I'm not trying to be snarky, but what is the difference? The problem is we don't know, correct? It appears that the only renting we can do is through Wyndham's process?
But AFAIK you can commercially rent owned deeded weeks. Or at least I have never heard of anyone getting any guff renting out a fixed owned week.
It's a pretty basic and easy answer in reality - and for the vast majority of average owners - it really is just this simple:
Again, not being snarky, and please don't take it as such, but, what I get from reading your posts throughout this whole process, is that you come off thinking rather binary in your way of looking at things related to Wyndham. I could be totally missing the mark here, and also have some sample bias knowing you are an IT person. Again, no disrepect intended. However, I don't really think the answer is that simple, it doesn't appear to be a 0 or 1.
It was said that spec rentals were a big trigger for commercial renting. Meaning making a reservation and if it didn't rent it was cancelled prior to the penalty window. That said, there was a person who advertised a single week on Facebook and got a letter from Wyndham. That shouldn't have happened.
There was likely a person who claimed to have advertised a single week on Facebook - but we must remember that people - especially on social media - are often known to be a bit disingenuous and/or less than honest especially when it serves their own interests doing so. I'm not saying that the person in question was or was not being honest - IDK either way - I'm simply saying - it's highly likely that no one really knows for sure either way - and it's likely the whole story is not being shared.
We can tell everyone what Wyndham clearly states and what is embedded in all of the contracts, and has been for some time now, which is that commercial renting is prohibited. We can also state that Wyndham, nor any other large timeshare developer, doesn't define the term commercial renting - and as you said - they likely never will unless forced to do so by a court of law at some point in the future. That said, I've rented on occasion during the pandemic due to having too many unused points, and I use GCs a few times a year at least, to rent or gift points to friends and/or family, and I've never experienced any issues. That said, I've also never advertised anything publicly, which I know to be a red flag for suspicious account activities if/when detected. And no, I also don't know how that detection process works, for anyone curious.
I've regularly seen people in the Facebook groups who use a lot of guest certificates for friends and family (like, actually friends and family) and then also may rent a small number of reservations to someone more distant, report that they got a letter. It's not as simple as running a commercial operation. It kind of makes sense, because there's no good way for Wyndham to know whether an owner is using all those guest certificates for their niece's honeymoon, their grandchildren's spring breaks, and their coworker's birthday getaway, or is renting them all out to distant acquaintances or strangers. Wyndham also wouldn't know if they're just covering maintenance fees, or if they're in it to make a profit. It's not that simple and it's intentional on Wyndham's part.
People can point to anecdotal examples all day - but the simple fact is that this is a very small minority out of the hundreds of thousands of owner accounts. Every system on earth has error rates inbuilt of some kind. No matter how good any system is, there will always be accounts impacted due to false positives, and the rentals issue is no exception. My point isn't that this never happens, my point is that people see a few posts, and yes it's only a few posts, on a social media site, and then somehow illogically extrapolate that this is going to happen to them, when the reality is we don't even know if those social media posts are accurate/truthful. I'm sure the lack of clarity provided by ALL of the timeshare developers is by design, as they want this type of general fear of renting to become pervasive via social media, at least nowadays given in the past, the sales teams often encouraged buying more points for the purpose of renting, and they actually still do, they just tell owners to use EH/VS to "cover their MFs" using fuzzy, uh, very fuzzy, math LOL.
Aren't you basing your assumptions on anecdotal examples as well? The truth is none of us have access to Wyndham’s internal enforcement data or algorithms, so we are all piecing this together from limited, second-hand information. If Wyndham is sharing "documented proof" behind closed doors at your check ins, perhaps the most helpful thing would be for them to publish that directly to clear up these social media tall tales, since no one here has the same access as you.
Go back and read what I posted. I stated that for the vast majority of average owners - this is a non-issue. That is an accurate statement. The impacted owners are noisy about it, which to some means it must be a big issue, but the truth is it's not a big issue for the vast majority of owners - and the answer that Wyndham gives applies to them well - if they're not running a commercial rental business - they'll be just fine. It's more prevalent of an issue here on TUG, because many mega-renters were very active here in the past, and made a big deal about it as a result. That doesn't mean it's a prevalent issue however.
