes some time to get everything done to submit a rental. Once that's done the reservation must still be at least 30? days out but it might be more. You do have the option to pull a reservation that hasn't sold out of EH.

I remember seeing some owners saying they weren't happy with the wait time to get their money. I'd guess that EH might not begin the process of releasing the money until the reservation is over.


----------



## lost patience (May 6, 2022)

EH - Let's say an owner puts a 3N weekend into EH.  If EH rents just 2 of the nights you would receive 60% of whatever price they sell the reservation for.  Then, the worst part.  The person who "bought" your reservation can cancel up to 72 hours with a 100% refund.  And, within 72 hours the renter is charged 1 night.  The owner would receive ZERO on a reservation cancelled 72 hours ahead.  And 60% of one night rental if cancelled within 72 hours of travel.  That would be a huge loss for most, and the major reason most owners are resistant to use EH.


----------



## WManning (May 6, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> What is the split if they only rent part of it?


If they only rent 3 days


lost patience said:


> EH - Let's say an owner puts a 3N weekend into EH.  If EH rents just 2 of the nights you would receive 60% of whatever price they sell the reservation for.  Then, the worst part.  The person who "bought" your reservation can cancel up to 72 hours with a 100% refund.  And, within 72 hours the renter is charged 1 night.  The owner would receive ZERO on a reservation cancelled 72 hours ahead.  And 60% of one night rental if cancelled within 72 hours of travel.  That would be a huge loss for most, and the major reason most owners are resistant to use EH.


This scenario makes paying $5k in GC`s look good.


----------



## Sandi Bo (May 6, 2022)

And the EH website sucks. Surprised? I get certificate errors and can't complete a search. My tech support (son (and an IT professional who knows his stuff) ) says it's on their side. When I called and talked to them, and had them search for me, they didn't care - said yeah, that's why you should call. They must be on commission?

It's a hard business model, I would think. Owners turn over weeks, but renters can book as little as 2 nights. And allowing renters to cancel 72 hours in advance but owners have to cancel their reservations 15 days in advance. They are lots of things Wyndham could do to make EH better (for renters and owners). We could go on and on, EH shows little if no evidence that Wyndham gives a hoot.


----------



## r4rab (May 6, 2022)

All the various EH rules and downsides for owners renting through it make me think that Wyndham is trying to discourage renting, even when they will get a large slice of the pie. (Disclaimer: never used EH, never rented out a unit).


----------



## Sandi Bo (May 6, 2022)

r4rab said:


> All the various EH rules and downsides for owners renting through it make me think that Wyndham is trying to discourage renting, even when they will get a large slice of the pie. (Disclaimer: never used EH, never rented out a unit).


On the otherhand...
* Great marketing tool for the sales team - rent your extra points
* Owners book weeks and turn them over to EH - what percentage of rooms turned over the EH go unrented - burns points - so less points out there, less competition for our valued owners and want to book and go on vacation
* I would guess above average marks for the sales team (big spenders, great targets for tours)
* Literally no risk to Wyndham, doesn't rent, nothing out of their pocket, if it does highly profitable

If Wyndham were truly interested in providing value to their owners, it would be run differently.


----------



## Sandy VDH (May 6, 2022)

EH is a good deal for Wyndham, and way too much risk for the owner.  I would not touch EH.


----------



## lost patience (May 6, 2022)

Wyndham is reducing benefits to VIP.  I'm guessing they spent a ton of $$ to facilitate the developer/resale split accounting.   Now they are spending energy on sending emails about commercial use to people that have rented just a few reservations here and there.   

They are overbooking.  Owners are being turned away at resorts due to booking errors.  Either the unit not available at all, or not the reserved size.   They updated the programing to enforce the 1x owner reservation, but accidentally cancelled 12,000 reservations.  I see the "oops"  and "something happened" on a regular basis.  I'm forced to log in twice EACH.....AND.....EVERY......TIME.  Plus get kicked out requiring logging in yet again.  
.
My view - the elimination of cancel/rebook reduced renting several years ago.  The developer/resale split along with the "owner priority"  weeded out a lot of renting naturally this last year.  What Wyndham has already done has already shown benefit.  It is time for Wyndham to move on.  Can we encourage Wyndham to put their energy and time and money on programing improvements?  
.
Complaining here is not going to change anything.  I've been using the "give feedback" on a regular basis.   How about we start a campaign?   Every owner reading TUG submit one feedback 3 to 4 times a week.  Hitchhiker indicates they do read the feedback.  Can we encourage Wyndham to work harder on the website bugs?


