# New WM Policy on Reservations



## geist1223 (Jun 9, 2020)

No more multiple reservations for same days beyond number of owners (i.e. max 2) without guest certificate being assigned within 48 hours of booking and no changes to the guest certificate thereafter (that's the real kicker). If guest name not provided within 48 hours Reservation is cancelled. Within 14 days, need immediate guest certificate assignment. Implementing January 2021 unless they decide to do it earlier.

This really only causes problems for people making multiple Reservations starting the same day/resort. Problems for people planning Family Reunions. You have to be certain who is coming because you can not change the name on the GC.

The WM BOD still has not done anything for cancellations by WM because of Covid19 that cost loss of GC.


----------



## DaveNV (Jun 9, 2020)

Do you think this is an attempt by WM to reduce the Mega Renters hogging all the good places?

Dave


----------



## rhonda (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm glad my WM ownership isn't terribly large.  We used to use it for family gatherings, booking 4 or more units, over holidays ... but those days are over.  Sadly, WM is no longer a good fit for our _family_ purposes.  Rather. our points are now for "household" travel with rare exception.  It is sad ... but it mirrors the world's perspective of "me, me, me" with disregard for family.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 9, 2020)

DaveNW said:


> Do you think this is an attempt by WM to reduce the Mega Renters hogging all the good places?
> 
> Dave


Probably that's the excuse but personal use owners are also going to be negatively impacted. Particularly if you bought WM for the flexibility instead of using it as a traditional week long timeshare.

Not allowing guest certificates on high demand 13 month reservations would have been more appropriate. But since that would reduce GC revenue that indirectly accrues to Wyndham, it was probably not considered.


----------



## K2Quick (Jun 9, 2020)

I actually like the rule.  It should significantly cut down the number of speculative reservations.


----------



## JohnPaul (Jun 9, 2020)

DaveNW said:


> Do you think this is an attempt by WM to reduce the Mega Renters hogging all the good places?
> 
> Dave



I do.  I’m pretty sure it’s been this way for Wyndham for awhile.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 9, 2020)

K2Quick said:


> I actually like the rule.  It should significantly cut down the number of speculative reservations.



Since people can still rent out a reservation booked at 13 months, I don't think we are going to see much of a change in competition for high demand weeks. I think Wyndham wants people to rent out units so they can earn the GC fees and have a shot at scamming the guests into buying a timeshare. I feel it is not in Wyndham's best interest to prevent rentals of high demand weeks.  I would personally like to see no name changes on a reservation booked > 12 months out or a booking triggered from a waitlist placed > 12 months out. Owners can put a guest name on it 12 months out but no changes later on. If a week has an outstanding waitlist, then GC cannot be placed on that week. That will ensure high demand weeks are mostly for personal use of owners. With a rule like that, speculative bookings for personal use are allowed but cannot be effectively rented out since most people don't plan vacations 13 months out. This can actually benefit owners who don't book at 13 months out.  Let's say I make two reservations for a holiday week and I decide to cancel one when my plans are confirmed six months out. Somebody who is looking only six months out can get that reservation. Yes, a mega renter can also get that week using their waitlist, but the "no GC on a waitlisted week" restriction should prevent them from renting out that week.  Under the current scenario where they allow guest certificates until the day of check-in for reservations booked at 13 months then the person looking at 6 months out has no chance of getting that booking.

GCs should be allowed on low demand weeks. But the low demand weeks have a low chance of being rented out, so that will hurt Wyndham with lower GC revenue and fewer sales prospects. So Wyndham has not put together a policy that will effectively restrict renting to low demand weeks. With the current policy, the mega renter will lose very little but regular owners are going to lose a lot. Wyndham is the only undisputed winner.

Yes. There a few holes in my theory but it fits my worldview so I'm gonna stick with it


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 9, 2020)

Disney is so much better than all of the Wyndham-managed "clubs."  Wyndham is greedy.  Sadly, Shell is even with Wyndham, so I expect changes like this for Shell.  

I am not a mega renter of Worldmark, but I am definitely a person who will not waste credits each year, so I rent a couple annually.


----------



## Tacoma (Jun 9, 2020)

I had heard this rumored on facebook but I never trust facebook for information. I am with ski sierra that if they want to cut down on mega renters guest names need to be put on immediately and no changes after. I have suggested that before and I know some don't like it. I find it hard to believe that most people could not figure out which relative is the most likely not to cancel. I am hoping that this does make hard to get reservations easier. Time will tell if it is just a money grab or an actual plan to help.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 9, 2020)

Tacoma said:


> if they want to cut down on mega renters guest names need to be put on immediately and no changes after. I have suggested that before and I know some don't like it. I find it hard to believe that most people could not figure out which relative is the most likely not to cancel.


I think many of them are mega renters in disguise so they come up with new reasons why it should not be done that way.



Tacoma said:


> I am hoping that this does make hard to get reservations easier. Time will tell if it is just a money grab or an actual plan to help.


Yeah.. let's hope the high demand weeks last a little longer, maybe until 6:01 am until we have time to do the captcha.


----------



## rhonda (Jun 9, 2020)

But how does one distinguish between renters and family?  

Our typical reservations, before Guest Certs became an issue:  
* High Demand period:  New Years
* High Demand unit: 4BR Presidential unit (just one)
* Other units:  a mix of studio and 2BR units

We often ended up with 4 units but, sometimes, weren't sure if a particular young couple could, more than a full year out, take a studio ... or if, by then, they might need a larger unit.    There were many valid reasons why we might need to change the reservations before the travel dates:  new additions to the family, young adults blocked by work commitments, etc.   We booked units on speculation and then settled it all out closer to the actual travel dates.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 9, 2020)

rhonda said:


> But how does one distinguish between renters and family?
> 
> Our typical reservations, before Guest Certs became an issue:
> * High Demand period:  New Years
> ...



