# VIP Transfer to new owner loophole?



## brekkon (Jan 1, 2019)

Been away for a while and am wondering if this loophole still exists.  If a deed is still owned by original owner can two title transfers still be done to retain VIP status for new owner?

The way I understood it a couple years ago you could do a title change moving 1 new owner onto the title and leaving an original owner, (No VIP benefits lost doing this)  Then do another title change after that goes through to remove the last owner and place the 2nd new owner onto the title.  

This loophole allowed the Points to still appear as ORIGINAL owner points and thus count towards VIP status. 

Does anyone know if this is still an existing loophole?

Has anyone seen this get accomplished and verified it had worked?

I am trying to see the best way for us to add another contract through resale and see if we can jump up VIP level in doing it this way still.


----------



## brekkon (Jan 1, 2019)

Thanks for any information people can provide on this.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

If Wyndham ever suspected this, they could do a deed search where the deed was filed to verify the owner and compare it to the account. It could be problematic for the new owner of the documents don't match. Could end up being expensive if Wyndham claimed fraud and took it to court.


----------



## brekkon (Jan 1, 2019)

55plus said:


> If Wyndham ever suspected this, they could do a deed search where the deed was filed to verify the owner and compare it to the account. It could be problematic for the new owner of the documents don't match. Could end up being expensive if Wyndham claimed fraud and took it to court.


Not sure how it is fraud if that is the way the system works so that when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers.  I think to be fraud it would actually have to be spelled out that it is not allowed.  It was a wyndham employee that first told me about the loophole that I am wondering if they finally put in a rule that does not allow it. (If there is now a rule that prevents this and you did it only then would it be fraud)


----------



## scootr5 (Jan 1, 2019)

One thing is for sure, if it’s discussed here on the public forum and it benefits someone besides Wyndham they’ll close it down.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

brekkon said:


> when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers.)


That’s not a loophole if in fact that’s what you’re doing, in fact it’s been reported here that Wyndham MAY do the paperwork free of charge.


brekkon said:


> The way I understood it a couple years ago you could do a title change moving 1 new owner onto the title and leaving an original owner, (No VIP benefits lost doing this)  Then do another title change after that goes through to remove the last owner and place the 2nd new owner onto the title.
> 
> Does anyone know if this is still an existing loophole?
> I am trying to see the best way for us to add another contract through resale and see if we can jump up VIP level in doing it this way still.


Now your committing fraud and you are acknowledging it also as you say LOOPHOLE back dooring a benefit that you acknowledge is illegitimate


----------



## brekkon (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> That’s not a loophole if in fact that’s what you’re doing, in fact it’s been reported here that Wyndham MAY do the paperwork free of charge.
> 
> Now your committing fraud and you are acknowledging it also as you say LOOPHOLE back dooring a benefit that you acknowledge is illegitimate




A loophole by definition is LEGAL.  If it was illegitimate it would actually be breaking the rules which must be clearly laid down in any contract.  Since it was not laid out anywhere it was a LEGAL means to an end which I am calling a loophole.  I am basically just asking if that loophole is still there and anyone has experience doing it.

 I would appreciate it if people refrained from even commenting on this thread if all they are going to be is armchair lawyers with their cereal box prize degrees in contract law.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.


----------



## harveyhaddixfan (Jan 1, 2019)

55plus said:


> I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.



The same could be said about Wyndham selling to someone and not telling them that they strip benefits from resale contracts.


----------



## Eric B (Jan 1, 2019)

55plus said:


> I wouldn't call what you are talking about a loophole. I'd consider it fraud per it's definition: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.



Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any part of what he's contemplating as something that would meet the definition of fraud (knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment).  What he's proposing is a change in title of real estate to add his name to it, accompanied by the appropriate payment to Wyndham for the account maintenance, followed by an actual real estate transaction to transfer the title from a joint tenancy to sole ownership on his part, again accompanied by the appropriate payment to Wyndham for the account maintenance.  If I were doing it, I wouldn't even try to hide any fact from Wyndham when doing either transfer.  It's just following the rules as they have them set up.  They might seek to change them in the future, but the only way I can see that would make it stick would be if they made the VIP status particular to the individual purchasing from them rather than associated with the account.  That would get a bit messy, though, and remove most of the incentive for later purchases by a single individual.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

harveyhaddixfan said:


> The same could be said about Wyndham selling to someone and not telling them that they strip benefits from resale contracts.


I totally agree. I inherited a Fairfield VIP Platinum from the early '90s from my parents. I've watched the benefits and perks deplete over the years. Fortunately the valuable and important ones haven't been touched.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

Having just buffed up my cereal box law degree, I fail to see how this is fraud or a violation of your contract. 

It is legal to add someone to the title. 
It is legal to remove someone from the title.

Unless you signed something in the process mis-representing a material fact, I fail to see fraud.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> It is legal to add someone to the title.
> It is legal to remove someone from the title.


Money laundering works pretty much on that principle


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> Money laundering works pretty much on that principle


In money laundering you typically are misrepresenting that the money is yours. So decent analogy, but flawed. 

Here the transaction is completely transparent to Wyndham. They see X added to the title, and later they see Y removed from the title. 

If Wyndham felt it was a violation of the contract, they could simply remove VIP benefits when Y is removed from title.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> In money laundering you typically are misrepresenting that the money is yours. So decent analogy, but flawed.
> 
> Here the transaction is completely transparent to Wyndham. They see X added to the title, and later they see Y removed from the title.
> 
> If Wyndham felt it was a violation of the contract, they could simply remove VIP benefits when Y is removed from title.


And here they are misrepresenting that they are family instead of money, knowing that’s the only way to keep the VIP status.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> And here they are misrepresenting that they are family instead of money, knowing that’s the only way to keep the VIP status.



As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.


----------



## raygo123 (Jan 1, 2019)

There is no mention in your contract about VIP in anyone's contract.  that is a function of club Wyndham.  If any problem offers it would be when you try to register it with Wyndham.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.


Sounds like the definition of fraud, not a loophole. It's misrepresentation, that's the fraud.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> As I understand the loophole - unless someone is doing this in Ovations - there never has to be a representation that there is a family relationship.


Why are you doing 2 title transfers if your not misrepresenting that you’re family or an original owner ?
The only reason you’re doing 2 transfers is because you’re knowingly trying to circumvent the rules for personal gain to another’s detriment
The OP is hoping they don’t get noticed or caught just like me speeding down the highway


----------



## paxsarah (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> Why are you doing 2 title transfers if your not misrepresenting that you’re family or an original owner ?
> The only reason you’re doing 2 transfers is because you’re knowingly trying to circumvent the rules for personal gain to another’s detriment



I'd say the more accurate word you're using is circumvention, not misrepresentation. If it was explicit misrepresentation, they'd do it in a single transaction and represent it as a family relationship. Instead by using two transactions to add/remove individuals instead of a single transfer, they're circumventing the expected process and hoping it flies under Wyndham's radar. You might be able to say it's misrepresentation by omission, but not direct misrepresentation.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

paxsarah said:


> I'd say the more accurate word you're using is circumvention, not misrepresentation. If it was explicit misrepresentation, they'd do it in a single transaction and represent it as a family relationship. Instead by using two transactions to add/remove individuals instead of a single transfer, they're circumventing the expected process and hoping it flies under Wyndham's radar. You might be able to say it's misrepresentation by omission, but not direct misrepresentation.


Sorry my cerial box law degree professor wasn’t very good at teaching the correct terminology


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

Circumventing is the process, not the action. Misrepresentation is the action and the end result, which is fraud due to deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

Then why does Wyndham allows a co-owner (who was not on the title when VIP benefits were obtained) to enjoy VIP benefits if it is a violation of some provision of their contract?

And doesnt Wyndam allow LLC's and Trusts to have VIP benefits?  How is either of those two scenario's any different?


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Then why does Wyndham allows a co-owner (who was not on the title when VIP benefits were obtained) to enjoy VIP benefits if it is a violation of some provision of their contract?
> 
> And doesnt Wyndam allow LLC's and Trusts to have VIP benefits?  How is either of those two scenario's any different?


As raygo123 pointed out it’s not in the contract other than I believe you have to abide by the Trust rules. Probably wrong on terminology

It’s my understanding that Wyndham allows VIP benefits to transfer to certain family members, including same sex unions and changes of entities of trust or LLCs

It would be a lot easier to have a same sex union for a couple of months, don’t know if it would be considered an affair to your spouse


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

I wasn't married when I inherited my parent's VIP Platinum. inheritarence is spelled out in the directory. I added my wife to the deeds after we were married and sent a copy of the deeds to Wyndham to add my wife to my ownrship/membership account. That was the proper procedure to make my wife a co-owner. If you obtain a VIP account, process a deed transfer from the original owner to you and not provide Wyndham a copy, you are misrepresenting the ownership and committing fraud by using the VIP benefits associated with the ownership/membership. If the original owner stays on the account with you then it's probably quasi legal.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

I may only have a cereal box law degree, but my cereal box professor did teach me to actually read the contract.