----------



## paxsarah (May 6, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> Owners turn over weeks


I'm thinking about booking something in 2023 ARP to keep in my pocket in case I want to turn it over to EH, and it's definitely only going to be a long weekend, not a week, for that exact reason.


----------



## chapjim (May 6, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> I'm thinking about booking something in 2023 ARP to keep in my pocket in case I want to turn it over to EH, and it's definitely only going to be a long weekend, not a week, for that exact reason.



I've done that.  I have five night reservations over Thanksgiving (11/22-11/27) and New Year (12/29-1/3) at Ocean Walk, the idea being that anyone who wants the weekend can't want too much less than five nights.

Ocean Walk wasn't on the EH list for a while.  It is now.  Also, Ocean Walk is not restricted ever.


----------



## WManning (May 6, 2022)

Sandi Bo said:


> On the otherhand...
> * Great marketing tool for the sales team - rent your extra points
> * Owners book weeks and turn them over to EH - what percentage of rooms turned over the EH go unrented - burns points - so less points out there, less competition for our valued owners and want to book and go on vacation
> * I would guess above average marks for the sales team (big spenders, great targets for tours)
> ...


Wyndham seems to be interested in providing value only to their bottom line. Owners come and go every day. The exiting owners give back inventory for free that can be sold at $150/1000. EH brings in the next owners at no risk to Wyndham. Certified Exit is great marketing as it looks to be helping owners from being taken advantage from the exit teams. But the free inventory is used to bring in the next unsuspecting newlyweds or couples.


----------



## jules54 (May 14, 2022)

WManning said:


> Last minute rentals used to be 90% Wyndham. After the elimination of resale points and the "letters" that were sent out Wyndham rentals are not the majority. I would say Wyndham has started to eliminate some abuse of the system.



I disagree that is why you see less Wyndham rentals on last minute board. A lot of owners(me included) have gotten tired of people asking for something and never replying back. It’s not worth the trouble for most as there are too many other ways to use points. Owners are making longer reservations taking more points and using them elsewhere. Between the low rental cap 115.00 per nite and the blatant bad manners of people it’s not worth giving someone a great deal. As I’ve often told potential low ballers “if I want to give something away I’ll give it to someone I know” Only my opinion of course.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (May 17, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> We have submitted this reported issue to Wyndham for clarification given the mixed reports seen today. The email some received seems pretty sloppy (grammatical errors) and overly generic to me. Not saying it’s not legit, but we want formal acknowledgment from Wyndham either way. Screenshot bellow for reference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I need a couple of volunteers that actually received the email indicated in the screenshot I originally shared that came from a few FB forums. I’m getting some traction with Wyndham on the phishing concerns and need a couple of actual Wyndham owners to share their email with me if at all possible. Feel free to PM me here on TUG if you aren’t comfortable posting a screenshot of your email on this thread. Thanks in advance for your consideration on this request. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## timsi (May 17, 2022)

I am not a Wyndham owner but if I understand correctly the big mega renter, Wyndham, is telling the small mega renters that they are not allowed to rent. This is because it is against rules made by the big mega renter that conveniently allow the big mega renter to do just that but not anybody else. Of course, the big mega renter claims these rules were made for the sole benefit of the owners.


----------



## jules54 (May 18, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> I need a couple of volunteers that actually received the email indicated in the screenshot I originally shared that came from a few FB forums. I’m getting some traction with Wyndham on the phishing concerns and need a couple of actual Wyndham owners to share their email with me if at all possible. Feel free to PM me here on TUG if you aren’t comfortable posting a screenshot of your email on this thread. Thanks in advance for your consideration on this request.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I did get that exact email I have been traveling so I have no idea if I received a certified letter. If I did it will have been returned to Wyndham. My email wanted me to sign it and send it back. I did notice which I have never seen before it’s signed Jim B I mean what the heck?