Under new guidelines, ask another owner on TUG or WMO to hold a reservation until closer to check-in? I plan to do that when the new rules kick-in.

I'm not sure why Wyndham doesn't allow an owner to check-in to mulitple units. Perhaps some were booking the whole resort? I think the more likely reason is money grab from people doing family reunions such as yourself. HGVC allows an owner to check-in to multiple units but they don't allow renting so they have no mega renter issues.


----------



## cbyrne1174 (Jun 9, 2020)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Disney is so much better than all of the Wyndham-managed "clubs."  Wyndham is greedy.  Sadly, Shell is even with Wyndham, so I expect changes like this for Shell.
> 
> I am not a mega renter of Worldmark, but I am definitely a person who will not waste credits each year, so I rent a couple annually.



I find it the opposite. You can stay in a cramped DVC studio or a 2 bedroom deluxe at Bonnet Creek for the same price. Wyndham is deceitfully greedy, but Disney takes the cake on overcharging. Only the upper middle class if FL can actually afford to go there. Median Florida household income is 55k, so only 40% of Floridians can actually afford the $2,000+ annual pass cost.


----------



## samara64 (Jun 13, 2020)

Not sure where you got this information. I called and Worldmark does not know anything about it. BOD has not made any announcements regarding this.

I called and the only thing they said is that it is recommended to add the GC 48 hours before checking in due to COVID-19.

Anything in writing on the website you can quote @geist1223


----------



## JudyS (Jun 13, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> No more multiple reservations for same days beyond number of owners (i.e. max 2) without guest certificate being assigned within 48 hours of booking and no changes to the guest certificate thereafter (that's the real kicker). If guest name not provided within 48 hours Reservation is cancelled. Within 14 days, need immediate guest certificate assignment. Implementing January 2021 unless they decide to do it earlier.



I also would like to know what the source of this information is.

Assuming this policy goes into effect, what about overlapping reservations?  For example, could an account with two owners make two reservations for January 1-8, 2022 and two for January 2-9, 2022?


----------



## geist1223 (Jun 13, 2020)

It is in the Board Minutes. The actual page from the Board Minutes is Posted on wmowners.


----------



## dgalati (Jun 13, 2020)

DaveNW said:


> Do you think this is an attempt by WM to reduce the Mega Renters hogging all the good places?
> 
> Dave


Absolutely! Owners first is Wyndham's policy as of today.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

JudyS said:


> I also would like to know what the source of this information is.
> 
> Assuming this policy goes into effect, what about overlapping reservations?  For example, could an account with two owners make two reservations for January 1-8, 2022 and two for January 2-9, 2022?


This is the meat of the text from the March 23, 2020 Board meeting minutes:

*The proposed guideline requires a guest name to be assigned to reservations held for the same time period beyond the number of owners on the account, and that the name be added within 48 hours of booking or it would be subject to cancellation. Reservations booked within 14 days of check in would require the guest name be added at the time of booking or be subject to cancellation. Guest names may not be modified after check-in and the guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit.   The board discussed the resources currently directed to COVID-19 and suggested implementation of the new guideline be January 1, 2021 agreeing that an earlier rollout may be agreed upon by the board. *

The new Guideline is vague on overlapping reservations, "... *reservations held for the same time period*."

The new Guideline has not taken effect, so things may change.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> No more multiple reservations for same days beyond number of owners (i.e. max 2) without guest certificate being assigned within 48 hours of booking and no changes to the guest certificate thereafter (that's the real kicker).


I do not read anything in the new Guideline about not being able to change the name on a guest reservation.  The only limitation is that the name cannot be changed after check-in.

*"Guest names may not be modified after check-in"*


----------



## Eric B (Jun 13, 2020)

CO skier said:


> I do not read anything in the new Guideline about not being able to change the name on a guest reservation.  The only limitation is that the name cannot be changed after check-in.
> 
> *"Guest names may not be modified after check-in"*



Once they've checked in it doesn't really matter.  I've never heard of someone being asked to verify their identity when checking out.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

Eric B said:


> Once they've checked in it doesn't really matter.  I've never heard of someone being asked to verify their identity when checking out.


I am guessing that this part of the rule is directed at the practice of reserving a unit for the entire summer, renting it out in blocks, then checking different guests in for each block.


----------



## Firepath (Jun 13, 2020)

So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

Firepath said:


> So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?


If the guest name may be changed, then no, because the profit margin of West Yellowstone rentals can easily absorb the additional $99 to change the name.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

ski_sierra said:


> I think Wyndham wants people to rent out units so they can earn the GC fees and have a shot at scamming the guests into buying a timeshare. I feel it is not in Wyndham's best interest to prevent rentals of high demand weeks.


There was similar thinking a few years ago and why that meant Wyndham would never disrupt the cancel/rebook scheme that was the bread and butter for Club Wyndham rentals.

Things turned out differently.

I remember reading something about it being easier to upgrade an existing owner than trying to sell to a non-owner.  If it is easier for owners to book high demand locations, it might be easier to sell the idea of increasing the owner's credits.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 13, 2020)

CO skier said:


> There was similar thinking a few years ago and why that meant Wyndham would never disrupt the cancel/rebook scheme that was the bread and butter for Club Wyndham rentals.
> 
> Things turned out differently.
> 
> I remember reading something about it being easier to upgrade an existing owner than trying to sell to a non-owner.  If it is easier for owners to book high demand locations, it might be easier to sell the idea of increasing the owner's credits.



I'm not sure I understand what Wyndham was thinking when the pushed this guideline. What do you think this guideline will accomplish? What is the true intent vs. advertised intent of the policy?