And my contract says that my points only lose VIP eligibility if I SELL the underlying property to a third-party purchaser. But as with any contract, it is up to the contracting parties to enforce the applicable provisions of any contract. And my cereal box professor taught me that failure to assert your rights under a contract may represent a constructive waiver of said rights.

Opening up a variety of scenario's where VIP benefits transfer - inheritance, trust, sale of the LLC, civil partners, perhaps even bankruptcy. Their failure to enforce their contract provisions is not fraud or misrepresentation.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> I may only have a cereal box law degree, but my cereal box professor did teach me to actually read the contract.
> 
> And my contract says that my points only lose VIP eligibility if I SELL the underlying property to a third-party purchaser. But as with any contract, it is up to the contracting parties to enforce the applicable provisions of any contract. And my cereal box professor taught me that failure to assert your rights under a contract may represent a constructive waiver of said rights.


Very well stated with that cereal box degree!! I’ll leave it at that. LOL


----------



## paxsarah (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> It would be a lot easier to have a same sex union for a couple of months



They’re marriages now, and last I checked you can’t have two at once. Get married and share the benefits, or don’t - I don’t see where gender comes into it.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

paxsarah said:


> They’re marriages now, and last I checked you can’t have two at once. Get married and share the benefits, or don’t - I don’t see where gender comes into it.


Gotcha on terminology
Directory says “domestic partners”


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 1, 2019)

Braindead said:


> Very well stated with that cereal box degree!! I’ll leave it at that. LOL


It came in an expensive box of cereal... lol.


----------



## paxsarah (Jan 1, 2019)

I’m sure that hasn’t been updated since before marriage was an option for same sex couples. (And there could be international owners from countries where domestic partnership/civil union is legal but not same-sex marriage.) I’m not sure why same-sex domestic partnership would be treated as any less serious than marriage. If you’d fake a marriage for timeshare purposes, by all means fake a domestic partnership.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

paxsarah said:


> I’m sure that hasn’t been updated since before marriage was an option for same sex couples. (And there could be international owners from countries where domestic partnership/civil union is legal but not same-sex marriage.) I’m not sure why same-sex domestic partnership would be treated as any less serious than marriage. If you’d fake a marriage for timeshare purposes, by all means fake a domestic partnership.


No company or individual wants to here the word “discrimination “. I didn’t mean anything by it beyond that


----------



## Manzana (Jan 1, 2019)

All this talk about contracts.   I thought VIP was attached to accounts not deeds.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

Manzana said:


> All this talk about contracts.   I thought VIP was attached to accounts not deeds.


That is correct.


----------



## breezez (Jan 1, 2019)

I’m getting a good laugh out of the people that feels this would be fraud,  but felt canceling and rebooking was ok and were upset when Wyndham changed the way it worked.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 1, 2019)

breezez said:


> I’m getting a good laugh out of the people that feels this would be fraud,  but felt canceling and rebooking was ok and were upset when Wyndham changed the way it worked.


You’re mistaken if your referring to me.  I never cancelled & rebooked 
I had several upset at me for calling it “an unfair advantage “
I also stated they were creating their own coupon or discount for one


----------



## 55plus (Jan 1, 2019)

Misrepresentation is a lot difference than cancel and rebook. Apples and oranges.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Jan 1, 2019)

Make sure the person who is added to the contract and the VIP owner a both TUG members
since we are al one big happy family  .

Eric - Does that pass the cereal box degree test ?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 1, 2019)

Could just be my view from the cheap seats, but I think we are confusing two different things here.  Transferring VIP - which is attached to an account status - has nothing to do with the contracts or deeds.  What does matter - is how the contract for the deed is categorized within the Wyndham system - which is what ultimately “counts” to determine whether the contract is recognized as a developer or resale contract for VIP eligibility purposes.  Am I off base here?

So if my assumptions are right, what matters is how the contract in question is currently categorized within the Wyndham system.  If the source contract is already categorized as resale - then adding a new owner to the deed and then eventually removing the original owner isn’t going to do anything - because the contract in question is already a resale contract within the Wyndham system itself.

Now the question becomes - if the original owner of a developer point contract resells the contract - is there a way to somehow not have that contract labeled as a resale when it is added to the new owners account?  This is where the possible loophole being discussed may or may not work.  I believe there are a few people currently attempting deed transfers using the proposed loophole at present.

In so far as VIP account transfer - the only way that I’m aware of to actually transfer VIP accounts is to embed the account and all contracts into a LLC - and the LLC itself is then named as the account owner and on the contracts/deeds.  The Managing Partner of the LLC itself can then be changed without any change to the Wyndham account or contract ownerships embedded within the LLC itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CO skier (Jan 1, 2019)

breezez said:


> I’m getting a good laugh out of the people that feels this would be fraud,  but felt canceling and rebooking was ok and were upset when Wyndham changed the way it worked.


Cancelling and rebooking was not fraud; it was a (very Big) loophole.  Wyndham did not close the loophole, as it is still possible, but the cancel/rebook "possibilities" are now much more limited.

The old cancel/rebook did not involve anything related to deeds; the VIP benefits transfer does.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 2, 2019)

CO skier said:


> Cancelling and rebooking was not fraud; it was a (very Big) loophole.  Wyndham did not close the loophole, as it is still possible, but the cancel/rebook "possibilities" are now much more limited.
> 
> The old cancel/rebook did not involve anything related to deeds; the VIP benefits transfer does.
> 
> Apples and oranges.



I dont understand your position here. Both are identical.... a series of transactions that adheres to the rules of the Club, and to which the outcome is determined by Wyndham. In one case a points discount and upgrade, and in the other VIP status remaining on the account. Assuming I never represented that I was related to the other party when I was added to the account, I have not committed fraud or misrepresentation. And I need not say I am a family member to be added to the account.

Wyndham is free to remove my VIP status when I am a sole owner of the account. Them failing to do so is not on me.


----------



## CO skier (Jan 2, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> I dont understand your position here. Both are identical....


The situations are not at all identical.  The old cancel/rebook violated the Club rule "The Club’s Manager, at its sole and reasonable discretion, may restrict Club services and/or access to an Owner who engages in behaviors that negatively impact the program, other Owners and Guests, …"

What Club rule do you think the VIP loophole violates?


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 2, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Now the question becomes - if the original owner of a developer point contract resells the contract - *is there a way to somehow not have that contract labeled as a resale when it is added to the new owners account? * This is where the possible loophole being discussed may or may not work.  I believe there are a few people currently attempting deed transfers using the proposed loophole at present.



Luckily my cereal box came with an additional license in speculating, so I would posit that is the loophole here. That the account never becomes resale (losing VIP benefits), because a new account is never created. Since the new owner is added to the existing contract and account.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 2, 2019)

CO skier said:


> The situations are not at all identical.  The old cancel/rebook violated the Club rule "The Club’s Manager, at its sole and reasonable discretion, may restrict Club services and/or access to an Owner who engages in behaviors that negatively *impact the WorldMark program*, other Owners and Guests, …"
> 
> What Club rule do you think the VIP loophole violates?



The VIP loophole violates no Club rule (as is my point). But neither did cancel/rebook.

The operative word in that provision you cite is "reasonable".  If cancel/rebook violated a rule of the Club, then the number of suspended members would have been significantly larger.

Though given how broadly you seem to interpret that rule - I could easily cite the VIP transfer as violating that rule also. Which means they are both the same (following your logic).

And ps. you are citing a WM rule when the discussion is Club Wyndham.


----------



## CO skier (Jan 2, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> And ps. you are citing a WM rule when the discussion is Club Wyndham.


You should review page 394 of the Club Wyndham directory, "Wyndham Vacation Resorts reserves the right at its sole and reasonable discretion to restrict CLUB WYNDHAM Plus services/access to Members who engage in behaviors that negatively impact the CLUB WYNDHAM Plus program, its members and resort guests,"

which the old cancel/rebook unquestionably negatively impacted "regular" (not megarenter) members.


