[ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit

[Braindead]

if an owner books a stay in the VIP discount window and rents that stay out, it's beneficial to the system as a whole.
The reason the units available in that window are not booked by other owners is very likely because they don't want them or don't own sufficient points to book them
but it's clearly not the highly desirable stays that get rented this way.

Mega renters create a lot availability for THEMSELVES in the 60 day discount & upgrade window.
Anything not rented is cancelled but that doesn’t mean that they don’t try catching that availability coming back with discounts & upgrades.
By snatching that cancelled reservation they put a renter on it then go cancel a rented reservation trying to catch it when it comes. Repeat -repeat-repeat-etc.
A little different twist on the old cancel rebook, but don’t kid yourself it’s happening a lot.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Was looking deeper into the financials.
It appears that in 2020 the developer paid $45,984,193 to the association (CWA) for any unsold points in any given month, at the same rate as other owners($6.28/1000). If we pretend it was the same # of points each month (aka average the costs) it means for CWA Wyndham owns 73,223,237,300 CWA points at any given month in 2020. (Someone check the math, it is Sunday so math free zone, could be way off, lol) So, if the math is correct, this makes Wyndham’s use far greater than any megarenter, and this is just the CWA inventory.

Exactly where did you source the $45,984,193 number from? I would need to go look at the financials to evaluate the math, but either way, IIRC Wyndham cannot dip into both the sales bucket and the usage bucket for any one contract at the same time. So if they are converting any one CWA contract for sales - then Wyndham cannot also rent those points via EH (consume those points). When Wyndham rents points from actual recovered contracts from CE for example - either those contracts become dedicated for rental usage - or for fresh sales via the Sales & Marketing division. it is either/or not both/and. How Wyndham uses contracts is subject to the same contraints as owners unless otherwise noted in the founding trust documents. So if Wyndham chooses to rent points against any one contract - it is consuming use year points within that contract - and therefore cannot resell those same points consumed from that same contract. That's my current understanding of how the EH process works. I'll try to validate the math in another post at a later time.

 

[Lisa P]

Just looked - and for the dates at Christmas in my desired location there is availability on EH that I couldn't book which would have given me better accommodations.

Christmas is only 4.5 months away. If you look at a primetime reservation 10 months away, it's booked solid and you find available rentals, I be more concerned.

...if they [Wyndham] gave decent value for the money (e.g., at least covering the MF cost for reservations turned over to Extra Holidays) instead of allocating all risk of the transaction to the owners and 60% of the rewards to themselves, they would get more of the rental activity.

Wouldn't that be a REAL benefit?!!?!

...are megarenters the problem who deserve all the anger and to be vilified, or would it be better directed at the company?

Only speaking for myself, I'm not angry at megarenters or at Wyndham and I don't wish to vilify anyone. I'd just like to see the problem addressed for the future. It's not an easy one to tackle. Finding an overall Win-Win will still always result in someone losing something.

 

[paxsarah]

We've already proven this oft used theory is incorrect - a TUG Wyndham owner even ran a test by submitting a blackout period rentral to EH recently for January timeframe just to see if EH would accept a reservation that overlapped into a blackout period. The reservation was turned away by EH - for exactly this reason. Feel free to run the same test yourself - you'll get the same result. Wyndham is currently honoring the same blackout periods on EH for owner reservations.

They currently are, but do they have to? I agree that on principle they should be bound to the same blackout periods and that mostly they have held themselves to that so far, but is there a legal obligation for them to? I doubt it.