----------



## samara64 (Jun 13, 2020)

ski_sierra said:


> I'm not sure I understand what Wyndham was thinking when the pushed this guideline. What do you think this guideline will accomplish? What is the true intent vs. advertised intent of the policy?




I think making more money.

If you can wail til check in, you can maybe get new GC with your annual award and use it. If you have to add it right away and you do not have free ones, you have to buy one. You may get one later that will sit unused.

Very bad policy but I do not think it will have a major impact on us in normal use.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 13, 2020)

ski_sierra said:


> What do you think this guideline will accomplish?


It will increase availability, at least marginally.  Owners booking reservations that require a guest certificate will have to know the name of the guest within 48 hours of booking the reservation or be willing to pay $99 to change the name some time later than 48 hours or delay booking the reservation.  The increased availability will come from those delayed bookings and multiple bookings that are made now that will not be after the new rule.

Not allowing guest name changes at any time would be a real game changer for the rental businesses.  There would be a significant increase in 13-month availability for all owners.

Guest name changes are allowed in Club Wyndham. That is how I expect to see the new guest Guideline introduced in WorldMark.


----------



## geist1223 (Jun 13, 2020)

The wording of the proposed changes is interesting and open to various interpretations.

1. Can only make number of same time period reservations as the number of Members on the Accoumt. If more than have to add Guest name within 48 hours or excess Reservation is cancelled.

      A. So what is same time period. Do the days have to exactly match. If they are off by a day is that ok. 

      B. Wyndham says there can only be 2 People on an Account. By the Governing Documents say 2 or more. Governing.     Documents should Control.

So if there are 2 Members on the Account can they make 2 Reservations that start 7/1/21 for 7 days. Then make 2 more Reservations starting 7/2/21 for 7 days. Then make 2 more Reservations starting 7/3/2 for 7 days. Wyndham's over lapping Reservation Rule should stop this.

Wonder what wording changes will occur over the next several months.

2. The current wording appears to allow for changes in name of Guest up to time of check-in. Whatever Guest name is listed on day of check-in has to be present at time of check-in. No change of Guest Name after check-in. This appears to be an attempt to cut down on long Reservations where the "Owner" checks in a new Guest every week. But does allow for multiple changes before check-in. Each change will cost you a GC or GC Fee.


----------



## ski_sierra (Jun 14, 2020)

samara64 said:


> Not sure where you got this information. I called and Worldmark does not know anything about it. BOD has not made any announcements regarding this.
> 
> I called and the only thing they said is that it is recommended to add the GC 48 hours before checking in due to COVID-19.
> 
> Anything in writing on the website you can quote @geist1223





			https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/board/minutes/2020/3-23-20_draft.pdf?TSPD_101_R0=aaa1424a01884bee811f17d2d069421aki00000000000000000ad0ddeaeffff00000000000000000000000000005ee5589d00a677050a


----------



## CO skier (Jun 14, 2020)

Firepath said:


> So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?


Unrelated to guest certificates, but if you are interested in WM West Yellowstone not in the middle of winter, there is some VERY rare availability now for mid-June to mid-July 2020.  I think the news is not widely known that the situation has changed at WMWY, and new reservations are accepted beginning 6/12/2020.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 14, 2020)

Firepath said:


> So there’s a possibility of getting Yellowstone now, not in the middle of Winter?


Nope.  The only impact will be to add $99 to the cost of the rental.  Not a big deal for those rentals.  Wyndham gets an additional $99/rental of income via guest fees so they are essentially cutting themselves into the business.


----------



## Tacoma (Jun 14, 2020)

I am hoping that the new rule is you have to put the guest name on in 48 hours and NO changes to the guest name after that or loss of that reservation. If it is put on a guest name but you are allowed to change it again then this is only a cash grab for wyndham and not an attempt to stop mega renters.  As mentioned there is enough profit that the extra $100 would just be tacked on and owners would not get increased availabilty. Only time will tell for sure but I am becoming worried this is more about $ than helping owners to get prime reservations.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 14, 2020)

Here's what the rule says:
"The proposed guideline requires a guest name to be assigned to reservations held for the same time period beyond the number of owners on the account, and that the name be added within 48 hours of booking or it would be subject to cancellation. Reservations booked within 14 days of check in would require the guest name be added at the time of booking or be subject to cancellation. *Guest names may not be modified after check-in* and the guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit."

I've bolded the key part.  If they wanted it to be "Guest names may not be modified", they would not have included the 'after check-in'.  It's a cash grab. 
Sue


----------



## Eric B (Jul 7, 2020)

From the WorldMark site:

*Multiple reservations guideline change.*
At a March special meeting, the Board of Directors voted to approve an update to the WorldMark, The Club guidelines for booking multiple reservations.

Currently, the multiple reservations guideline states that an owner may book multiple reservations for the same time period. Each owner on the account is allowed to check into a reservation for the specific suite they will occupy. Any further reservations will require a guest name. The guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the suite.

Beginning Oct. 1, 2020, owners who book multiple reservations, beyond the allowed amount for the number of owners on an account, will be required to add a guest name within 48 hours of booking or at time of booking if the reservation is booked 14 days or less from date of arrival.

If a guest name is not added by the deadline, the reservation will be subject to cancellation and the corresponding credits will be forfeited in accordance with the cancellation policy.

This update to the multiple reservations guideline ensures: 


Fair and equitable reservation access for all owners.
A streamlined check-in process, by eliminating extra time taken at check-in to add a guest name.
Maximized resort availability as suites from canceled reservations will be offered to other owners.
*Cancellation guideline change. *
The current cancellation guideline states that an owner canceling after the cancellation date will be penalized to the extent that other owners cannot use the same time period. A manual process has been created to allow owners to request penalized credits or rental fees be restored if any nights of the reserved time period are booked by another owner.