----------



## tschwa2 (Jan 2, 2019)

My take on this is Wyndham is very aware of this "loophole"  people have been discussing it and trying it, I imagine, for more than a decade.  Yes Wyndham's processes MIGHT miss this type of transaction and VIP MIGHT be retained by the new non original owner.  In all likelihood they do have someone auditing all VIP accounts that involve removing an owner from the account.  I would imagine most get caught during the transfer that involved removing the owner, and the new owner would be asked to provide documentation that shows the eligible relationship to the original owner or have VIP removed.  Even if it slips by the initial process, at any time, for any reason Wyndham could audit the account and again require appropriate documentation to avoid losing status.  If you want to pay the $299 transfer fee twice per deed/contract and pay for the deed prep and filing cost twice per deed on the chance that Wyndham" might miss re classifying the account as ineligible then I don't see that you could get in trouble.  I think the worst that could happen besides the extra expense would be to have it pulled back and included Guest certificates cancelled forcing you to pay $99 for each to restore and having a choice between having reservations with upgrades and discounts either cancelled or being asked to pony up the extra points to keep the reservations.  I don't think they would make you pay back for any past used reservations, it would only effect current and future reservations.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

I dont know anyone that did this double transfer thing, but I tried. The issue is that there has to be a lot of trust between the parties. The guy I was trying to buy from was afraid I would never do the second transfer, leaving him on the hook forever

There was a lot of "account leasing" done before the most recent rule changes   There was no transfer at all. I "Leased" several of my accounts to a points manager, He paid me A small premium above my mf

another  way to do this would be to have the original owner transfer the property to an LLC then you buy the LLC

And whether it’s fraud or just taking advantage of a loop hole dosent matter, if wyndham realizes that you have VIP without having purchased the requisite number of points from them, they will take it away


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 2, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Luckily my cereal box came with an additional license in speculating, so I would posit that is the loophole here. That the account never becomes resale (losing VIP benefits), because a new account is never created. Since the new owner is added to the existing contract and account.



Ok, so what we are really saying here in this example is that the new owner is added to the existing owners account, and then eventually the existing owner is removed from the account - in addition to the contracts/deeds?

Not having ever acquired a resale contract myself, I’m at a disadvantage here.  During a normal resale transaction, I’m assuming the new owner only acquires the contract/deed itself and never the actual Wyndham account.  If this loophole is used, it would seem to me the new owner may end up with multiple accounts if they already had an existing account previously?  If so, at some point would you attempt to merge your accounts?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uscav8r (Jan 2, 2019)

CO skier said:


> You should review page 394 of the Club Wyndham directory, "Wyndham Vacation Resorts reserves the right at its sole and reasonable discretion to restrict CLUB WYNDHAM Plus services/access to Members who engage in behaviors that negatively impact the CLUB WYNDHAM Plus program, its members and resort guests,"
> 
> which the old cancel/rebook unquestionably negatively impacted "regular" (not megarenter) members.



That’s not a rule. It is a caveat. While one might make a case for cancel/rebook negatively impacting other owners to varying degrees, I don’t see the VIP passdown as a major detriment to others. Most of the benefits are relegated to last minute bookings, and the upgrade feature essentially puts the kibosh on the most egregious cancel/rebook scenarios. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 55plus (Jan 2, 2019)

How does a LLC make a reservation without using a guest certificate? Isn't the LLC the owner, not an individual?


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 2, 2019)

55plus said:


> How does a LLC make a reservation without using a guest certificate? Isn't the LLC the owner, not an individual?



Since I've never done this before, I'm not entirely positive, but in my view, the actual owner names are _also _listed on the Wyndham account, however the LLC is the actual account owner and contract/deed owner.  I hope this makes sense.


----------



## wjappraise (Jan 2, 2019)

CO skier said:


> You should review page 394 of the Club Wyndham directory, "Wyndham Vacation Resorts reserves the right at its sole and reasonable discretion to restrict CLUB WYNDHAM Plus services/access to Members who engage in behaviors that negatively impact the CLUB WYNDHAM Plus program, its members and resort guests,"
> 
> which the old cancel/rebook unquestionably negatively impacted "regular" (not megarenter) members.



Pretzel logic.  

According to your interpretation consider this:   My use of ARP to reserve a room at 13 months then canceling it four months later “negatively impacts” other members as they couldn’t reserve this room when they searched at ten months.  So I should be suspended.  In fact, every room I reserve negatively impacts the next owner up as the inventory is diminished.  

Clearly that is not reasonable.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 2, 2019)

You have the right to cancel a reservation at anytime. You are penalized if you cancel under 15 days prior to check-in. You have a right to make a reservation at anytime if there is availability and you have the points.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Since I've never done this before, I'm not entirely positive, but in my view, the actual owner names are _also _listed on the Wyndham account, however the LLC is the actual account owner and contract/deed owner.  I hope this makes sense.



I had accounts owned by an LLC.

The owner of the LLC (me)  was on the Wyndham account so i could make reservations without a guest confirmation

But to pull off this scam I would leave the previous owner on the Wyndham account just change the mailing address etc with Wyndham. Change  the names  with your states Secretary of State of course 

Do it this way and yes, each reservation will require a guest confirm. But who cares You will have 30 of them which should be plenty for a small account


----------



## msyvonne85 (Jan 2, 2019)

ronparise said:


> I dont know anyone that did this double transfer thing, but I tried. The issue is that there has to be a lot of trust between the parties. The guy I was trying to buy from was afraid I would never do the second transfer, leaving him on the hook forever
> 
> There was a lot of "account leasing" done before the most recent rule changes   There was no transfer at all. I "Leased" several of my accounts to a points manager, He paid me A small premium above my mf
> 
> ...


The LLC is quite interesting, but then how do you check in under a LLC name?  And now how do you not get hit with overlapping reservations with just a LLC name?


----------



## Braindead (Jan 2, 2019)

What would really suck is you pay the seller a premium for cooperating and then after the seller has their money in the bank they inform Wyndham in a month or two that the original owners are out. Don’t say well there still on the deed because who do you think Wyndham is going to listen to and drop the VIP benefits


----------



## Jan M. (Jan 2, 2019)

Braindead said:


> What would really suck is you pay the seller a premium for cooperating and then after the seller has their money in the bank they inform Wyndham in a month or two that the original owners are out. Don’t say well there still on the deed because who do you think Wyndham is going to listen to and drop the VIP benefits



Haven't there been reports on TUG from people saying they had issues with Wyndham wanting to remove the VIP status from the account when they transferred the ownership from one family member to another? Due to marriages, step parents, etc., last names aren't always the same. If I remember correctly there was discussion about adding someone then taking the original owner off using a quit claim deed to retain the VIP status. I can't remember but didn't people say that wasn't working anymore or shouldn't be counted on working? Even with family I thought the suggestion was to leave one of the original owners name on the smallest deed or contract in the account especially if there were multiple deeds and contracts to avoid problems.

I used to see listings on eBay for gold and platinum accounts but I haven't seen any of those in a while. I figured transferring a VIP account must not work anymore. Has anyone else seen them?


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

msyvonne85 said:


> The LLC is quite interesting, but then how do you check in under a LLC name?  And now how do you not get hit with overlapping reservations with just a LLC name?


overlapping reservations is no different than with any one owner account, you need a different guest confirm for each one  and thats the answer for how you check in with an LLC... a guests confirm is needed for every reservation

again, I dont see that as a big deal...you get 30; 45 for a 2million+ account and 60 for 3 million+


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

Braindead said:


> What would really suck is you pay the seller a premium for cooperating and then after the seller has their money in the bank they inform Wyndham in a month or two that the original owners are out. Don’t say well there still on the deed because who do you think Wyndham is going to listen to and drop the VIP benefits


exactly, right, as I said in a post above... lots of trust between buyer and seller is  needed to do this.. My experience has been that sellers want a clean break with the system and dont ever want to deal with wyndham again... so most are not open to a deal like this


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

Jan M. said:


> I used to see listings on eBay for gold and platinum accounts but I haven't seen any of those in a while. I figured transferring a VIP account must not work anymore. Has anyone else seen them?



WinPoint VIP. who leased several of my accounts back in the day, advertised VIP accounts, but he wasnt really selling accounts, rather he was selling membership in his program.  which provided discounted reservations... He was basically a middleman, making reservations in accounts like mine for his members

The VIP accounts you saw on EBay were being sold by guys that knew my secret way to get VIP with certain resale contracts...


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

wjappraise said:


> Pretzel logic.
> 
> According to your interpretation consider this:   My use of ARP to reserve a room at 13 months then canceling it four months later “negatively impacts” other members as they couldn’t reserve this room when they searched at ten months.  So I should be suspended.  In fact, every room I reserve negatively impacts the next owner up as the inventory is diminished.
> 
> Clearly that is not reasonable.