I have not once in my posts question the use of using a GC. That is not what I am debating or questioning. I am not trying to be snarky here (and it really is getting annoying having to say that), but maybe go back and read what I posted. GCs are not my concern. And for the vast majority of owners, 99% of the things on TUG are not a concern. Doesn't make it any less valid.
Thank you for the stats.
GCs are required to rent - so the use of a GC is a required mechanism for any/all renters. Never said it was less valid, however by definition it is an edge case, and edge cases do not warrant a lot of attention nor resolutions as they are by definition edge cases that do not in any way impact the vast majority of the ownership base. I don't expect a lot of answers for edge cases in my travels in this life, apparently others do, I guess they will have to learn to live with disappointment in life?
Since you used a third party (Koala in this case), you'd likely have been fine - there's no easy way for the systems/vendors being used to make the required association from the data that the third-party controls within their own private systems). That's why, under separate cover, I stated that if anyone is going to rent, use a points manager (of which Koala is one). As we all well know, the only sure-fire way to avoid a negative outcome, albeit however unlikely that outcome would be, is to use EH/VS since those two systems are owned and/or blessed by Wyndham. Wyndham is not the only large timeshare developer enforcing rental limits these days, it's more the norm now in fact, and none of them, AFAIK, have provided any definitions of any kind - that's why I said that unless a court of law requires an explicit answer - we will never see one. To give an explicit answer would give commercial renters the ability to decipher exactly how to "fly just under the radar" and avoid detection - which works directly against the timeshare developer’s goal to minimize commercial rental activities. This is just one of many instances where those few who abused the system have spoiled it for the vast majority of owners that do not and never have (putting aside the fact that the sales division still actively encourages renting of course - hence the duplicity we have all often accuse the timeshare developers of exhibiting).
Thanks for chiming in SilverDollar. Yep, I recall when you posted this in the past, thanks for the repost here now.
Again, you can't tell me I will be fine. That is what I am trying to tell you. You can't tell me I'd "likely have been fine." No one but Wyndham can make that determination. Which I am OK with. I just seem to having a hard time understanding why you think otherwise.GCs are required to rent - so the use of a GC is a required mechanism for any/all renters. Never said it was less valid, however by definition it is an edge case, and edge cases do not warrant a lot of attention nor resolutions as they are by definition edge cases that do not in any way impact the vast majority of the ownership base. I don't expect a lot of answers for edge cases in my travels in this life, apparently others do, I guess they will have to learn to live with disappointment in life?
Since you used a third party (Koala in this case), you'd likely have been fine - there's no easy way for the systems/vendors being used to make the required association from the data that the third-party controls within their own private systems). That's why, under separate cover, I stated that if anyone is going to rent, use a points manager (of which Koala is one). As we all well know, the only sure-fire way to avoid a negative outcome, albeit however unlikely that outcome would be, is to use EH/VS since those two systems are owned and/or blessed by Wyndham. Wyndham is not the only large timeshare developer enforcing rental limits these days, it's more the norm now in fact, and none of them, AFAIK, have provided any definitions of any kind - that's why I said that unless a court of law requires an explicit answer - we will never see one. To give an explicit answer would give commercial renters the ability to decipher exactly how to "fly just under the radar" and avoid detection - which works directly against the timeshare deverloper's goal to minimize commercial rental activities. This is just one of many instances where those few who abused the system have spoiled it for the vast majority of owners that do not and never have (putting aside the fact that the sales division still actively encourages renting of course - hence the duplicity we have all often accuse the timeshare developers of exhibiting).
Yes, exactly. So @Silverdollar answer from Wyndham answers the question. Every single rental outside of EH/VS is not allowed and considered commercial use. There we have it. Kola is not OK. Renting to your friends and family is not OK. Renting here is not OK. Renting on Facebook is not OK. A different question is will I be caught, but that is different from what I am trying to get across.
Although, with a re read, the language of Wyndham specifically says "for a profit". Technically, according to their definition, if I am taking a loss or covering exactly my MFs, that is not "for a profit". But another part of that answer specifically says can only use EH/VS. So I guess even that is still ambiguous. But either way, EH/VS governs in my opinion. Anything else is outside the guidelines.
"You'll be fine" seems to assume the question was "Will I be caught?" which is not what you asked. And the rest of the sentence after "You'll be fine" is pretty much "... if Wyndham doesn't notice, and they probably won't notice (but maybe they will)."
Thank you. This is exactly what I was (I guess poorly) trying to get across.