It's not written in stone, and it's not in my contracts (I have two platinum founder's contracts). They can change the website, yes, but not my contract.
That really doesn't help your argument.
How long is that? Not trying to argue, just trying to get a timeline?
I'm also trying to find it in the trust documents. Do you mean the Fairshare trust, and if so, is there a version more recent than the March 14, 2008 agreement? Because I'm seeing no definition of commercial use nor of "permitted users" in the 2008 version of the Fairshare trust agreement.
clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com
You are a newbie.
Of course, that's why they exist in the first place - the business of business being business in the pursuit of maximizing shareholder profits. Some corporations are more long-term profit driven and reflect that in the valuation of good will. The only thing we can do to effect the calculus is to continue to strive to educate the uninformed owners and customers that are out there and call out Wyndham when they do things that are egregious.
Generally loopholes are open, they get found, they get disseminated to "the masses" then they get closed. This happens just about everywhere. Think hotel loyalty programs. Blogs and such find loopholes or "great values" then thousands take advantage of it, the hotel chain realises they are losing money and they figure out a way to limit the losses. Wyndham is no different.
The current deposit rule has been in place since mid-2017, and you are correct - prior to that, it was the credit pool (RIP) and you had to pool your points 3 months earlier, by the last day of the previous use year.
You make several assumptions that are just that, assumptions. There is nothing fraudulent or unethical about using the system as designed, as opposed to how "it should work" I doubt Wyndham offered to settle with Ron if he had no legal standing. Was it david vs goliath? Of course, Ron was definitely David. Did Wyndham want the publicity of from his fighting them? Probably not, especially if he could make a reasonable sounding argument and they were not clearly in the right. That is more likely than, Ron was clearly wrong, but they settled anyway.
Respectfully perplexed by what any of your examples have to do with renting out a timeshare?
They are examples of using the timeshare for a commercial enterprise or doing something with the timeshare that isn’t explicitly banned by the contract. That seems to be the most common excuse used by the renters. You do agree that renting the timeshare is a commercial enterprise, or can we not even agree on that?
Certainly not trying to make an enemy of you just looking for clarity, thanks much.
Not looking for any enemies and I apologize if I was a little snappy. I’m just tired of the same old argument. Guess I should ignore this thread for a while.
#6. And THIS is the most important one. Wyndham didn't mind that accounts were being stripped and sold and the new owner was responsible for paying the maintenance fees moving forward, until they were the new owners. You keep holding up Ron as an example, he was not the only one stripping accounts, he may have been the most transparent, but he was not the only one. There are reasons Wyndham settled with many with nondisclosures. Perhaps one of those reasons is they weren't sure if they'd win in court (we'll never know).
People seem to be under the impression that just because something isn't in a contract that you signed many years ago - that it actually means anything with respect to opt-in agreement of Terms of Use. Are you aware that whenever you use the website - you're already agreeing to additional contractual terms of use for the services in scope? Screenshot below for reference. Here's a link to the complete website terms of use:
Terms of Use
View attachment 52519
This means that if you have ever used the website - you have already agreed to these updated Terms of Use by default. This includes the verbiage in the Terms and Conditions for the aforementioned for the Points Protection. It also includes the following as it relates to use of any/all content for commercial use:
View attachment 52520
With the above in mind - how many renters use graphics from the Wyndham website to advertise their rentals? Do those renters know that per the above verbiage - they are in violation of the above listed commercial use clauses? While Wyndham isn't currently enforcing these violations - if/when the times comes - it won't be hard to demonstrate such violations in a court of law worst case.
I don't have a personal investment in the rental game beyond the occasional GC used for friends and family - so restrictions on commercial rentals don't impact me directly. But it has become clear to me that Wyndham is now enforcing owner based rental restrictions much more aggressively than at any point in their history. Sure this wasn't always the case - but it is the current reality - and I suspect it will only become more restrictive over time based upon what I've seen since becoming an owner. I would not be surprised to see GCs go away altogether - and be replaced by a Friends & Family type program that won't allow for the flexibility to rent like owners can today. There was even a survey put out some months ago about a Friends & Family program for example. Pure speculation on my part to be clear. Just connecting the dots as I see it.
Every Wyndham website upgrade has been a flop. Wyndham has done the same to Worldmarks also.