----------



## WManning (May 22, 2022)

timsi said:


> I am not a Wyndham owner but if I understand correctly the big mega renter, Wyndham, is telling the small mega renters that they are not allowed to rent. This is because it is against rules made by the big mega renter that conveniently allow the big mega renter to do just that but not anybody else. Of course, the big mega renter claims these rules were made for the sole benefit of the owners.


Hahaha!  Pretty hypocritical but very similar to a old saying "Do as I say not as I do`


----------



## RENTER (Jun 22, 2022)

WManning said:


> Wyndham seems to be interested in providing value only to their bottom line. Owners come and go every day. The exiting owners give back inventory for free that can be sold at $150/1000. EH brings in the next owners at no risk to Wyndham. Certified Exit is great marketing as it looks to be helping owners from being taken advantage from the exit teams. But the free inventory is used to bring in the next unsuspecting newlyweds or couples.


The exiting owners on social media should make sure that potential new owners know of any problems they had with Wyndham. That would help stop it.


----------



## WManning (Jun 23, 2022)

RENTER said:


> The exiting owners on social media should make sure that potential new owners know of any problems they had with Wyndham. That would help stop it.


Plenty of information at prospective buyers finger tips if they take the time to find it.


----------



## pedro47 (Jun 23, 2022)

This is a very interesting thread about Wyndham new renting policies.


----------



## paxsarah (Jun 23, 2022)

WManning said:


> Plenty of information at prospective buyers finger tips if they take the time to find it.


Short of lurking outside the sales floor at resorts, the necessary information is searchable here and all the Wyndham FB groups (except possibly the “Happy” owners group), as well as helpful owners willing to answer questions in real time. But the potential new owners need to take the time to do that search, either before they sign or during their rescission period.


----------



## RENTER (Jun 23, 2022)

there is a group page for Unhappy Owners


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jun 23, 2022)

RENTER said:


> there is a group page for Unhappy Owners



Interesting - what is the FB group name?  Not sure I want to join that group - but I'm curious.


----------



## scootr5 (Jun 23, 2022)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Interesting - what is the FB group name?  Not sure I want to join that group - but I'm curious.



I'm just guessing, but Unhappy Wyndham Owners


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 23, 2022)

scootr5 said:


> I'm just guessing, but Unhappy Wyndham Owners


Only 125 members and one post in the last month. I guess there aren't that many unhappy owners?


----------



## bnoble (Jun 23, 2022)

They are small but mighty.


----------



## paxsarah (Jun 23, 2022)

There’s this one, started by a guy who was big mad about the VIP/resale changes last summer. Little did he know there were already unhappy owner groups out there!


----------



## RENTER (Jun 23, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> There’s this one, started by a guy who was big mad about the VIP/resale changes last summer. Little did he know there were already unhappy owner groups out there!


Must have worked. I have talked to him. He told me not to join because he did not want them seeking revenge on me. They silenced him but they did not cancel his guest passes. I forget but he has some 30 to 50 guest pass reservations coming up back then. He was mega renting because he feared towns would shut down short term renting with new laws and wanted to make his money back as soon as possible. He was correct about limits being placed on short term rentals. When Wyndham did not cancel his guest passes, he made his money back and is no longer renting like he did and using the points for himself which was his plan the whole time. He is also no longer buying more from Wyndham or resales and is no longer paying for guest passes. If he rents, it will be something like a lock off where he uses one unit and has a renter in another. That will cover his maintenance fees.


----------



## scootr5 (Jun 23, 2022)

paxsarah said:


> There’s this one, started by a guy who was big mad about the VIP/resale changes last summer. Little did he know there were already unhappy owner groups out there!



7 members, and 1 total post - and dioxide45 thought the other group was small...


----------



## RENTER (Jun 26, 2022)

If the $15,000 a year maintenance fee person on FB is the person I am thinking about contact him and find out what happened. They silenced him by kicking him off the group page. When they did that, he created his own group page and told people not to join so they would not put a target on their back.  I was curious what happened since he went quiet and was surprised by what happened to him.


----------