Beginning Aug. 5, 2020, if a reservation is canceled in less than the required number of days, the owner will be charged the applicable number of vacation credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use, and the manual process of restoring credits and fees will be removed. 

This update to the cancellation guideline ensures: 

A simplified guideline that allows for a fair and equitable result when canceling owner reservations. 
Process improvement to maximize effort for Vacation Planning Centers and system enhancements. 
*Extended hours for more vacation memories.*
The Vacation Planning Center is extending their hours to better serve you. Beginning Aug. 3, 2020, the new hours of operation will be (excluding major holidays): 

Monday - Friday, 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. PT
Saturday - Sunday, 6 a.m. - 5 p.m. PT 

Source:



			https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/news/reservation-guidelines.shtml


----------



## ski_sierra (Jul 8, 2020)

It will be interesting to see the impact. I feel this isn't going to make much of a difference for the high demand weeks.

I feel the root cause of low availability is the large number of units that sit empty as they are not in desirable locations or they are too seasonal but the low season costs too many credits.


----------



## JudyS (Jul 8, 2020)

Here is a notice I got today.

"The WorldMark Board of Directors recently approved a change to the Multiple Reservation guideline. We are contacting you regarding your upcoming reservation(s) that could be in violation of the updated guideline when it takes effect on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2020. While this rule previously did not require a guest name be added right away, the Board has approved a change to this guideline to ensure fair and equitable reservation access for all owners, and simplify and streamline the check-in process at the resorts. As of Oct. 1, 2020, if any reservations are still in violation of this guideline, they will be cancelled. The details of your reservation(s) and the updated guideline are below:

_WorldMark, The Club Guideline Section C.14 *Reservations-Multiple Reservations*_ states that an Owner may book multiple reservations at a resort for the same time period. Each Owner on the account is allowed to check into a reservation for the specific unit they will occupy. Any further reservations will require a guest name. The guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit. With the updated guideline, reservations that do not have a guest name added within 48 hours (2 days) of the reservation being booked, or at the time of reservation if booking 14 days or less, will be cancelled."

Even though the rules say they apply only to multiple reservations, it sounds as if this also applies to a single guest reservation where the owner is not checking in.  In other words, it sounds as if *all* guest reservations will have to be made within 48 days of booking the suite (or immediately at booking if booking 14 days or less out), regardless of whether the owner(s) have addition reservations for that time period or not.

Does my interpretation match other people's here?


----------



## geist1223 (Jul 9, 2020)

If you have only 1 Reservation (no overlapping reservations) the change should not apply.


----------



## happytrailz (Jul 12, 2020)

Letter I plan to send, any constructive comments?

July 13, 2020

Worldmark Legal Affairs
Worldmark Consumer Affairs
6277 Sea Harbor Drive
Orlando, FL 32821

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Request for Information Letter: Guest Certificates and Credit Restoration Guidelines

We are writing you to request that you provide us with detailed written legal analysis and justifications that supported recent changes to Club Guidelines regarding guest certificates and credit restoration guidelines.

Saying it plainly, show me where it says you can do this. In my reading of the Club documents, I find little basis or authority for the Board to impose guest fees or to refuse credit and related taxes/fees restorations.

First, guest fees. Board Guidelines (II)(A)(10) and (17) seem to be the only applicable Board authorities to set fees or assessments. (10) reads “set reasonable monetary fees for the use of specific Club property” (emphasis added). (17) reads “levy annual and special assessments”.

If the Board is using (10), then how are guest fees tied to the use of specific Club property? Applying the “ordinarily prudent person” (and related) standards cited under Board Guidelines (IV), Standards of Conduct for Directors, it seems unlikely that one could conclude a guest fee could be required for use of specific Club property (for example, to occupy a room, or to use the pool or the clubhouse), when no such fee is required of the Owners. More likely, (10) was written to allow fees to be levied on all Owners and guests, for special “extras” or activities, such as spas, restaurants, or paid recreational activities.

If the Board is using (17), then does this mean the Board considers guest fees to be the same as annual or special assessments? As above, an ordinarily prudent person would say “no, they are not”.

The Club's Bylaws likewise do not provide for guest fees. The only revenue generation allowed in the Bylaws is annual and special assessments (Bylaws Section 7, which ties back to the Board's purview over those specific revenue streams in Board Guidelines (17), above).

It has been put forward by many that the Board's guest certificate actions are designed to thwart rental activities, even though the Board's stated logic (currently posted on the Club's website) supporting guest certificates does not mention this reason. My reading of the Board's purported reasoning suggests it flows from Board Guidelines (II)(A)(3) and (4). Neither of these Guidelines gives the Board any authority to levy fees or charges to further its purposes to “conduct, control or manage Club business, affairs, or guests” (paraphrased). If, in fact, the Board has decided to “go after renters”, which looks to be the case, then that action violates Declaration Section 2.15, which specifically allows rentals, with very limited restrictions, none of which relate to guest usage or certificates.

Furthermore, I believe the Board's actions also violate Declaration Section 2.11 regarding cancellations. Changes in cancellation policies, specifically the new guideline:

Members will be required to add a guest name within 48 hours of booking or at time of booking if the reservation is booked 14 days or less from date of arrival.

If a guest name is not added by the deadline, the reservation will be subject to cancellation and the corresponding credits will be forfeited in accordance with the cancellation policy.
can only be imposed upon the Membership after a majority vote of Members. Therefore, I believe this new guideline, not having been put in front of and approved by the Membership, is invalid.