 

[VacayKat]

Exactly where did you source the $45,984,193 number from? I would need to go look at the financials to evaluate the math, but either way, IIRC Wyndham cannot dip into both the sales bucket and the usage bucket for any one contract at the same time. So if they are converting any one CWA contract for sales - then Wyndham cannot also rent those points via EH (consume those points). When Wyndham rents points from actual recovered contracts from CE for example - either those contracts become dedicated for rental usage - or for fresh sales via the Sales & Marketing division. it is either/or not both/and. How Wyndham uses contracts is subject to the same contraints as owners unless otherwise noted in the founding trust documents. So if Wyndham chooses to rent points against any one contract - it is consuming use year points within that contract - and therefore cannot resell those same points consumed from that same contract. That's my current understanding of how the EH process works. I'll try to validate the math in another post at a later time.

it was in the audited financials in my owner profile - they are public documents.

 

[BingoBangoBongo]

That was the thinking in 2017, too. If it will be easy for others to "fill the void," why did so many experienced megarenters leave in 2017 and why are they leaving now?

Human behavior, especially finance related can be interesting at times. I have a small building near my house that has hosted at least 10 different pizza operations in the past 25 years. Each new owner thinks they have the secret recipe, but fail to realize that the location is awful. Apparently the pizza guys have finally thrown in the towel and it now hosts a Creole type takeout place that never has any cars in the tiny parking lot every time I pass by. Some people are driven by the opportunity that in reality isn't there.

 

[VacayKat]

Christmas is only 4.5 months away. If you look at a primetime reservation 10 months away, it's booked solid and you find available rentals, I be more concerned.

I was only making the point that if rentals by megarenters were the problem, folks like me who want to reserve a place should be able to without finding any rental inventory. And 4.5 months out is a LONG time for most vacation travellers.
For the record, I reserved originally at 10 months with adequate availability and when family members finally got around to making decisions, at 7 months out I could not find anything and the reservations I put back in did not show back up. I was able to book b/c accessible units were free. [you can book them if nothing else is available - you do not need to leave on the off chance someone might want them, at that point they are fair game] And I didn’t get what I needed, I took smaller rooms. So yeah, those rentals were reserved soon after the 10 month without a doubt.

 

[troy12n]

I would hope the intent of an individual owner, just like the intent of a commercial business, would be to use all of their points and get their money's worth. A commercial business is just more efficient at it, and/or more motivated. So the rest of us benefit from the owners who don't actually live up to their intent.

It's up to an individual owner how efficiently they want to use their ownership. Speaking for myself, I like to think I use it the most efficiently.

Club Wyndham exists to provide lodging, not for owners to rent out their units for profit. This is clearly not the intent of Club Wyndham timeshare ownership... as @HitchHiker71 has alluded to several times.

And maximizing profit margin for a Mega Renter certainly isn't the intent of Club Wyndham...

 

[dgalati]

Can we all agree on a few items?
All rentals are commercial activity.
It doesn’t matter if you do 1 a year or a 1,000 a year it’s commercial activity.
Almost all owners have rented units. I’m in this group.
It doesn’t matter if an owner checks in for a renter or uses a GC it’s still commercial activity.
If an owner receives any compensation at all it’s a rental & commercial activity. Even if the price doesn’t cover the MFs on the points used it’s still a rental.

A couple of examples to back up the above items.
You do auto repair in your garage at home & some clients are family or friends cars while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
You do house cleaning & some clients are family or friends houses while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
An example less extreme, while staying at Canterbury in San Francisco we noticed all the mini grocery marts & they‘re commercial just like Wal Mart is commercial.

I’m not for eliminating rentals & I don’t think hardly any owners are. I don’t think Wyndham is either.
I’m not for eliminating family & friends vacations. I sure hope NO owners are either. I’m pretty sure Wyndham isn’t either.

So what’s the answer? My opinions
1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
4. I’m open to a family & friends list.

I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!

