Warning to Timeshare Sellers about Redweek Full Service

[HeidingOut]

I am already a paid member?

 

[klpca]

I am already a paid member?

Yes. It says "tug member" under your user name. If you have not joined and paid it says "guest".

 

[rickandcindy23]

Join Tug.com ($15.00 a year) and ask. They ar there to help with everything timeshare. TUG=Timeshare Users Group

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

This is TUG, and the OP is a member already. You show as guest. You need to make sure you show as member, if you paid the $15.

 

[mla]

I don't know if this is the right place to post my frustration. But, here goes. I've now twice attempted to purchase timeshares via redweek. On both transactions which were "full service" transactions, the Redweek agents were just completely unhelpful or maybe uninformed causing the seller to lose the sale of their timeshare. Last year, it was a Lagunamar contract which we ended up buying off of Ebay. The ebay seller provided Estoppel before I bid.

@HeidingOut, why do you need the estoppel? The full-service postings are built from the estoppel, so it's basically the same thing, no? Is there important information missing on the posting itself? If so, we need to address that.

Can you send me a list of the posting IDs and/or who you interacted with at RedWeek?

Thanks,

Maurice

 

[mjkkb2]

It sounds to me Maurice that you are affiliated with redweek. If that's the case I would suggest you read the below thread which was enough for me to reconsider listing my rental using full service option.

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/rented-week-now-renter-wants-to-sublet.268552/

 

[mla]

It sounds to me Maurice that you are affiliated with redweek. If that's the case I would suggest you read the below thread which was enough for me to reconsider listing my rental using full service option.

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/rented-week-now-renter-wants-to-sublet.268552/

Thanks, @mjkkb2, I'll respond to that thread.

 

[DeniseM]

@HeidingOut, why do you need the estoppel? The full-service postings are built from the estoppel, so it's basically the same thing, no? Is there important information missing on the posting itself? If so, we need to address that.

A buyer has no way of knowing if an Ad is accurate or not, so an important part of doing your due diligence is getting an estoppel from the resort management company. Assuming that an Ad is correct is not a good practice.

 

[mla]

A buyer has no way of knowing if an Ad is accurate or not, so an important part of doing your due diligence is getting an estoppel from the resort management company. Assuming that an Ad is correct is not a good practice.

Full-service postings should be accurate though. That's one of the primary reasons we added it -- because so many owners aren't actually clear about what they own. If our full-service resale postings are inaccurate then we have a problem. We always build them off of the estoppel.

But I understand your perspective. I'll talk to the resale team about better accommodating such requests.

 

[vacationtime1]

Full-service postings should be accurate though. That's one of the primary reasons we added it -- because so many owners aren't actually clear about what they own. If our full-service resale postings are inaccurate then we have a problem. We always build them off of the estoppel.

But I understand your perspective. I'll talk to the resale team about better accommodating such requests.

No you don't. You take owner data and don't verify it. I have seen numerous Redweek Verified ads that have errors that would not happen had they been created from an estoppel.

It took me less than five minutes to find four active Redweek Verified ads for Westin Kierland units to make my point: ad numbers R777340, R736518, R736925, and R766191 are all for the same size unit ("Deluxe") and in reality, all have the same maintenance fee. But the four ads each show different maintenance fees for the same unit. This could not have happened had the ads been created from estoppels.

 

[mla]

No you don't. You take owner data and don't verify it. I have seen numerous Redweek Verified ads that have errors that would not happen had they been created from an estoppel.

It took me less than five minutes to find four active Redweek Verified ads for Westin Kierland units to make my point: ad numbers R777340, R736518, R736925, and R766191 are all for the same size unit ("Deluxe") and in reality, all have the same maintenance fee. But the four ads each show different maintenance fees for the same unit. This could not have happened had the ads been created from estoppels.

Thanks. I'll investigate those and report back.

Maurice

 

[theo]

I will note that in the past year I have seen and responded to several "full service" RedWeek listings for a resort at which we have long owned a few weeks, in which the RW ad contained plainly inaccurate and / or incomplete information.
When I reported / inquired further about the misinformation, I was essentially advised "that's the information which the owner provided" (i.e., it was clearly not derived from estoppel). I did not retain the RW ad numbers for future reference.