It also appears that any effort by the Board to restrict or abridge a Member's right to allow guests within the “Use Easement” (aka the Member's right to use the units and properties) is prohibited by Declaration Section 5.7(a)(i) Use Easement: “(the Club) shall not interfere with the right of Members to permit the use, possession, and enjoyment of the Property by the Guests of Members ...”. Charging guest fees, and canceling reservations lacking guest names after 48 hours, both constitute interference with these Members' rights. And pursuant to Section 5.7(c)(v) Club Rights, the Club may “regulate the number and behavior of Guests”. The plain reading of this is, the Club can limit how many guests can occupy a Unit and how they behave, but not charge Members a fee to allow guests.

And even if the Board cites its authority to set fees under Bylaws Section 5.1(a)(3)(iv), Rules, those fees must be reasonable. The Club has non-profit status. Charging $100, $200, or more for guest certificates or guest certificate changes far exceeds the few dollars it costs to change the names and maintain the software/hardware system. This is clearly is not a “reasonable” fee when viewed by “an ordinarily prudent person”. In our opinion, guest certificates should be free and unlimited -- or at the worst, changeable at any time, without incurring an additional fee.

Second, let's briefly review the planned elimination of the manual credit restoration policy. This change is to an “actual”, if somewhat informal, cancellation policy, but one that has benefited all Members since the Beginning of Time. Currently, it is described in Guidelines Section 22, Cancellation, “If (a reservation is) canceled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use, to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period” (emphasis added).

Similar to the guest certificate rule discussed above, this is also clearly a cancellation policy. Therefore, changing or deleting it also requires a majority vote of the Members (per Declaration Section 2.11). However, we would argue for leaving it unchanged, as it is a fair and equitable policy as currently written. It enables owners a chance to be made whole, allows other Members to get last minute/Bonus Time space, and overall is neutral to Club finances. We strongly suggest leaving it alone, but we could understand imposing a reasonable service fee, say $25, to cover the extra time used by Owner Care to field phone calls and do the paperwork resulting in restored credits.

Finally, we have been members for a long time. We knew what to expect when we bought into the Club. Over the years, with time and experience, we have learned how to use our Membership and to live within the rules. We became used to the policies and reasonably expected them to remain the same. The recent spate of guideline changes have upset the norms resulting in severe dislocation and loss of ownership values. Worldmark credits now sell for as little as 10 cents on eBay. We think it's fair to conclude that your Member-unfriendly actions have a lot to do with that crash in credit resale prices.

We, as all Members should, just want to be on a level playing field, not have our ownership rights or use abridged, and not have its value destroyed. That is not too much to ask.

All in all, it's our opinion these changes are both a transparent money grab by Wyndham and an effort to “eliminate the competition” from anyone with the nerve to do a handful of rentals. In summary, your “bad acts” include:

- Taking credits, fees, and cash from Members without compensation.
- Charging any/multiple guest fees.
- Acquiring prime inventory by forcing people to “cancel now or lose your credits”, so that Wyndham can then grab that space and rent it at market rates (and I am sure you'll be doing so without charging yourself guest fees). And if you think I'm being paranoid, note, I can read – Wyndham's rental program is facilitated by Declaration 2.5, Declarant, which states, “Declarant shall not reserve any occupancy period earlier than 45 days before the first day of that period...” ). You will grab that prime time and rent it!

Don't think we don't see or know what you're up to over there at Wyndham!

I will expect to hear from you by August 1. Failure to resolve my issues may result in litigation on our behalf, as well as seeking to establish class action status for all other owners.

Thank you for your attention.


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 16, 2020)

happytrailz said:


> Letter I plan to send, any constructive comments?
> 
> Saying it plainly, show me where it says you can do this. In my reading of the Club documents,* I find little basis or authority for the Board to impose guest fees *or to refuse credit and related taxes/fees restorations.
> 
> ...



In no way should you take the following as an attempt to discourage you from exercise your right as an member of WMtC to communicate your concerns on these matters. But I will offer you the following suggestions:

First off, I would first write the WM BoD of directors following the published BoD communication policy (available in the BoD section of the website). Specifically, it outlines the procedure for getting a written response from the BoD, and not the "buffer" communication channel that is routed thru Owner Care and is pretty much just a firewall to keep members from communicating with the BoD. That correct channel is sending your letter specifically to the Club Secretary.  There is no promise you will get a satisfactory response, but you will get a response.

Secondly, you should thoughtfully consider the powers of BoD as it pertains to their authority to create rules as outlined in the Declartion in 1.28 and in the By-laws in paragraph 5.1.a(3).

_1.28 Rules; the Rules and Regulations adopted and amended from time to time by the Board, which relate to the possession, use and enjoyment of the Property, which may be entitled "Guidelines. 

(3) Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, but not limited to, the following subjects: (i) Length of stay; (ii) Frequency of use; (iii) Reservations*; (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees; *(v) Provision for the rental of Resorts by the Club to nonmembers when not in use by Members; (vi) Charges for use of specific facilities; (vii) Personal conduct and behavior; (viii) Check out times; and (ix) Care and maintenance of Units and facilities _

Now you certainly can make the case that the BoD's authority is strictly limited to charging fees as outlined by the Declaration, but as a matter of practice I think that one fails. If for no other reason that the members have constructively allowed the BoD the authority to set housekeeping charges for usage, when there is no express authority in the Declaration for the BoD to do so. As the section of the Declaration that outlines their authority is:

_(iv) to establish uniform Rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Property and the facilities thereon, and reasonable fees for the use of any Club property which is individual-use intensive, other than the Units and the Common Furnishings normally in them such as appliances, kitchenware, beds, couches, T.V., telephones etc. Examples of items that might be charged for are cribs, roll-away beds and other items not normally furnished with a unit; _

And while I can agree in part with your view on the Cancellation policy, I think all you will accomplish is creating a rule where overlapping reservations are not allowed without a GC. So be careful there, because the proposed policy is far more flexible than the one that could be created to accomplish the same goal.

