Changing Names on MVC reservations: no rentals?!

[Jerrygomi]

Using Redweek, I found a renter for a five day points reservation at DSV. When i went to the MVC website to change the name on my reservation to the renter's name, the form below popped up before I could complete the name change form. Most of the legal boilerplate is not particularly alarming, but the fourth box is troubling: "a pattern of rental activity, is prohibited" and "this reservation is not for any commercial purposes".

Is Marriott suddenly trying to stop us from renting out our points and weeks reservations?! Anybody hear anything about this?

 

[dioxide45]

This has been well discussed here in several threads. They are just having you acknowledge and understand the risks. So far, except for some prolific owners that rent, I am not aware of anyone's reservations being cancelled as a result.

 

[Dean]

Using Redweek, I found a renter for a five day points reservation at DSV. When i went to the MVC website to change the name on my reservation to the renter's name, the form below popped up before I could complete the name change form. Most of the legal boilerplate is not particularly alarming, but the fourth box is troubling: "a pattern of rental activity, is prohibited" and "this reservation is not for any commercial purposes".

Is Marriott suddenly trying to stop us from renting out our points and weeks reservations?! Anybody hear anything about this?

View attachment 104035

While no one knows how or if they will try to police it, unless one is doing quite a number of rentals over multiple years or running a website for rentals, I wouldn't worry about it. This is pretty boiler plate for timeshares. I've seen similar issues with DVC and Bluegreen, the 2 systems I'm most familiar with over than MVC. For DVC they say at 20 a year they start looking at the situation though other than some threatening letters to some big points owners/renters early on, I haven't seen much evidence of action though I don't follow DIS nearly as much as I used to. Some here do and if they've seen reports of recent action by DVC, maybe they will post. BG simply limits the number of reservations within a "region" during a given time frame no matter what. Many have started to require unique names on each reservation and in some cases, every occupant to be listed.

 

[LeslieDet]

Is Marriott suddenly trying to stop us from renting out our points and weeks reservations?! Anybody hear anything about this?

The guest form was communicated to all owners mid 2023, and the name changes could no longer be made by calling a CSR. The rules against renting for commercial purposes are in all of the original paperwork you signed when you purchased.

 

[davidvel]

The guest form was communicated to all owners mid 2023, and the name changes could no longer be made by calling a CSR. The rules against renting for commercial purposes are in all of the original paperwork you signed when you purchased.

Or in the cc&rs if purchased resale

 

[AlmostRetired]

Can someone provide me a definition of what the first sentence in the commercial use paragraph actually means. I am not looking for your interpretation based on what commercial use means. I would accept in place of a definition an example of a cancellation of a reservation because the example violated the first sentence. Please make it based on first hand or second hand knowledge. I do not want to create another big foot. Is 5, 10, 20 or 30 rentals a year prohibited before cancellations begin. If I rent my GO every year, that is a pattern?

I understand why MVCI has the paragraph and It does appease the owners who believe the rental market is the reason they are unhappy with the program, but until I see "may result" change to "will result" and followed with a pattern of cancellations, I will continue to believe that the paragraph means nothing because it is not enforced. This doesn't mean when it becomes in MVCI's best interest to enforce it they won't, it just means they have bigger challenges to address and those challenges keep growing.

 

[hangloose]

Using Redweek, I found a renter for a five day points reservation at DSV. When i went to the MVC website to change the name on my reservation to the renter's name, the form below popped up before I could complete the name change form. Most of the legal boilerplate is not particularly alarming, but the fourth box is troubling: "a pattern of rental activity, is prohibited" and "this reservation is not for any commercial purposes".

Is Marriott suddenly trying to stop us from renting out our points and weeks reservations?! Anybody hear anything about this?

View attachment 104035

I just got a renter for one of my weeks. I added the Guest info, then skipped over those checkboxes and just clicked submit. It let me submit without clicking each checkbox. Awaiting to see how MVCI / resort handle. Others try this path?

 

[DeniseM]

Maybe not a good idea to draw attention to yourself this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LeslieDet]

I just got a renter for one of my weeks. I added the Guest info, then skipped over those checkboxes and just clicked submit. It let me submit without clicking each checkbox. Awaiting to see how MVCI / resort handle. Others try this path?

The submit button doesn’t activate unless the boxes are acknowledged. Perhaps you experienced a glitch, but the system doesn’t otherwise allow submittal without tabbing past those boxes, and the tab seems to automatically highlight or acknowledge.

 

[DeniseM]

Here's the other thing - the info isn't automatically uploaded into the system - a human keys it in, and I suspect if an incomplete form gets through, it's not going to be entered.