I like RedWeek as a timeshare listing site and have successfully bought, sold and rented out weeks on numerous occasions using RW, with no problems. That said, I did not (and would not) use the (alleged) "full service" option. In all fairness, the "full service" option is relatively new for RedWeek; the bugs and growing pains will hopefully get worked out over time.

 

[mla]

No you don't. You take owner data and don't verify it. I have seen numerous Redweek Verified ads that have errors that would not happen had they been created from an estoppel.

It took me less than five minutes to find four active Redweek Verified ads for Westin Kierland units to make my point: ad numbers R777340, R736518, R736925, and R766191 are all for the same size unit ("Deluxe") and in reality, all have the same maintenance fee. But the four ads each show different maintenance fees for the same unit. This could not have happened had the ads been created from estoppels.

The resale team confirmed they were based on estoppels. Here's why the fees varied:

"1. Some postings were created in mid 2017 and the maintenance reflects 2017 amount. On our follow ups, we ask if anything has change but some don’t let us know.

2. The team uses the full amount on the bill. Some owners pay a $5 volunteer ARDA contribution. Some owners don’t pay it but if they pay it, it’s added on the estoppel.

3. One owner had a $50 late fee assessment. It was added to the maintenance amount because if a buyer is reimbursing the fees to the owner, the full amount will to be reimbursed. "

I'm not sure if all of those make sense. Seems like the ARDA contribution should be dropped if it's voluntary. And the $50 late fee seems like it should be folded into the asking price if they want that reimbursed, no?

The stale estoppel info is a problem. I suggested we start adding a note of when the estoppel was from so it would be clear from that context. I was told it would be risky to automatically adjust all maintenance fees up if we know what percentage was added (2018 vs 2017, for example). Apparently at some resorts it can vary by owner even when all other aspects of the unit appear to be the same? Dunno. Suggestions?

 

[md8287]

Like the estoppel/verification date.

 

[mla]

I will note that in the past year I have seen and responded to several "full service" RedWeek listings for a resort at which we have long owned a few weeks, in which the RW ad contained plainly inaccurate and / or incomplete information.
When I reported / inquired further about the misinformation, I was essentially advised "that's the information which the owner provided" (i.e., it was clearly not derived from estoppel). I did not retain the RW ad numbers for future reference.

If you see this in the future, I'd greatly appreciate it if you (or anyone on here) could send me posting IDs. All full-service resale postings should be based off of estoppels. If anyone is cutting corners on that in the resale team then they won't be working for us.

 

[DeniseM]

Apparently at some resorts it can vary by owner even when all other aspects of the unit appear to be the same?

I don't think this is correct - except at some resorts in Mexico, where they create different terms for different owners.

At US resorts, the base maintenance fees are standardized.

 

[md8287]

To me the biggest issue with the full service (other than I can do self service for less) is the agent that handles the follow up sometimes is great but more often than not seems like they do not know what the deal is. Almost like they are randomly chosen and the first they learn the have a listing is when they get the first request.
I recently bought a ts through full service and it’s going flawless and tried to buy another but agent dropped the ball like 3 times.

 

[md8287]

I don't think this is correct - except at some resorts in Mexico, where they create different terms for different owners.

At US resorts, the base maintenance fees are standardized.

Although some resorts have multiple fees based on a phase or a building - I think of smugglers notch with 20 something fees.

 

[DeniseM]

But the base for the same type unit/building would still be the same for all owners.

 

[mla]

To me the biggest issue with the full service (other than I can do self service for less) is the agent that handles the follow up sometimes is great but more often than not seems like they do not know what the deal is. Almost like they are randomly chosen and the first they learn the have a listing is when they get the first request.
I recently bought a ts through full service and it’s going flawless and tried to buy another but agent dropped the ball like 3 times.

Please feel free to private message me names of who you dealt with and I'll investigate.

 

[dioxide45]

But the base for the same type unit/building would still be the same for all owners.

The only place there can be a variance is in Florida, different seasons have different tax amounts. But for the same season/unit/building/phase, the MFs should be the same.