Because here is two tests that you really consider when it comes to the BoD's ability to set policy - is the policy for the good of the Club as a whole, and does it apply uniformly to all members? Any legal challenge to the rules of the BoD will have to overcome the "business judgement rule" - which courts have viewed as giving duly elected BoD's broad discretion in decision making. So basically, as I view it, if it is not an explicit violation of the Declaration or By-Laws you are unlikely to get the outcome you like. Because if it is in grey area - like most of the items you cite - it would have to fail those two tests for a court to deliver the relief you seek.  So is a policy that generates more revenue from non-owners good for the Club as a whole? I think the court would say so. Is a policy that prevents members from tieing up inventory only to release it at the last minute good for the Club? I think a reasonable person would see how that benefits the group as a whole.

And it really does not matter in the scheme of things of "what you bought into". You bought into a Club and you agreed to be bound by the governing documents of the Club. You even acknowledged that those rules would/could change over time. And you always have the right every member has when they dislike changes being made - you stop being a member or you get enough of the membership to support your complaints. We have been down the class action route before, and only the lawyers benefit from that route - unless you are directly paying them. Because in any contingency fee agreement, the lawyer's interest is not aligned with yours when it comes to taking the risk of losing.

And unless you can prove the "money grab conspiracy" theory, you might consider leaving that narrative out. The basic financial structure of the Club defeats that argument on most fronts.

Because as has been predicted for years, these rule changes are less about a "money-grab" as an attempt to homogenize all the timeshare brands that Wyndham operates as a pre-cursor for WM moving to the new web platform.

JHMO. Disagreement is not dislike.... and I will never understand how we have come to this place where so many people think it is.


----------



## rhonda (Jul 16, 2020)

@ecwinch 

*THANK YOU* for the incredibly gentle and thorough post above.


----------



## CO skier (Jul 18, 2020)

happytrailz said:


> The recent spate of guideline changes have upset the norms resulting in severe dislocation and loss of ownership values. Worldmark credits now sell for as little as 10 cents on eBay. We think it's fair to conclude that your Member-unfriendly actions have a lot to do with that crash in credit resale prices.



WorldMark resale prices have been declining since before the following was written in 2007 regarding a lawsuit at that time:


PerryM said:


> I've been forecasting falling WM credits (resale) for many years now - how in the world is a lawyer going to prove that WN's actions contribute to the already falling prices?
> 
> Heck, even the lawsuit admits that resale WM credits are easily available for 70¢ each - and you know that they are high-balling that figure to begin with.  (That number has to last thru 5 years of litigation)











						Class action lawsuit filed against Wyndham (Worldmark)
					

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122862#122862




					tugbbs.com
				




I first bought into WorldMark ten years ago at $0.35/credit.

WorldMark resale prices on EBay are half what they were this time last year.  That is likely related to the travel restrictions and job losses resulting from Covid-19.  Demand for timeshares in general has gone off a cliff.


It is a long letter.  My constructive comment would be to delete the section relating the drop in resale value to Guideline changes.  It is not true, and deleting it makes the letter more readable and credible.

It should also be noted that the "credit restoration policy" could, and so probably was, abused.  Someone with access to more than one account could book 7 nights at 13 months, hold onto the reservation until the 5-day Bonus Time guest use window, cancel the 7 night reservation, then book 3 nights in a different account and 4 nights in another at the Bonus Time rate and add the guest names.  Or worse, rebook only the 3-4 nights that were rented, and the remaining nights appear on the booking calendar as broken inventory with 7 or less days of life for owners to book.  After the reservations were completed, call in and have the credits from the 7-night, 13-month reservation restored to the first account.

Closing loopholes like this benefits the whole membership with more availability while affecting a relatively small percentage of members who book guest reservations.


----------



## happytrailz (Jul 21, 2020)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I toned down the end of the letter a bit, then sent it.

A few other thoughts.

IMO, the requirement to add a guest name on multiple reservations within 48 hours of reserving space could be deemed "arbitrary and capricious". Meaning, unjustifiable. At the most, it might be reasonable to say you have to add your guest's name/or have your reservation canceled, if you are out of compliance with the existing cancellation guidelines (for example, no less than 30 days ahead, for 13 month reservations).

Also, the plain language interpretation of the current cancellation guideline, which has been in effect for a long time (anyone know from when?) says:

_If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use *to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period ...*_

would be to restore your credits automatically to your account, if another Member travels on/uses the space. But instead, Owner Care sent me this response:

Per WorldMark Bylaws Section 5 (a) (3) gives the Board the authority to set up the guest certificate policy as well as make changes to the policy as needed.
“WorldMark Guidelines: Reservations - Section C line # 22

If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period. After check-in, there is no refund of Credits or Bonus Time fees in the event of an early checkout regardless if another Owner occupies the remaining reserved period.”
*Credit refund has never been contractually obligated, it was a courtesy.* I realize this is frustrating for you however it ensures timely cancellation of reservations with the reservation availability to all owners, also in a timely manner.

IMO, demanding that CS/OC comply with the plain language of Club Guidelines is not "a courtesy".

So now, I am ready to begin interviewing attorneys. Can anyone recommend a good firm to take on the owners' causes (I know of several formidable firms that mainly defend timeshare developers)?


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 25, 2020)

Keep in mind here that you will be suing the BoD.... whose legal bills your dues pay for.

But before reaching out to a lawyer, I would probably spend a few minutes doing a google search for lawsuits against Worldmark The Club, a California Non-Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation.

There has only been one truly meaningful lawsuit by a WM member against the BoD. That action was "Pro Se".... where the member represented themselves. Meaning no contingency fee arrangement where his lawyers could drive a settlement that benefitted them to more than anyone else. 