CoSkier is right, at least thats the clause in the disclosures that Wyndham used to force me out of the club....That and the "no commercial use" clause

The negative impact argument is pretty subtle,   If I make a reservation and then cancel, there is no negative impact, and if I make a high value reservation, and cancel and rebook there is not much negative impact, at least I dont see it,  as that reservation was already booked.  Its not available to other owners from the time I made it. It dosent matter whether I cancel and rebook, or not; Its been mine from day 1.    

But when I take the cancelled points and use them to make another high value reservation....thats where the negative impact comes in
Its with the high value reservations.. There is no way one  owner should get any high value reservations at a discount (although that dosent impact other owners), using the same points to get two high value reservations just dosent seem fair


----------



## breezez (Jan 2, 2019)

55plus said:


> How does a LLC make a reservation without using a guest certificate? Isn't the LLC the owner, not an individual?


I believe you can list managing members on the account.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 2, 2019)

wjappraise said:


> Pretzel logic.
> 
> According to your interpretation consider this:   My use of ARP to reserve a room at 13 months then canceling it four months later “negatively impacts” other members as they couldn’t reserve this room when they searched at ten months.  So I should be suspended.  In fact, every room I reserve negatively impacts the next owner up as the inventory is diminished.
> 
> Clearly that is not reasonable.



Exactly. Could just as easily say that everyone who holds inventory to the last minute and releases it, is harming the Club.

And one test of “reasonable discretion” is that an action is not discriminatory or targeting certain groups/individual.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 2, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Exactly. Could just as easily say that everyone who holds inventory to the last minute and releases it, is harming the Club.
> 
> And one test of “reasonable discretion” is that an action is not discriminatory or targeting certain groups/individual.




It dosent matter what you or Wes might say, and it dosent matter whether you are right or wrong... Its Wyndhams sandbox and if you are going to play there you play by their rules and their interpretation


----------



## wjappraise (Jan 2, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Exactly. Could just as easily say that everyone who holds inventory to the last minute and releases it, is harming the Club.
> 
> And one test of “reasonable discretion” is that an action is not discriminatory or targeting certain groups/individual.



I concur. 

Every room you book is a room I can’t book. And vice versa.  You’re being a competing owner is a negative impact to my ownership.  

If I were the only owner allowed to book, that would be fantastic.  Not realistic, but fantastic.  500,000 owners competing for the same rooms I want is a negative impact, but it is the reality of a points-based timeshare ownership business model.  Owners smarter than me that know how to maximize their ownership rights better than I can, is the crux of capitalism, and is built on the concepts of a free market economy.  We love it when we outsmart others, we hate it when we get outsmarted.  But either way, it’s not violating the Club rules.


----------



## wjappraise (Jan 2, 2019)

ronparise said:


> It dosent matter what you or Wes might say, and it dosent matter whether you are right or wrong... Its Wyndhams sandbox and if you are going to play there you play by their rules and their interpretation



True. 
 But that doesn’t mean that canceling a room and rebooking at a lower points costs is a violation of their rules.  It’s just tougher to do now. And a risk I’m not willing to take with a room I really need or want.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 2, 2019)

breezez said:


> I’m getting a good laugh out of the people that feels this would be fraud,  but felt canceling and rebooking was ok and were upset when Wyndham changed the way it worked.


----------



## breezez (Jan 2, 2019)

Braindead said:


> View attachment 9723


Braindead - I was not particularly talking about you, I was just amused at how critical people were being to OPs question.

Personally I think Wyndham’s change gave me a non-VIP more access to good reservations by not having as many bogus reservations tied up.

But my point was simply a loophole is a loophole. 

Some people seem to find one loophole okay but find others to be morally wrong.

It’s the human nature of people to figure out how to work any system to their benefit and all power to them.  In fact one of the reasons we have lawyers not us cereal box lawyers is to figure out away to circumvent original intent in the first place. (1) Group of Attorneys for client X write a contract.  A while later some one tries to through another group of attorneys to redefine or squeeze through something, by redefining what was worded in the first place.   This happens with congressional laws all the time too.

As a non VIP owner I saw how it made it difficult for me to get some reservation especially in larger units at some locations.   But I also accepted it.  Wyndham set the rules and we are all in their sandbox.

But if the OP wants to work with a VIP owner and get added to the VIP’s contracts.    Then at a later date submit new deeds to remove original owner.   If VIP remains that was Wyndham’s choice.  If it didn’t transfer that was Wyndham’s choice also.

Personally It would be a risk on the OP and the VIP original owner to both be on deeds.  A lot could go wrong.  Original VIP could swipe points, but leave OP stuck with MFs.  Original VIP, may have others on accounts that rob points, Original VIP could die before the second set of deeds filed, this create a lot of havoc for the OP.   Original VIP would have to have a lot of trust that OP didn’t take points then not pay MFs and on and on.

But no where in the OP’s question did they ever mention doing anything that was fraudulent with deeds.  In fact the deeds say nothing about VIP.

I think OP will find PIC to VIP and telesales may be a bit more money , but less risky and guarantee what you get will be VIP eligible.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 2, 2019)

breezez said:


> Braindead - I was not particularly talking about you, I was just amused at how critical people were being to OPs question.
> 
> Personally I think Wyndham’s change gave me a non-VIP more access to good reservations by not having as many bogus reservations tied up.
> 
> ...


No problem. I figured there was only two of us considering it could be fraud. 
I was very critical of cancel rebook cancel upgrade as you can see. 
I don’t take things personally and glad Ron & others didn’t take what I said back then personally either. 
Just wanted to set the record straight on how I viewed cancel rebook


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 2, 2019)

This issue is very similar. Just like cancel/rebook, some cannot separate the legality from the fairness/ethical. But the OP never asked anyone's opinion if is this was "ethical" or even "legal" - only if it was possible.

I can imagine a similar debate breaking out if they had popped into the forum 15 years ago and asked if cancel/rebook was possible.


----------



## Richelle (Jan 3, 2019)

There is a lot of back and forth on this. I’m not going to chime in on what’s legal, fraud, loop holes, etc.  I am just going to answer the original question. I talked to a reseller who said he has done this on multiple occasions. I expressed my concern that Wyndham could eventually figure out what was done and strip away the VIP benefit. His response: 

“If doing a VIP double closing then it’s double the closing cost plus double the resort transfer fee which is adding and removing owners.... totally legal they cannot stop it I’ve done this for many clients and owners over the years ”

I told them Wyndham tends to test the limit on what they can do, until someone slaps them back down. In theory, they could strip away the benefits of VIP since the original owner is not on the deed or account, and they are not a family member. I don’t think anyone would get into any trouble, as long as they didn’t claim it was a family transfer. That doesn’t mean Wyndham cannot strip the retail benefits from that particular contract, because the original owner is no longer on it, and the new owner is not family.  If they do that, the new owner would be out all those closing costs and transfer fees. If they paid a lot for the contract, they wasted a ton of money on that as well.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 3, 2019)

Richelle said:


> I talked to a reseller who said he has done this on multiple occasions. I expressed my concern that Wyndham could eventually figure out what was done and strip away the VIP benefit. His response:
> 
> “If doing a VIP double closing then it’s double the closing cost plus double the resort transfer fee which is adding and removing owners.... totally legal they cannot stop it I’ve done this for many clients and owners over the years ”


Buyer beware!!  You’re trusting a reseller that probably scammed the owner out of money , No thanks
I’ll take Rons word that’s it very hard to find an owner to go along with the idea. I’ve experienced that as well & yes I’ve asked.

Now you’re probably going to get scammed by paying the reseller way more for a contract than you normally would’ve paid for a contract.

This is a very good reseller scamming the seller & scamming you out of $ also by getting you to overpay

You really don’t think most resellers haven’t thought of this along with those buying from them.
I even asked SMTN a few years ago saying that’s the only way I would consider the high prices for contracts they had listed.
They wouldn’t even consider the idea!!


----------



## Richelle (Jan 3, 2019)

Braindead said:


> Buyer beware!!  You’re trusting a reseller that probably scammed the owner out of money , No thanks
> I’ll take Rons word that’s it very hard to find an owner to go along with the idea. I’ve experienced that as well & yes I’ve asked.
> 
> Now you’re probably going to get scammed by paying the reseller way more for a contract than you normally would’ve paid for a contract.
> ...