IMHO Why not just eliminate all discounts and free upgrades? Your list is biased towards your way of traveling. For the record I never rented any of the points I owned and did find it advantageous to travel by renting from a VIP using resale points with VIP discounts and free upgrades. The blackout list worked just fine for me being flexible in my travel plans (renting from a VIP or using my own points). I am sure other owners would agree it also freed up availability for personal use.. The Family and friends list also open to abuse but who cares as long as "it goes away". In a perfect world of course we could "all agree" as long as everyone gets what makes them happy. Here is my only request since we coming up with lists that will only benefit ourselves and VIP privileges'. --- I would like to request that Wyndham gets rid of the negative balance issue so I can go back to flipping deeds.
I’m 100% against the current negative balance issue as it ruining my family vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the Negative balance issue!!!!!!

 

[HitchHiker71]

Alright, suppose I agree to your premise, if I, an owner, have points available to me, and I can not find any availability at the resort that I want to book at during a certain time frame, but find gobs and gobs of availability at Extra Holidays and end up shelling out loads of money per night to rent the resort, is that not the same problem? [because I've had this exact problem, and paid about $1000 for a 2-3 night rental when all the fees and add-ons were calculated. It has been a while so I don't have the receipt handy]

Does Wyndham not have the same obligation to ensure that it is not taking inventory that an owner might want to reserve? Or is it just owners who are prohibited from doing such things?

I guess what I'm not understanding is how megarenters differ from Wyndham and how little folks renting out a stay here and there to manage the ever increasing MF hurt me by their intent. And if that is the problem, then every time Wyndham let their sales people tell folks to make a sale that they could rent out points to cover their MF then we have an even bigger problem because Wyndham created the problem.

Do not get me wrong - I am not suggesting that someone should use a timeshare for a business. That sounds like the most painful way to make a living. I am just trying to figure out how these folks, who most likely are not as big as everyone thinks they are, are impacting my vacation when the only time I've ever had trouble finding a place to reserve is when I can find the inventory on Extra Holidays, a resort appears to be closed [no inventory at all for months on end] or during the craze earlier this year as folks tried to use up all their covid canceled vacation points. Quite literally, there is no way I would have even thought it a thing before finding these forums where megarenters are the scapegoat. So let me ask this, is the way that they are hurting me this: they are hurting the brand....?

The difference is that Wyndham didn't sign a legally binding contract that prevents commercial use for that which it already owns. The MRs did - at some point during their ownership process - sign such contracts. The rest is just details. Wyndham is entitled to do whatever they want with what they own - within the restrictions defined in the founding trust documents. MRs are not. People here on TUG keep trying to hold Wyndham to the same restrictions - why? They own the entire league - they define the rules of the game - they don't play by the same rules - they never have and they never will. I really do not understand the entire premise of the arguments being made here with this premise in mind.

I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result. For those few of us who moderate on the FB forums - the topic of MRs comes up quite often as a huge negative - especially on the forums where the MRs and PM's post rentals constantly. It just hasn't come up much here on TUG - because TUG represents the exception not the rule - and many of the megarenters are disproportionately represented here on TUG. So it's not surprising to see arguments against changing the system from those who were and in some cases still are very much invested in keeping the status quo. But we have more and more newer members who look back at those past times - even though we recognize there are many here who affectionately embrace the MRs because of their knowledge and contributions - and politely but firmly say - it was good while it lasted - but that time has come and gone - and as @JanT has said repeatedly - resistance is futile. If you run a commercial rental business - using Wyndham timeshare inventory - your days are numbered - particularly if you received a letter spelling this out already. For the small minority who do fall into this bucket - the game is up. Fortunately - for the vast majority of normal owners - including the vast majority of VIP owners - this change we're so passionately debating - comes as a welcome change - and has zero impact on 99+% of the owner base.

The mere fact that this is such a hotly debated topic here on TUG - that in and of itself should tell us all something. I know what it tells me - what does it tell you?

 

[dgalati]

It's up to an individual owner how efficiently they want to use their ownership. Speaking for myself, I like to think I use it the most efficiently.

Club Wyndham exists to provide lodging, not for owners to rent out their units for profit. This is clearly not the intent of Club Wyndham timeshare ownership... as @HitchHiker71 has alluded to several times.