In most lawsuits, we only get some meaningless tokens - like the right to transfer inventory at a few key resorts because some foolish people believed those resorts were overbuilt (Anaheim, and Indio). Compared to a couple of buildings at Schooner's Landing - that was true, but short-sighted.


----------



## CO skier (Jul 28, 2020)

happytrailz said:


> IMO, the requirement to add a guest name on multiple reservations within 48 hours of reserving space could be deemed "arbitrary and capricious". Meaning, unjustifiable.


Sorry, but you are flat out wrong in your opinion.



happytrailz said:


> Also, the plain language interpretation of the current cancellation guideline, which has been in effect for a long time (anyone know from when?) says:
> 
> _If cancelled in less than the required number of days, the Owner will be charged the applicable number of Vacation Credits and/or Bonus Time fees for that use *to the extent that other Owners cannot use the same period ...*_
> ...
> IMO, demanding that CS/OC comply with the plain language of Club Guidelines is not "a courtesy".


On August 5, 2020 the Guidelines will change to modify or delete this language.  This is completely within the BOD powers to revise the Club's Guidelines.


Any attorney will gratefully accept your payments.  My advice is to seek out an attorney on a contingency basis.  No attorney will find it worth their while, and that says everything about your (lack of) "case."


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 28, 2020)

Skier's statement is a little harsh.... but is on point in one regard.... that it is your opinion that the policy "could be deemed arbitrary and capricious". Obviously the BoD has a different opinion.... which places the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it is "arbitrary and capricious". And by what standard to make that assertation?

Once again, I would just suggest you spend some time really diving into the "business judgement rule".  

If the courts allowed lawsuits every time a member of a corporation disagreed or had a different opinion on a decision, our legal system would be even more abused than it is today.






						Business judgment rule - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## CO skier (Jul 29, 2020)

ecwinch said:


> Skier's statement is a little harsh....


Just trying to save someone from wasting thousands of dollars.


----------



## dgalati (Aug 2, 2020)

CO skier said:


> Just trying to save someone from wasting thousands of dollars.


Not buying into a timeshare system and becoming  burdened with maintenance fees would be a good way to not waste thousands also.


----------



## CO skier (Aug 2, 2020)

dgalati said:


> Not buying into a timeshare system and becoming  burdened with maintenance fees would be a good way to not waste thousands also.


It depends.  In my case, my timeshare ownership gives me exactly the unit I want when I want during premium ski season.  It cannot be rented, because there is only one unit of that type at the resort, and I reserved it as an owner.  Sorry to those, like you, who did not buy into WorldMark.

Wait a second, dgalati.  Did I not read somewhere that you recently bought into WorldMark and decided to "becoming  burdened with maintenance fees" because you finally comprehended the advantages of timeshare ownership versus renting?

Are you posting out of both sides of your mouth?


----------



## CO skier (Aug 2, 2020)

ecwinch said:


> And by what standard to make that assertation?


"assertation" -- interesting word.

I had to look it up and have added it to my vocabulary.


----------



## samara64 (Oct 18, 2020)

ecwinch said:


> _1.28 Rules; the Rules and Regulations adopted and amended from time to time by the Board, which relate to the possession, use and enjoyment of the Property, which may be entitled "Guidelines.
> 
> (3) Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, but not limited to, the following subjects: (i) Length of stay; (ii) Frequency of use; (iii) Reservations*; (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees; *(v) Provision for the rental of Resorts by the Club to nonmembers when not in use by Members; (vi) Charges for use of specific facilities; (vii) Personal conduct and behavior; (viii) Check out times; and (ix) Care and maintenance of Units and facilities _




Fees are clearly stated in the bylaws under 5.1(b)4 (4) Fees. Prescribe reasonable fees for use of specific Club property which is individual-use intensive and not normally furnished with a Unit as part of the Common Furnishings.


----------



## CO skier (Oct 18, 2020)

samara64 said:


> Fees are clearly stated in the bylaws under 5.1(b)4 (4) Fees. Prescribe reasonable fees for use of specific Club property which is individual-use intensive and not normally furnished with a Unit as part of the Common Furnishings.


You are confusing two different sections of the bylaws.

Section 5.1 (b) is titled "Discretionary Powers.  In addition to the foregoing mandatory duties"

which is *in* *addition* *to,* not defining of, the mandatory powers and duties listed in Section 5.1 (a), which includes 5.1 (a) (3) (iv)  Number of occupants, guests and fees;


----------



## samara64 (Oct 18, 2020)

where does it say in addition.

Also how does this all work with section 7

7.1 Annual Assessments. Each year the Board shall consider the current and future needs of the Club as to its operation, the operation and maintenance of the Resorts and any personal property maintained by the Club, including reasonable reserves for capital Improvements and replacements, payment of taxes, and protecting and promoting the common interests of the Members pursuant to the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws and Rules. In light of such needs, the Board shall determine the annual budget of the Club and fix by resolution the amount of annual assessments to be levied against each Membership for the coming year, based on the respective numbers of Vacation Credits held.
(a) Assessment Formula. As of August 1, 2000, all Memberships will be subject to an annual assessment which shall be based upon the formula set out at Exhibit A, a true and complete copy of which is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein.
(b) Limitation. No annual assessment or Bonus Time Fee shall be increased more than the higher of the following two (2) amounts above the annual assessment or Bonus Time Fee for the immediately preceding fiscal year:
(1) Five percent (5%); or
(2) The percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the calendar year immediately preceding the year for which the increase is being made; provided, however, an increase in annual assessments due to an increase in real property taxes against Units shall be excluded from the calculation of percentage increase for applying this limitation.


Where the guest fee will make it go above the 5% unless Wyndham reduced the MF to match the GC fees income.