Just to be clear, I am not doing this. Nor do I recommend doing this. That is why I kept mentioning the risks. Also, I’ve done business with this reseller twice and got what I paid for. I did not do this particular process. I just did the normal transfer process. He also has a 100% positive feedback rating, on eBay, with over 600 reviews. I’m not aware of many sellers who have that many reviews and still has 100% positive feedback. I would not have mentioned his comments, if I had not done business with him before, and he didn’t have such a high rating on eBay. I’m still not recommending they do this, even with this seller, because of those risks I mentioned. This seller may be on the straight and narrow, but that doesn’t mean Wyndham  cannot take away the retail benefits later. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braindead (Jan 3, 2019)

Richelle said:


> Just to be clear, I am not doing this. I’ve done business with this reseller twice and got what I paid for. I did not do this particular process. I just did the normal transfer process. He also has a 100% positive feedback rating, on eBay, with over 600 reviews.


Why would you call telesales if you had this rout available ? Why didn’t you advise everyone about the reseller instead of telesales ?
Did you tell people you know well to go with this reseller & advise others in PMs to go this rout with the reseller ?

You don’t have to make sense or justify what you posted to me but looking from the outside it doesn’t make sense to this poster
You sound like you had nothing to lose trying to get developer points going this rout so I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t try it as you bought from the reseller anyway

You trust the reseller, you believe they’ve done it several times so why not??


----------



## Richelle (Jan 3, 2019)

AGAIN, I said I do not recommend doing this. Why would I tell people to go this route, if I do not recommend doing this?  You seem to be seeing what you want to see, and reading what you want to read.  I recommend telesales because it’s guaranteed to count towards VIP.  This process he suggested does not.  Maybe I should put this in all caps, so you can be clear. I DO NOT RECOMMEND DOING THE PROCESS THE RESELLER IS TALKING ABOUT. Is that clear now?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## paxsarah (Jan 3, 2019)

Braindead said:


> You trust the reseller, you believe they’ve done it several times so why not??



Is it inconceivable that she trusts the reseller to be on the up and up in terms of a normal time-limited timeshare transaction, and still not trust them enough to do something that requires a higher level of trust on both sides as well as an ongoing relationship to keep it up, to maintain a status that most would agree is within a grey area of Wyndham's rules and could be stripped away by Wyndham at any time? She was simply reporting a conversation she had had, but not endorsing the concepts the reseller was espousing, as well as describing the pitfalls of going through with it - that was pretty clear. There are a lot of weird assumptions going on in your post that were nowhere hinted at in Richelle's post. Heck, and even if she trusted the reseller enough to do this, one would also have to trust Wyndham not to revoke the status. Few have that level of trust.


----------



## Eric B (Jan 3, 2019)

My interpretation would be that there is a lack of trust that Wyndham wouldn’t catch on and change the rules or institute audits rather than a lack of trust in the reseller.  That would be outside the reseller’s control and an understandable action on Wyndham’s part.  That would be the reason for recommending telesales, too.

Not sure it’s worth arguing about in any case.


----------



## Pete Buckler (Jan 3, 2019)

My wife and I recently had two contracts transferred to us from her grandparents. Wyndham required a family affidavit form be filled out to retain VIP status. Along with the newly recorded deeds and $299 fee for each contract


----------



## 55plus (Jan 3, 2019)

When I inherited my parent's platinum account the transfer was free. But that was before Wyndham took over Fairfield.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 3, 2019)

Bringing this conversation fully circle, as it is obvious that people have strong opinions about the legal/ethical/trust issues required to accomplish what the OP was suggesting.

And while no one posted a first hand account of a successful transfer, we have a 2nd hand account that at least one reseller has reportedly done so. In addition to Ron’s attempts to do so, that fell apart as the transaction requires a lot of trust between the involved individuals.

And the obvious caveat that - if successful - Wyndham could revoke the VIP status at anytime.

Hopefully that answers the OP question.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 4, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Bringing this conversation fully circle, as it is obvious that people have strong opinions about the legal/ethical/trust issues required to accomplish what the OP was suggesting.
> 
> And while no one posted a first hand account of a successful transfer, we have a 2nd hand account that at least one reseller has reportedly done so. In addition to Ron’s attempts to do so, that fell apart as the transaction requires a lot of trust between the involved individuals.
> 
> ...


I’m curious so bear with me.

When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.

The discussion in this thread involves colluding scheming between the buyer & seller to benefit themselves to the detriment of Wyndham & actually us the other owners.  Why are they colluding scheming if they aren’t doing anything wrong??

I think it’s they know they are breaking the rule on eligible VIP account transfer and admitting so by their collusion scheming tactics.

Pete reported they had fill out an affidavit. If any of you think you’re going to lie on a signed notarized affidavit you better think twice.

My whole life it’s not only been unethical to collude scheme but also illegal on items such as this thread. How is this different than 2 people colluding scheming to steal a pair of shoes or article of clothing or even skimming cash out of the register. The end means is to get something you didn’t pay for.  How is that legal?? 

Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Wyndham is going to start pressing criminal charges on anyone. They’ll take of it outside of the courts

I’m interested in your opinion!  I’ll be honest I barely ended up with a cereal box high school diploma graduating with the bare minimum credits. But I’ve done alright in life


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Jan 4, 2019)

Braindead said:


> I’m curious so bear with me.
> 
> When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying.
> *****
> I’m interested in your opinion!



1) Interesting thread - I have been reading it regularly
2) The cheap VIP Platinum of the past - that Ron has explained was a different "program ' than this thread's concept .

3)Re : opinion
 some people buy radar detectors . They & the seller/mfg of the device are in some way -" collusion scheming "
IMO - not too many people think this is immoral , BUT in some jurisdictions these devices are illegal;
If I try to bring one into Canada &  border customs catches me & finds it  - they take it away AND , there may be other penalties for not declaring said item .

4) If Wyndham catches you ....my opinion is that your platinum status is gone & they could invoke other penalties regarding your account with them .

5) There are folks in Canada who possess radar detection devices .
and  FYI  -if the police catch you with it they generally  charge you with possession of an illegal device 

6) Wyndham makes the rules  .


----------



## 55plus (Jan 4, 2019)

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Plain and simple.


----------



## Eric B (Jan 4, 2019)

That’s not actually the definition of fraud, which I provided in an earlier post (the knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment).  If you step back and think about it from the perspective of someone that paid Wyndham to buy units/points that qualify for VIP benefits, but cannot sell them with those benefits, you might have a different opinion - it does effect the resale value, after all.  The perspective of an individual that inherits a VIP membership might be different, because they don’t have as much invested (though I hesitate to use that word with a TS).

My perspective is that of someone who bought from Wyndham before finding TUG; I resent that they have set things up deliberately to devalue the resale market and applaud anyone that can figure out how to use the rules set up by Wyndham to their advantage, which truly does not disadvantage any other owner because they do not have any ownership rights in an expectation that a resale will no longer have the minor benefits afforded VIPs, who could continue to use them instead of selling them.

Not sure what motivates the view that this is fraud, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  I tend to step back from asserting that other posters here are encouraging criminal behavior, though.  Reasonable minds can disagree, of course.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 4, 2019)

Braindead said:


> I’m curious so bear with me. When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.
> *...Pete reported they had fill out an affidavit. If any of you think you’re going to lie on a signed notarized affidavit you better think twice.*
> 
> My whole life it’s not only been unethical to collude scheme but also illegal on items such as this thread. How is this different than 2 people colluding scheming to steal a pair of shoes or article of clothing or even skimming cash out of the register. The end means is to get something you didn’t pay for.  How is that legal??
> ...



I think it is simple.

The OP never suggested anything about lying about a family relationship. That only came up in some rebuttal posts from what I will loosely call the  "moral outrage" posters. In fact I do not see any post where someone advocates lying to defraud Wyndham - and in his 2nd post - the OP explicitly states he would not lie about being family. Like him - most here, self included, agree that would be fraud. But that is not what the OP was asking.

Why do you see a difference between what is contemplated here and the previous VIP affiliate contract loophole that Ron discussed. Both require having knowledge, using it, having a fair amount of risk/trust, comply with Wyndham's rules, and the outcome is determined by Wyndham's policies.

Said another way - this same dialog could have occurred in 2014 regarding the affiliate loophole. How are they any different?

ps. You seem very focused on the intent of the parties - what my cereal box called the "mens rea" or guilty mind of the parties. Is this then permitted?

I approach an elderly VIP owner who is starting to travel less. I offer him $1000 to add me to his account so I can use his VIP benefits. After two years he dies, and his heirs quit-claim the account to me.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 4, 2019)

Braindead said:


> I’m curious so bear with me.
> 
> When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.
> 
> ...