And maximizing profit margin for a Mega Renter certainly isn't the intent of Club Wyndham...

Let me ask all of you gurus a question. If Wyndham starts to sell yearly subscription's to travel would these be short term rentals? Or would these subscriptions (aka Discovery packages) be considered ownership?

 

[Cyrus24]

I would like to request that Wyndham gets rid of the negative balance issue so I can go back to flipping deeds.

Pay that $12/1000 and I'm sure it would go away.

 

[dgalati]

The difference is that Wyndham didn't sign a legally binding contract that prevents commercial use for that which it already owns. The MRs did - at some point during their ownership process - sign such contracts. The rest is just details. Wyndham is entitled to do whatever they want with what they own - within the restrictions defined in the founding trust documents. MRs are not. People here on TUG keep trying to hold Wyndham to the same restrictions - why? They own the entire league - they define the rules of the game - they don't play by the same rules - they never have and they never will. I really do not understand the entire premise of the arguments being made here with this premise in mind.

I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result. For those few of us who moderate on the FB forums - the topic of MRs comes up quite often as a huge negative - especially on the forums where the MRs and PM's post rentals constantly. It just hasn't come up much here on TUG - because TUG represents the exception not the rule - and many of the megarenters are disproportionately represented here on TUG. So it's not surprising to see arguments against changing the system from those who were and in some cases still are very much invested in keeping the status quo. But we have more and more newer members who look back at those past times - even though we recognize there are many here who affectionately embrace the MRs because of their knowledge and contributions - and politely but firmly say - it was good while it lasted - but that time has come and gone - and as @JanT has said repeatedly - resistance is futile. If you run a commercial rental business - using Wyndham timeshare inventory - your days are numbered - particularly if you received a letter spelling this out already. For the small minority who do fall into this bucket - the game is up. Fortunately - for the vast majority of normal owners - including the vast majority of VIP owners - this change we're so passionately debating - comes as a welcome change - and has zero impact on 99+% of the owner base.

The mere fact that this is such a hotly debated topic here on TUG - that in and of itself should tell us all something. I know what it tells me - what does it tell you?

TUG does not represent the majority of owners but the majority of TUG Wyndham posters are VIP owners that have played the system to their advantage. I have no problem with playing the system but time has come for Mega renters to concede to a checkmate.

 

[Eric B]

I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result.

If that's truly the case, then bless their hearts. The concern it raises is the potential for a future Wyndham ELT to revert - what are they doing to make these changes permanent? A secondary concern is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of recognition that they are causing collateral damage and do not appear to be doing much to address that for the folks that are effected. There's always the "you can just call owner resolution" but I don't need to speak to them to know the response I'll get - "look at the old program policies that were in effect before the ones that were when you bought, we're just restoring the old rules and your purchase under the then current rules should not matter."

 

[dgalati]

Pay that $12/1000 and I'm sure it would go away.

They couldn't steam roll this guy. Like @am1 stated change the strategy to survive or tap out.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I would hope the intent of an individual owner, just like the intent of a commercial business, would be to use all of their points and get their money's worth. A commercial business is just more efficient at it, and/or more motivated. So the rest of us benefit from the owners who don't actually live up to their intent.

I hear what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. We are talking about the intent of the entire system here - and the entire system was not built nor intended for commercial use. How efficiently owners utilize the system - is therefore not relevant to the premise. That said, if we want to examine the intent of each use case (commercial renters vs vacation owners), the intent for a commercial business is to make profits (for which the system was not intended - as is proven by the commercial use clauses). The intent of a normal owner is to schedule and take vacations for personal use. How efficiently either class uses the system is moot, but the owners who learn how to utilize the system better for personal use - will certainly be better off than the owners who don't - but in this instance - both sets of vacation owners would be using the system as intended.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Thank you for your feedback. Reasonable minds can disagree, of course. We'll see what the net result winds up being after the latest updates are done. IMHO, Wyndham has the power to set up the program guidelines in a way that greatly reduces the use of the system by the megarenters as well as the information necessary to identify who they are if they so choose. For some reason, they've made the business decision that it isn't in their best interest to do that. I'll be interested in seeing what happens to systemwide availability once things are are implemented and the perturbations settle down. I have no illusions that this will cure the issues people have with being able to reserve high demand times on short notice.