----------



## CO skier (Oct 18, 2020)

samara64 said:


> where does it say in addition.


In section 5.1 (b) of the WorldMark bylaws that I quoted.



samara64 said:


> Also how does this all work with section 7
> 
> 7.1 Annual Assessments.



"Fees" are completely unrelated to Annual Assessments.  Section 7.1 does not apply.


----------



## samara64 (Oct 19, 2020)

You can call it fees or assessment. It is he same.

What does the GC fee entails if you do it online. What is the cost to the club.


----------



## CO skier (Oct 19, 2020)

samara64 said:


> You can call it fees or assessment. It is he same.


The Club bylaws call fees and assessments by two different names, because they are two different things.


----------



## samara64 (Oct 19, 2020)

Deleted. duplicate post. See below


----------



## samara64 (Oct 19, 2020)

CO skier said:


> You are confusing two different sections of the bylaws.
> 
> Section 5.1 (b) is titled "Discretionary Powers.  In addition to the foregoing mandatory duties"
> 
> which is *in* *addition* *to,* not defining of, the mandatory powers and duties listed in Section 5.1 (a), which includes 5.1 (a) (3) (iv)  Number of occupants, guests and fees;



Other than 5.1(b)4 (4) , where else is the term "fees" explained.

If you for example look at the term "annual assessment", you will see it is clearly defined.


----------



## CO skier (Oct 20, 2020)

samara64 said:


> Other than 5.1(b)4 (4) , where else is the term "fees" explained.


Get serious.  "Fees" are whatever the BOD determines according to Section 5.1 (a) of the bylaws.

A few examples, "Internet fees," "housekeeping fees", "movie rental fees."  None of these "fees" (like guest certificate fees) have anything to do with  5.1(b)4 (4).  Sorry for your misinterpretation.


----------



## Mongoose (Oct 21, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> No more multiple reservations for same days beyond number of owners (i.e. max 2) without guest certificate being assigned within 48 hours of booking and no changes to the guest certificate thereafter (that's the real kicker). If guest name not provided within 48 hours Reservation is cancelled. Within 14 days, need immediate guest certificate assignment. Implementing January 2021 unless they decide to do it earlier.
> 
> This really only causes problems for people making multiple Reservations starting the same day/resort. Problems for people planning Family Reunions. You have to be certain who is coming because you can not change the name on the GC.
> 
> The WM BOD still has not done anything for cancellations by WM because of Covid19 that cost loss of GC.


I think this is good for regular owners and will keep the organized mega renters for monopolizing the prime weeks and locations.  This see this as a protective measure to protect the brand.


----------



## samara64 (Oct 22, 2020)

CO skier said:


> Get serious.  "Fees" are whatever the BOD determines according to Section 5.1 (a) of the bylaws.
> 
> A few examples, "Internet fees," "housekeeping fees", "movie rental fees."  None of these "fees" (like guest certificate fees) have anything to do with  5.1(b)4 (4).  Sorry for your misinterpretation.





So why do we need a bylaws if the BID can assert any fees like CWA.


----------



## ecwinch (Oct 26, 2020)

This is a common problem when trying to read the governing documents. When you read the documents, you have to keep in mind the objective of governing documents and recognize that no governing document can contemplate the wide range of decisions that a BoD might face. As such courts have and are going to take a broad interpretation of the powers of BoD, not the narrow one you might desire.  Applying the litmus test of "is the BoD acting to ensure the fair and efficient on-going operation of the Club". And while you might disagree, I am pretty sure that this rule meets that test.

As the governing documents indicate when they say:

_ Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, *but not limited to,* the following subjects: (i) Length of stay; (ii) Frequency of use; (iii) Reservations*; (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees; *(v) Provision for the rental of Resorts by the Club to nonmembers when not in use by Members; (vi) Charges for use of specific facilities; (vii) Personal conduct and behavior; (viii) Check out times; and (ix) Care and maintenance of Units and facilities_

Clearly supporting that the BoD has broad powers in terms of setting rules, as long as those rules are applied equally to all members and have some basis in the ensuring the successful operation of the Club. Here the Club is increasing revenue while prioritizing member usage over guest usage. Rules that are consistent with the purpose of the Club - ie. the use and enjoyment of the properties by the members .

In the 9th District Circuit, where any case against WM would likely be litigated, there are decided cases that support that outcome. The clearest one actually involved a BoD that imposed a guest fee on guest usage.


----------



## Marathoner (Aug 30, 2022)

Ressurecting an old thread.

My observations:
- there is no additional availability of 'difficult to book' reservations due to the max 2 overlapping reservations policy
- Wyndham is using the 'megarenters' complaints to make WM less owner friendly and more expensive
- owners need to stop complaining about megarenters so that Wyndham stop adding restrictions and costs to our club.  

While unfortunate, I'd rather have megarenters and revert back to what our club was like 6 years ago.  Please keep this in mind and stop enabling Wyndham from adding additional costs to our ownership in the name of 'combatting megarenters'


----------



## tschwa2 (Aug 30, 2022)

Deleted


----------



## sue1947 (Aug 30, 2022)

Marathoner said:


> Ressurecting an old thread.
> 
> My observations:
> - there is no additional availability of 'difficult to book' reservations due to the max 2 overlapping reservations policy
> ...


yep.  But I would like to revise your second point to:
Wyndham is using the 'megarenters' complaints to make WM less owner friendly and _to transfer more money from owner's pockets to their's._ 

It has also made it more difficult to get difficult to get spots off the waitlist.  In the past, we might pick up various types of units until we could make a whole.  That might involve multiple overlapping reservations until it all came together.  Now each of those overlaps cost me a guest cert.  Renters, on the other hand, just add $100 to the cost and carry on.  

Assign your proxy to wmowners.com.


----------