Cautionary, what I'm about to say may be considered somewhat controversial and may offend a few folks on this forum.  It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points.  I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters were actively working the system (and to be clear - I'm not saying Ron falls into this category - but he's the only one I happen to know of and is on this forum).  Suffice it to say, that according to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham.  Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement.  I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally.  Were the megarenters treated unfairly?  Was Wyndham strong arming people who didn't have deep pockets to mount legal defenses?  I honestly have no idea either way, since this all occurred well prior to my ever finding this forum.

That said, I will say that just because we can do such things, does not mean we should.  We all make choices in the end.  The problem with gaming any system, is that eventually something will be done to remedy the loopholes that allowed for the manipulation of the system in the first place.  In most cases, the changes made to limit and to protect the system, make the rest of us who made the choice not to game the system, collectively suffer negative consequences in the process.  Don't get me wrong, I admire the chutzpah to figure out how any system works and then to figure out a way to game the system.  But if I'm honest, I believe to do so is ultimately not a good thing.  I'm sure others would disagree though.

I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past.  I'm sure a portion of these complaints are simply people who long for the olden days so to speak, and a portion is probably Wyndham getting greedy because they are the big timeshare gorilla in the industry vertical and, well, simply because they can do what they want within reason.  But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.


----------



## Cyrus24 (Jan 4, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.


I'll go on record saying that I very much hold the megarenters and account strippers accountable for us normal owners losing the Credit Pool.  They gamed the system.  And, while I'm not aware of the settlement, it should have been $0.  Wyndham should have just changed the rules and left the gamers hanging with a bunch of contracts that had limited usage value for 2 to 3 years.  Wyndham overreacted with the long term solution. I will forever be angry with Wyndham for eliminating the credit pool.  

I'll not weigh in on the issue of transferring VIP via a couple of deed transfers other than to say, they will soon be watching for this, IF they have not already been watching.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 4, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points.  I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters.


I may agree or disagree on other topics.
I was only discussing one item, cheap VIP

I don’t even consider the affiliate cheap VIP a loophole. It was all knowledge nothing underhanded. It was Wyndham policy to allow the transfer to go through with developer credit. No rules were broken, no colluding & no scheming on this one topic.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Jan 4, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> 1) It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points.
> 2 ) to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham.  Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement.  I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally.  Were the megarenters treated unfairly?
> 3) I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past. ( edited format by T-Dot- Traveller)  .



1- I am not sure Ron qualified as a megarenter . He did own lots of points .
He bought resale contracts & also disposed of  them in ethical ways. ( ie full discosure to buyers or  the receiver of those contracts. )
As I understand it from reading many of his TUG posts - he did rentals to make money . Some of what he rented were fixed week (Mardi Gras)  New Orleans rentals &  Mardi Gras & other sought after weeks in New Orleans and elsewhere  . He also "leased "  his Platinum VIP account(s) to others who did rentals .(as he stated earlier in this thread )
I will let Ron define the term he wishes to use .

2) I am not sure if Wyndham sued anyone . To my understanding (based on the TUG thread from 2016) - Wyndham suspended use of folks accounts based on a audit of points owned vs.
points used for reservations .  MF payment was not suspended while accounts were frozen . This created issues for all suspended owners .

3) From reading TUG as a non Wyndham owner - IT issues seem to be the biggest complaint  I read about .
 In general -TUG posts are not negative about  the quality of resorts  properties , etc . " Not what it once was " is hard to define .


----------



## Braindead (Jan 4, 2019)

Eric B said:


> If you step back and think about it from the perspective of someone that paid Wyndham to buy units/points that qualify for VIP benefits, but cannot sell them with those benefits, you might have a different opinion
> 
> I resent that they have set things up deliberately to devalue the resale market and applaud anyone that can figure out how to use the rules set up by Wyndham to their advantage, which truly does not disadvantage any other owner because they do not have any ownership rights in an expectation that a resale will no longer have the minor benefits afforded VIPs, who could continue to use them instead of selling them.


I resent that’s the way it’s set up also. In fact I agree with what I left in your post.

But it’s the rules we have to go by.  As others have said it’s Wyndhams sandbox and they set the rules. 

If I don’t like or resent a law it doesn’t give me the right to violate the law


----------



## Eric B (Jan 4, 2019)

Braindead said:


> I resent that’s the way it’s set up also. In fact I agree with what I left in your post.
> 
> But it’s the rules we have to go by.  As others have said it’s Wyndhams sandbox and they set the rules.
> 
> If I don’t like or resent a law it doesn’t give me the right to violate the law



Where we disagree is whether this involves a law.  I don’t believe it does, but instead is a matter of contract, where the terms of a contract are generally interpreted in favor of the party that did not write it.  Wyndham hast written the contract and the rules it uses to operate the system; in some ways the terms of these seem very one-sided to benefit Wyndham at the expense of the purchaser.  One major example is the change from the credit pool to points deposit in future years that was cited above.  That cured an issue Wyndham had with a poorly written set of terms that they solved by making it less valuable to folks that had already bought from them.  I have no sympathy for Wyndham if someone else figures out a method that complies with Wyndham rules but is beneficial to them.  I also don’t believe it to be immoral or in any way wrong to learn and use Wyndham’s system efficiently.  In fact, the method OP asked about actually seems to comply with the rules Wyndham wrote; my only issue with it is that it does run the risk of having them change the rules afterwards, so I wouldn’t do it myself.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 4, 2019)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> 1- I am not sure Ron qualified as a megarenter . He did own lots of points .
> He bought resale contracts & also disposed of  them in ethical ways. ( ie full discosure to buyers or  the receiver of those contracts. )
> As I understand it from reading many of his TUG posts - he did rentals to make money . Some of what he rented were fixed week (Mardi Gras)  New Orleans rentals &  Mardi Gras & other sought after weeks in New Orleans and elsewhere  . He also "leased "  his Platinum VIP account(s) to others who did rentals .(as he stated earlier in this thread )
> I will let Ron define the term he wishes to use .



I hear you, but it’s semantics really, he simply outsourced his rental business to others.  Heck, I would have done the same thing - delegation is mandatory to scale any business model.  The core concept here is that the Wyndham timeshare system was never intended to allow for people to build commercial businesses.  In so far as I understand, this fact in and of itself was a violation of certain legal terms and conditions.  Again, just my view from the cheap seats to be clear.  Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.



> 2) I am not sure if Wyndham sued anyone . To my understanding (based on the TUG thread from 2016) - Wyndham suspended use of folks accounts based on a audit of points owned vs.
> points used for reservations .  MF payment was not suspended while accounts were frozen . This created issues for all suspended owners .



I could be wrong but it is my understanding that there were legal proceedings levered against certain megarenters.  Not sure if this was the case specific to Ron though.



> 3) From reading TUG as a non Wyndham owner - IT issues seem to be the biggest complaint  I read about .
> In general -TUG posts are not negative about  the quality of resorts  properties , etc . " Not what it once was " is hard to define .



Agreed on the IT systems point made - but it’s semantics really - since the entire Wyndham points based model is an IT based system in reality.  Whether the website used by owners, or the system used by the reps that you call on the phone, same thing really - it all hits the same central databases.  

As someone who has worked in IT for 25 years now, I can say with confidence and based upon a considerable amount of experience that designing and maintaining complex large scale database systems like Wyndham has in place is far from easy.  That said, it could certainly be better.  BG’s reservation and search systems are much better and easier to use than Wyndham’s as one example.  Then again, BG is only a fraction of the size of Wyndham.  Size matters.  

I’ve seen plenty of complaints over time on this forum and on the FB groups about the resorts themselves not being maintained they way they once were, customer service degradation over time at resorts (going back to Fairfield owner timeframes from many decades ago).  That said, I agree with you that I generally find the resorts are of good quality especially when compared to hotels and other smaller timeshare companies.

In so far as the cheap VIP issue is concerned, if anyone can leverage a loophole then so be it.  The concept of getting something for nothing via a back door or for much less than when going through the front door is eternally attractive on many levels.  Just recognize the risks involved and the fact that all such things will eventually come to an end when the loopholes are identified and closed, and audits uncover those accounts that chose the back doors.  




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## breezez (Jan 4, 2019)

55plus said:


> Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Plain and simple.


I am humored again.  While I definately don’t feel two wrongs make a right.   People seem to care about poor Wyndham...  But, I don’t think Wyndham  cares an lick about this definition from 55Plus when anyone sits at that table in a sales presentation or owners upate.  The fact that they even call it an Owners Update is the beginning of the fraud.

The sad part is I even own a few hundred shares of WYND.  Figured that was one way to make money in TS industry.