I believe Wyndham is taking an all of the above appproach here. IMHO the letters that went out to those running commercial businesses was just round one of an overall multi-round strategy. So while they are making very narrow changes to the online system that only impact less than 1% of the ownership base (VIPs who hold resale contracts) - at the same time Wyndham is taking other actions to weed out MRs as has been noted on this and other threads - it's just that the letter that went out isn't being discussed because the people impacted don't want to shine a light on themselves and paint an even larger target on their back in the process. I can't blame them really - had I received a letter - I'm far from certain I would admit to it - especially if I had existing rentals already processed - because if my customers got wind that some of my rentals were subject to cancellation - many would likely cancel their reservations with me - even if those reservations were still valid - as customers don't like risk with respect to their vacation plans. If they could make other arrangements without the perceived risks involved - I suspect many would do exactly that.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I asked essentially this same question on one of the other threads a few days ago. FB users are big mad when they can't find availability with their own points, but they can find it for rent for cash on eBay or Travelocity or wherever. What happens, perception-wise, when EH (and whatever other outlets Wyndham may use to rent out inventory) becomes the main source for rentals of Wyndham resorts? Even if real availability is opened up for actual owners through all these changes, for the owner who doesn't manage to book it, are they still mad but now it's just more likely they're mad at EH?

If/when this happens - Wyndham will have the manage the negative perceptions when that time comes. Right now - we have already proven that Wyndham is not accepting EH reservations during blackout periods - so the theory that Wyndham will be renting inventory during blackout periods that owners cannot rent out - doesn't hold water at present. That doesn't mean Wyndham might not do so in the future - again - it's their ballgame and their rules. We are just playing on their field.

 

[Braindead]

Your list is biased towards your way of traveling.
The blackout list worked just fine for me being flexible in my travel plans (renting from a VIP or using my own points).
The Family and friends list also open to abuse but who cares as long as "it goes away". In a perfect world of course we could "all agree" as long as everyone gets what makes them happy.

You couldn’t be more wrong! You don’t have a clue on my way of traveling.
Blackout list.
1.Are you in favor of families not being able to spend the holidays together at a resort? Doesn’t affect me but I think it’s hurting countless families this year!
2.Maybe an owner family had a new family move in the area lately & the kids have hit off with the parents now thinking of going somewhere for a weekend. Are you against that? Not effecting me at this time but I think it’s hurting a lot of families now.

No discounts & upgrades on GCs.
I’ve made rental reservations for friends in the 60 day window with discounts & upgrades. This does effect me but I can still see the big picture that maybe it should be changed.

Those are just a few examples of you not having a clue & not looking at the big picture. The negative points balance effects one that I know of, YOU. Now that’s the definition of wanting it 1 owners way!!

If I had it my way there would’ve been no rule changes, Wyndham should’ve pinpointed the problem owners & left the rest of us alone!!

 

[Eric B]

... when this happens - Wyndham will have [to] manage the negative perceptions....

Bottom line for this is that it would be appropriate to magnify the negative perceptions on social media to as great an extent as is possible if you find this to be true. Many corporations do attempt to address concerns that are raised there, though it is likely that you would get a better response on Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok than you would on TUG since the users here seem to represent a minority of Wyndham owners. Perhaps they would respond if they were prodded elsewhere.