 

[tink10]

I can confirm that what mla has said is 100% correct.

I've personally reviewed a very large number of estoppels completed over the course of 7 years by Vistana (and other companies) for RedWeek Full Service resales.

I've seen vast differences in the maintenance fees for the same unit in the same season. I cannot see why they would differ, but they do. There have been issues with some other companies, but Vistana currently has the largest number of variances in maintenance fees from what I've seen. (Keep in mind that the estoppel is only as good as the person completing it at the management company).

As mla also stated, RedWeek has to go off the information provided on the estoppel. They cannot take the owners word because many owners just don't know what they own. On a daily basis, we are in contact with owners who are unsure of the weeks or seasons they own, the units they own and it's not uncommon at all to see people who are unsure of the resort that they own at. I certainly hope that doesn't come across as sounding harsh, because we understand that many timeshare owners haven't done the homework about ownership as much as most here do.

The resale team needs the posting to be accurate because, to put it simply, their goal is to get the week sold. Any unforeseen surprises can kill a sale and they just don't want to see that happen.

I know that mla has put out there that you can message him about issues, but I'm here as well.

 

[tschwa2]

I can confirm that what mla has said is 100% correct.

I've personally reviewed a very large number of estoppels completed over the course of 7 years by Vistana (and other companies) for RedWeek Full Service resales.

I've seen vast differences in the maintenance fees for the same unit in the same season. I cannot see why they would differ, but they do. There have been issues with some other companies, but Vistana currently has the largest number of variances in maintenance fees from what I've seen. (Keep in mind that the estoppel is only as good as the person completing it at the management company).

As mla also stated, RedWeek has to go off the information provided on the estoppel. They cannot take the owners word because many owners just don't know what they own. On a daily basis, we are in contact with owners who are unsure of the weeks or seasons they own, the units they own and it's not uncommon at all to see people who are unsure of the resort that they own at. I certainly hope that doesn't come across as sounding harsh, because we understand that many timeshare owners haven't done the homework about ownership as much as most here do.

The resale team needs the posting to be accurate because, to put it simply, their goal is to get the week sold. Any unforeseen surprises can kill a sale and they just don't want to see that happen.

I know that mla has put out there that you can message him about issues, but I'm here as well.

We all know why Vistana has different MF for the same size and season. There are several different HOA's and each have their own budgets. So while it may seem like a single resort, it kind of isn't. You need to match the unit info to verify that it matches the HOA (phase/section of the resort). I also personally know that resale sheet infos from Vistana aren't always correct. A knowlegable buyer, like many here, know what to look for and can spot the inconsistencies so they can be corrected. That's why we like to see the form itself not just the info that the "full service" agent thinks is important.

 

[tink10]

tschwa2, thanks for that information! Our resale team will absolutely follow up with the management company if there's an inconsistency. However, I will consult the resale team with the info and the possibility of differentiating the phases.

 

[Mosescan]

I have noticed the issue of different maintenance fees for the same unit on a lot of HGVC for sale ads on many different websites. Redweek is not alone on this issue.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I appreciate that @mla and @tink10 are willing to follow up on these issues at Redweek. As someone who has inquired about verified listings, it has taken 3+ days to get a response from the agent (if you get one at all). That is unacceptable.

I want this service to succeed because it is much more cost effective than hiring an agent - so there is value in this service. Many timeshares can be closed with a closing/escrow company such as Timeshare Closings for Less so an agent doesn't add much value.

I would like to suggest another tier ("Verified Owner Listing"?) that is perhaps more than an advertisement but less than the verified + agent option so priced somewhere inbetween: screened inquiries with verified details. This provides a level of confidence of the validity for both the buyer and seller i.e.

1) Redweek verifies based on the estoppel
2) Responds to inquiries in a timely manner and qualifies the buyer to screen out scammers (owners name and contact info is kept private)
3) If it appears to be a legitimate inquiry, then brings in the owner to respond and close the deal without a real estate agent.

This could also be an option for rentals because I don't have time to deal with tire kickers and don't want my contact info and name provided to scammers. However I don't want escrow and want my own rental agreement. Privacy matters.