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 4, 2019)

breezez said:


> I am humored again.  While I definately don’t feel two wrongs make a right.   People seem to care about poor Wyndham...  But, I don’t think Wyndham  cares an lick about this definition from 55Plus when anyone sits at that table in a sales presentation or owners upate.  The fact that they even call it an Owners Update is the beginning of the fraud.
> 
> The sad part is I even own a few hundred shares of WYND.  Figured that was one way to make money in TS industry.



The sales practices are simply deplorable when we piece them apart.  Fraud, bait and switch, deception with intent to harm, elder abuses, and the list goes on.  This is one area where Wyndham deserves whatever comes their way eventually.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braindead (Jan 4, 2019)

brekkon said:


> when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers.  I think to be fraud it would actually have to be spelled out that it is not allowed.  It was a wyndham employee that first told me about the loophole that I am wondering if they finally put in a rule that does not allow it. (If there is now a rule that prevents this and you did it only then would it be fraud)


Original poster did discuss deeds to family members. Also asked if there was a rule that prevents this and if it would be fraud.

I’m not a Wyndham lover but I do understand that Wyndham makes the rules whether any of us like, love or hate Wyndham. 

Just because you don’t like Wyndhams rules doesn’t give you the right to break those rules. I also don’t think anyone should encourage others to break those rules or “stick it Wyndham “ that will only cost all owners like last time. 

What’s everyone going to say when Wyndham says no more VIP family transfers ??? Keep encouraging others to break the rules & Wyndham will fix it like last time. You either accept and respect Wyndhams authority or take the rath for not abiding by the rules, can you say accounts suspended ??


----------



## Cyrus24 (Jan 4, 2019)

Braindead said:


> break the rules & Wyndham will fix it like last time.


When Wyndham fixes a rule, they certainly have a tendency toward going TOO far.  It's best to play inside the rules and if one plans to stretch the rules, minimize the public conversation.  If they need to fix the multi-transfer loophole, I hope they do it administratively versus with a wide-ranging rule change.


----------



## ronparise (Jan 4, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> Cautionary, what I'm about to say may be considered somewhat controversial and may offend a few folks on this forum.  It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points.  I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters were actively working the system (and to be clear - I'm not saying Ron falls into this category - but he's the only one I happen to know of and is on this forum).  Suffice it to say, that according to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham.  Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement.  I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally.  Were the megarenters treated unfairly?  Was Wyndham strong arming people who didn't have deep pockets to mount legal defenses?  I honestly have no idea either way, since this all occurred well prior to my ever finding this forum.
> 
> That said, I will say that just because we can do such things, does not mean we should.  We all make choices in the end.  The problem with gaming any system, is that eventually something will be done to remedy the loopholes that allowed for the manipulation of the system in the first place.  In most cases, the changes made to limit and to protect the system, make the rest of us who made the choice not to game the system, collectively suffer negative consequences in the process.  Don't get me wrong, I admire the chutzpah to figure out how any system works and then to figure out a way to game the system.  But if I'm honest, I believe to do so is ultimately not a good thing.  I'm sure others would disagree though.
> 
> I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past.  I'm sure a portion of these complaints are simply people who long for the olden days so to speak, and a portion is probably Wyndham getting greedy because they are the big timeshare gorilla in the industry vertical and, well, simply because they can do what they want within reason.  But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.



No Wyndham didn’t sue us, They threatened to sue. 

They way they put it was.... “here’s our offer; you sign all your contracts back to us and we won’t sue”   I told them to go ahead and sue. 

They followed with an email that encouraged me to accept their official offer, but invited me to submit a counter offer

My counter offer was that I would sign everything back to them for a million dollars. We settled somewhere in the middle

The terms of our settlement are what’s subject to the NDA


----------



## ronparise (Jan 4, 2019)

HitchHiker71 said:


> The sales practices are simply deplorable when we piece them apart.  Fraud, bait and switch, deception with intent to harm, elder abuses, and the list goes on.  This is one area where Wyndham deserves whatever comes their way eventually.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Wyndham accuses me of taking advantage of them.  I laughed and told them that “I am 70 years old working in the back bedroom of my home, in my underwear, trying to scratch out a living.  Don’t tell me I took advantage of the Wyndham Worldwide Company. If anyone is taking advantage of anyone else it’s your salesmen that take advantage of your buyers”

I did get a laugh out of the Wyndham lawyer with that. He said “thanks for a picture I’ll never get out of my head”


----------



## ronparise (Jan 4, 2019)

Cyrus24 said:


> I'll go on record saying that I very much hold the megarenters and account strippers accountable for us normal owners losing the Credit Pool.  They gamed the system.  And, while I'm not aware of the settlement, it should have been $0.  Wyndham should have just changed the rules and left the gamers hanging with a bunch of contracts that had limited usage value for 2 to 3 years.  Wyndham overreacted with the long term solution. I will forever be angry with Wyndham for eliminating the credit pool.
> 
> I'll not weigh in on the issue of transferring VIP via a couple of deed transfers other than to say, they will soon be watching for this, IF they have not already been watching.



The lawyer I worked with called me a a “points puller” the credit pool was a pretty neat benefit. And I have no doubt that they took it away when they finally figured out what we were doing.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Jan 4, 2019)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham ......  I laughed and told them that “I am 70 years old working in the back bedroom of my home, in my underwear, trying to scratch out a living.
> ..... the Wyndham lawyer .....  said “thanks for a picture I’ll never get out of my head”



and neither will some TUG members who read this thread !

*******
Boxers or briefs ? 

(Answering this question may be incriminating)


----------



## ronparise (Jan 4, 2019)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> 1- I am not sure Ron qualified as a megarenter . He did own lots of points .
> He bought resale contracts & also disposed of  them in ethical ways. ( ie full discosure to buyers or  the receiver of those contracts. )
> As I understand it from reading many of his TUG posts - he did rentals to make money . Some of what he rented were fixed week (Mardi Gras)  New Orleans rentals &  Mardi Gras & other sought after weeks in New Orleans and elsewhere  . He also "leased "  his Platinum VIP account(s) to others who did rentals .(as he stated earlier in this thread )
> I will let Ron define the term he wishes to use .
> ...


1) I owned as many as 30 million points and at any one time had as many as 90 million points in reservations. You are right that I didn’t make most of the reservations or collect the rent myself. Rather,  I “rented” my accounts. Maybe you could call me a megarenter once removed

What I was doing with with Wyndham evolved over time. I started with a 385000 point account and rented about 2/3 of them to pay my fees. That gave me 100000 points for a “free” vacation (we went to Bonnet Creek the week before Christmas) 

At the end I held a core position of 10million points and another 29 weeks. 

and I was was buying 20 million points a year, using the credit pool to strip off the points to make reservations to rent and then selling the stripped contracts  i was paying about $20000 a month in maintenance fees 

There were 5 things that made what I was doing, on the scale I was doing it, possible 1) a supply of cheap contracts to buy 2) cheap VIP accounts 3) the credit pool 4)  points managers (essentially travel agents) and 5) a market to sell the stripped contracts

Most of what I was doing in my final year was buying.  Everything else was ion auto pilot


2) right, wyndham didn’t sue us as I explain in another post. But they didn’t suspend us “based on an audit”  either.

 What they did is suspend us “pending” an audit. And at least in my case, they never did that audit. 

3) I haven’t been at one of the resorts in a while, But I always thought the resorts were super. And I suspect that they still are


----------



## HitchHiker71 (Jan 4, 2019)

ronparise said:


> Wyndham accuses me of taking advantage of them.  I laughed and told them that “I am 70 years old working in the back bedroom of my home, in my underwear, trying to scratch out a living.  Don’t tell me I took advantage of the Wyndham Worldwide Company. If anyone is taking advantage of anyone else it’s your salesmen that take advantage of your buyers”
> 
> I did get a laugh out of the Wyndham lawyer with that. He said “thanks for a picture I’ll never get out of my head”



Thanks for clearing the air on my assumptions Ron.  

If Wyndham was really smart, they would have seen this as a “catch me if you can” type moment and hired you directly.  Nothing better than having someone whose job it is to hack your own systems to find the inherent weaknesses and proactively improve the systems on a persistent basis.  Working in IT, we routinely perform security audits with our systems several times a year where we employ ethical hackers to do exactly what I’m saying here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 5, 2019)

Braindead said:


> I may agree or disagree on other topics.
> I was only discussing one item, cheap VIP
> 
> I don’t even consider the affiliate cheap VIP a loophole. It was all knowledge nothing underhanded. It was Wyndham policy to allow the transfer to go through with developer credit. No rules were broken, no colluding & no scheming on this one topic.