 

[HitchHiker71]

... and as a result there are no clear and present violations of the Commercial Use Terms and Conditions. That fact will leave the system design as the only way to try to disincentivize the behaviors that don't benefit them and another crop of folks will spring up to fill the void created by the intentional ambiguity and the current round of changes to get the current megarenters. If the corporate management really wanted to set things up in a manner that actually addresses the problem, they could do so explicitly. I'm glad to hear that you've seen the light on this.

Let's hone my statement a bit further: Wyndham will never define the line publicly to the ownership base - as doing so - would tell the offending owners exactly how to continue to game the system if the boundaries are explicitly defined. I'm 100% certain that Wyndham has these boundaries explicitly defined. Why? Because all owners beyond that line, received cease and desist letters indicating their account has been flagged for commercial use activity. The line has been defined - but I have zero expectation that the line will ever be defined to the ownership base - especially given doing so doesn't impact 99+% of normal owners. That's good business practice IME - focus on the 80% who make up the masses - not the 20% who are the exceptions - or as is the case here - the less than 1% exceptions. Does anyone really expect Wyndham to do this given these facts? I sure don't. I wouldn't do so in a million years if I were Wyndham - I don't manage by exception - I manage by the rules.

 

[paxsarah]

How efficiently either class uses the system is moot

Except that I think the start of this subthread was my observation that the most obvious benefit to an existing individual owner from this eventual transfer of points from megarenters to additional regular owners is that some of the additional regular owners will simply not use their points effectively or at all. That's different from the intent of the entire system. I know the overarching goal is to get commercial interests out and individual vacationers in. On a system level, that will be a success. But as an individual, in total I see the same number of points all being used to chase the best reservations, and I didn't where I as an individual benefitted from that. Except when I realized that regular vacationers are more likely to let their points go to waste.

 

[raygo123]

What's the cheapest way to buy premium resorts? A good base for a subscription program.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk

 

[troy12n]

Except that I think the start of this subthread was my observation that the most obvious benefit to an existing individual owner from this eventual transfer of points from megarenters to additional regular owners is that some of the additional regular owners will simply not use their points effectively or at all. That's different from the intent of the entire system. I know the overarching goal is to get commercial interests out and individual vacationers in. On a system level, that will be a success. But as an individual, in total I see the same number of points all being used to chase the best reservations, and I didn't where I as an individual benefitted from that. Except when I realized that regular vacationers are more likely to let their points go to waste.

How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?

 

[markb53]

So legit question.

This issue seems to be pretty polarizing.

On one side we have people against the mega renters. The rationale (right or wrong) is that mega renters are hurting regular owners ability to use the timeshare, and book. Especially at high demand resorts.

On the other side, we seem to have people pro-mega renter.

On this side of the camp, we have people who ARE the mega renters themselves, who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo
Then we have another group of people... i'm not sure exactly what their angle is. Why they support mega renters. They have no vested interest in the issue. And in fact an argument can be made that by supporting mega renters, they are in fact acting against their own best interests.

So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?

I am not a mega renter. I am also not a VIP. I am a regular owner. I have 182k CWA I purchased from Wyndham and I also have a Panama City Beach 210k EOY-E that I purchased on the resale market in order to reduce my average point cost. I have been an owner for over 10 years. I have never had a problem getting reservations I want for the date I need. I never use ARP. I generally book at 10 months. But sometimes at 4 to 5 months. I have never tried to get bike week at Daytona or Mardi Gras at New Orleans so maybe that’s why I havev’t had a problem. I have booked a 3BR presidential at Bali Hai over Christmas at 10 months. I have stayed at over 20 different resorts during prime weeks, since until recently I could only travel during school holidays. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the mega renters in general since it doesn’t seem like they have had any effect on my ability to use my points when I want and were I want. When I first purchased from Wyndham I was pretty upset when I discovered the lies I was told. And I have to say that it was finding TUG back in 2011 and reading the posts by Ron and others that calmed me down and showed my how to use what I purchased including how to buy some resale points to make my ownership more useful.

Just my 2 cents.