 

[LeslieDet]

I would accept in place of a definition an example of a cancellation of a reservation because the example violated the first sentence. Please make it based on first hand or second hand knowledge. I do not want to create another big foot. Is 5, 10, 20 or 30 rentals a year prohibited before cancellations begin. If I rent my GO every year, that is a pattern?

My understanding is that the company did indeed cancel reservations when they identified someone who owned something like 52 weeks at one resort and was using the ownership as a rental business. My info is second hand, as it was sourced from an acquaintance who actually works at MVW. Not a sales rep.

It is my opinion that if you own one week at GO and rent it every year, that isn't going to be deemed sufficient to place you in the category of "commercial" activity; however, I suspect that if you owned multiple weeks and all you ever did was rent them out, then at a certain point, that would cross over into how corporate defines commercial activity and corporate would identity the pattern of consistent rentals with multiple weeks ownership.

 

[rickandcindy23]

We own a lot of Sheratons and do rent our weeks, which are float weeks 9-43 and 47. I got them free on ebay. If Marriott decides I cannot rent my plethora of weeks any longer, I will have to give away a lot of weeks. It would be just fine.

I have already sold a few via RW. $500 plus closing costs. They are worth every penny of that. If I cannot sell any more, I will be giving them away and closing them myself.

 

[davidvel]

Can someone provide me a definition of what the first sentence in the commercial use paragraph actually means. I am not looking for your interpretation based on what commercial use means. I would accept in place of a definition an example of a cancellation of a reservation because the example violated the first sentence. Please make it based on first hand or second hand knowledge. I do not want to create another big foot. Is 5, 10, 20 or 30 rentals a year prohibited before cancellations begin. If I rent my GO every year, that is a pattern?

I understand why MVCI has the paragraph and It does appease the owners who believe the rental market is the reason they are unhappy with the program, but until I see "may result" change to "will result" and followed with a pattern of cancellations, I will continue to believe that the paragraph means nothing because it is not enforced. This doesn't mean when it becomes in MVCI's best interest to enforce it they won't, it just means they have bigger challenges to address and those challenges keep growing.

There is no definition beyond what is in the docs. MVC made it intentionally vague so they can do what they want. Many clauses are like this.

 

[Dean]

Can someone provide me a definition of what the first sentence in the commercial use paragraph actually means. I am not looking for your interpretation based on what commercial use means. I would accept in place of a definition an example of a cancellation of a reservation because the example violated the first sentence. Please make it based on first hand or second hand knowledge. I do not want to create another big foot. Is 5, 10, 20 or 30 rentals a year prohibited before cancellations begin. If I rent my GO every year, that is a pattern?

I understand why MVCI has the paragraph and It does appease the owners who believe the rental market is the reason they are unhappy with the program, but until I see "may result" change to "will result" and followed with a pattern of cancellations, I will continue to believe that the paragraph means nothing because it is not enforced. This doesn't mean when it becomes in MVCI's best interest to enforce it they won't, it just means they have bigger challenges to address and those challenges keep growing.

The vagueness is purposeful and all systems I've seen documentation for have fairly similar wording. I don't recall any reports of members being canceled. My guess is they have an internal definition that is more stringent then they look case by case once a given account is flagged. Rest assured $$$ won't be part of the equation but it will be volume and time based (multiple years). This might be better served in its own thread not that there haven't been other discussions on the subject.

 

[hangloose]

While I clearly understand the intention of both of these, with respect to me (owner). I'm either attending with the guest or not at all.

However, I am wondering the difference in these two with respect to "Guest Name Change".

In the past, I always updated only the "Guest Name" on Marriott.com....but kept the rest under me for visibility...regardless of whether I intended to stay with the guest or not. Clearly the Marriott.com option is no longer available with the new MVCI Guest Name change process.

Question: If I select the first option, and input "Guest Name" only....does this accomplish the same thing? No additional checkboxes on this option. All of the checkboxes are only if I select the second option.

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

While I clearly understand the intention of both of these, with respect to me (owner). I'm either attending with the guest or not at all.

However, I am wondering the difference in these two with respect to "Guest Name Change".

View attachment 104192

In the past, I always updated only the "Guest Name" on Marriott.com....but kept the rest under me for visibility...regardless of whether I intended to stay with the guest or not. Clearly the Marriott.com option is no longer available with the new MVCI Guest Name change process.

Question: If I select the first option, and input "Guest Name" only....does this accomplish the same thing? No additional checkboxes on this option. All of the checkboxes are only if I select the second option.

I have always believed that this the selection of one of those two choices has to do with as to whom will receive the Bonvoy points for the stay. Not sure if this is correct or not but it is my opinion.








.