Yes and no. Yes, it was policy that you could assign deeds at certain resorts to Club Wyndham in exchange for VIP qualified points. No, because it relied on Wyndham's inability or lack of care to distinguish a deed sold to a KBV member by Pahio 17 years ago from one purchased on ebay the week before. I dont know with certainty, but I suspect that a few sales people know how to make it look like a developer purchase or knew that Wyndham would not check. But I doubt Wyndham intended for deeds purchased resale to qualify.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 5, 2019)

brekkon said:


> Not sure how it is fraud if that is the way the system works so that when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers.  I think to be fraud it would actually have to be spelled out that it is not allowed.  It was a wyndham employee that first told me about the loophole that I am wondering if they finally put in a rule that does not allow it. (If there is now a rule that prevents this and you did it only then would it be fraud)





Braindead said:


> Original poster did discuss deeds to family members. Also asked if there was a rule that prevents this and if it would be fraud.
> 
> I’m not a Wyndham lover but I do understand that Wyndham makes the rules whether any of us like, love or hate Wyndham.
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing out that out. But I never said "he did not discuss family deeds"... what I said was that "The OP never suggested anything about lying about a family relationship". Those are entirely two different things.

And you will note that the OP (as shown below) was asking if a "staggered transfer" was still possible. So while he did later talk about family transfers, clearly there would be no need to do that if they were willing to lie about a family relationship.  I took his mention of family transfers as an example of how VIP benefits are retained, not that he was going to lie about that.



brekkon said:


> Been away for a while and am wondering if this loophole still exists.  If a deed is still owned by original owner can two title transfers still be done to retain VIP status for new owner?
> 
> The way I understood it a couple years ago you could do a title change moving 1 new owner onto the title and leaving an original owner, (No VIP benefits lost doing this)  Then do another title change after that goes through to remove the last owner and place the 2nd new owner onto the title.
> 
> ...


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 5, 2019)

breezez said:


> The fact that they even call it an Owners Update is the beginning of the fraud.
> 
> The sad part is I even own a few hundred shares of WYND.  Figured that was one way to make money in TS industry.



Given that you have knowledge of criminal activity that you personally profit from, my cereal box tells me that you are a co-conspirator - maybe even RICO implications.


----------



## Braindead (Jan 5, 2019)

ecwinch said:


> Thanks for pointing out that out. But I never said "he did not discuss family deeds"... what I said was that "The OP never suggested anything about lying about a family relationship". Those are entirely two different things.
> 
> And you will note that the OP (as shown below) was asking if a "staggered transfer" was still possible. So while he did later talk about family transfers, clearly there would be no need to do that if they were willing to lie about a family relationship.  I took his mention of family transfers as an example of how VIP benefits are retained, not that he was going to lie about that.


As I recall the individuals discussing on how to do the 2 deeds. Which the original poster also inquired about
First deed added the buyer as a co-owner.
Deed sent to Wyndham adding the co-owner with the $299 transfer fee
Second deed was filing the quit claim deed removing the original owner.
Quit claim deed removing the original owner NEVER gets sent to Wyndham
Who’s legally or even responsible for sending Wyndham a copy of the deed along with the $299 transfer fee??
Is the original owner still financially responsible to Wyndham as they are no longer an owner?? How would Wyndham know that ??
Is it fraud never forwarding Wyndham the quit claim deed?? If not fraud is there another term I should use??
How is it Wyndhams responsibility to constantly be searching for a quit claim deed out there ???

Or do some of you think there’s nothing wrong that the seller or buyer never sends the second quit claim deed to Wyndham??
Buyer tells the seller they’ll send the quit claim deed to Wyndham but never does, is the seller still financially responsible to Wyndham? ?
 Seller no longer wants to have access to the account, never set up online access & never calls in to see if the buyer actually did send in the quit claim, what is the seller liable for??

P.S. Easy way for Wyndham to stop this issue. Anytime a new owner is added all owners on the account have to fill out the signed notarized family affidavit  that ALL owners on the account are family that are also eligible to inherit the contracts, membership.


----------



## 55plus (Jan 5, 2019)

Granted, there is fraud committed during the sales presentation, but it's negated when the purchase contract is signed by the buyer. There is a blurb on fine print that basically states everything that was said does not apply, only what is written in the contract applies. It's part of their court tested boiler plate.


----------



## Jan M. (Jan 5, 2019)

After reading and thinking about 5 pages of posts here is my bottom line on this. Wyndham says VIP accounts are only transferable to family and they even specify the degree of relationship in the family. I believe that is stated on one of the forms we sign and initial when we buy directly from Wyndham. If someone is doing something to work around that they are violating the rules and they know it. That is intent. If Wyndham doesn't catch someone and they get away with it, they broke the rules and cheated to win. The poster Peter Buckner said he and his wife had to sign an affidavit with the account transferred from her grandfather. So that means other people with intent, lied and cheated to win.

Yes, Wyndham continually violates their own rules in a number of ways. By not ensuring that when all deeds are transferred through resales they get re-coded so they don't retain their developer coding thereby allowing some people to become VIP or reach higher levels of VIP without having to pay for it through developer purchases. They have sometimes allowed by their negligence accounts to be transferred from VIP owners to another person or persons not in the degree of relationship to retain the VIP status. We know thanks to Ron Parise that they used the no commercial renting clause in the documents against him but they only use it when it suits them. They have continually devalued the worth of VIP benefits to fix the very problems they created or allowed to continue. Managing the trust is a legal obligation and they don't get to make or change the rules about that. We know that all of this hurts owners as a whole, not just VIP owners. Do we have cause to be unhappy and want some satisfaction? Of course we do. And do we feel that Wyndham has acted in good faith in their obligations to us? I don't think it is likely that any of us feel they have.

What doesn't change regardless of any of all of this is that good old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. We all get to follow our own conscience and make our own decisions on: 1. What we are comfortable with doing. 2. How we feel about it, i.e. how we rationalize it. 3. If we want to risk the consequences of being caught doing something the law will say wasn't legal. 4. If we are concerned about being judged by our fellow man or a higher power in any specific case or in general.


----------



## uscav8r (Jan 5, 2019)

Wow. Five pages of questionable debate about a relatively minor issue. It can all be summed up in one phrase: caveat emptor. 

Who cares if it is unethical or not? The bottom line is that anyone participating in such a double transaction is risking being discovered in an audit at some point in the future. The chances of such could be insignificant, or they could be a real concern. 

If Wyndham doesn’t care to run these issues to ground, that is their problem. But that doesn’t mean they will be acquiescent forever. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jan M. (Jan 5, 2019)

uscav8r said:


> Who cares if it is unethical or not?



This may come as a surprise but many people do care about that and care about it a great deal. There is a reason colleges and universities offer classes in ethics. Ethics are generally defined as the moral values that constitute the fabric that holds society together. Our laws are directly related to ethics. 

No one is perfect nor are people ever going to be but we all are faced with choices that define us. I think all of us upon occasion have or will make choices that if we really examine them we know aren't entirely ethical but we find reasons to justify our behavior. And sometimes there are circumstances that make us look at the situation and say I'm good with what I did.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Jan 5, 2019)

uscav8r said:


> caveat emptor.
> Who cares if it is unethical or not?
> The bottom line is that anyone participating in ....is risking being discovered
> If Wyndham ...
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I will risk interpreting another TUG members written words.
IMO - Chris uscav8r  - used the term “who cares” .... in the sense that - it is irrelevant what
T- Dot - Traveller thinks  about the ethics of someone’s VIP Platinum membership acquisition ;
what matters is what Wyndham chooses .......


----------



## ronparise (Jan 6, 2019)

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> and neither will some TUG members who read this thread !
> 
> *******
> Boxers or briefs ?
> ...


----------



## uscav8r (Jan 6, 2019)

Jan M. said:


> This may come as a surprise but many people do care about that and care about it a great deal. There is a reason colleges and universities offer classes in ethics. Ethics are generally defined as the moral values that constitute the fabric that holds society together. Our laws are directly related to ethics.
> 
> No one is perfect nor are people ever going to be but we all are faced with choices that define us. I think all of us upon occasion have or will make choices that if we really examine them we know aren't entirely ethical but we find reasons to justify our behavior. And sometimes there are circumstances that make us look at the situation and say I'm good with what I did.



T-dot captures my thoughts pretty well. As this wandering thread has shown, ethics in this situation is nebulous at best. What one person considers unethical, another person may deem completely ethical and within the rules. 

Bottom line, it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks. Wyndham is the sole arbiter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

