Read your contracts. The pertinent statements have been posted here many times. Those of us who abide by them never seem to get our accounts suspended. But, hey, believe what you want.
The contract is real clear. So clear that you can't share the actual words. But, thanks for the advice. Now, mute this conversation is you have nothing to add.
I’m not looking them up for you. I’m not the one who has a problem. As long as you post your opinions, I’ll post mine.
Well, there's the thing ... you cannot get past the "renting" frame of mind. I will never be AFRAID of having a guests reservation cancelled, because the one time in over 10 years that I paid for (this was back in the day when resale owners received no free guest certificates, so 2 free guest certificates per year is another benefit, now, for "regular [even resale] owners" like me) and used a guest certificate, was when my family members were on a ski vacation with me.
What you do not understand is that Wyndham is not a monolith. There is a constant tension, even battle, between the objectives of the sales department and resort operations.
Rather than repeat myself, I will just link this:
tugbbs.com
Sorry, but, I was posting a fact. There are no decisive words in the contract defining commercial renting. Fact, not Opinion.
You have been around long enough to know that megarenters have a more than 10-year history of taking over TUG Club Wyndham forum threads within the first page. One ex-megarenter posted in #3 of this thread, and other(s) joined. They are like the undead.
I recall seeing that non-definition. Amassing millions (where is the threshold?). Renting for a profit (anything over cost?). My point is, and remains the same, there is no firm definition. And, unless you can provide hard facts, please just unwatch this thread, we'd all be better off.Rather than repeat myself, I will just link this:
[ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit
I’m not trying to change any minds either, (maybe just open some) there are systemic problems with points based timeshare systems that go deeper than just commercial use. The mega renters no doubt caused some problems, but not all of them. There are only so many condos in Orlando. not every...
As a "regular" (non-renting) owner, it just does not matter to me and hundreds of thousands of owners who use Club Wyndham just to take their families on vacation. And to all appearances, that is how resort operations is managing the Club - it just does not matter what the definition is.
Good points. It would be best for the club if they eliminated GC's altogether. Only exception would be in the cases where the owner is at the resort at the same time. I'd be all over that rule. At least it would be clear and this issue would be finally put to rest.
That IS the rule for Owner Priority Dates. Extrapolate if you need certainty.
I do Not like this thought. I was unable to travel once and Wyndham made me use a GC so my wife could check in, and she is on the accounts. We sometimes get a room for our children to travel with us and that requires a GC.
That's not true. You are allowed 2 GC's over priority dates when you are not present. My suggestion was NO GC's unless the owner is present. Simple, Period. Either eliminate GC's or state the rules in clear terms so that we can end discussion on this topic, once and for all.
This must be long before my time, because when I purchased in 2010 there was one free guest certificate (so they did double them when they changed to two).
Wyndham doesn't owe owners any such real definition, as has been debated ad nausem on this forum many times. In point of fact, until and unless Wyndham is forcibly required to do so, meaning a lawsuit requires such action to be taken, Wyndham will never provide a clear definition, as that would allow any/all owners attempting to rent for profit a direct method to "fly under the radar" so to speak, which is precisely why Wyndham will never do so. The rules are intentionally vague by design. Undoubtedly there are methods used, and those methods will never be published. Lastly, there have been threads in the past that provided the contractual verbiages in scope. In the final analysis, every contract in force also refers to the Member Directory as a rules base - meaning that when you sign any Wyndham contract - it clearly refers to the Member Directory - as well as many other founding trust documents - for legal reference. This also applies to resale contract owners - that's why it's in the Member Directory - with supporting verbiage in the actual founding trust documents. In the current Member Directory - to which every current owner is legally bound to - on page 340 under Program Disclosures section:
Be careful what you wish for - if Wyndham cannot get to their goals via the current methods already in place - more stringent rules like this will come to fruition.
I'm ready to support the GC use only when the owner is present. Would finally put a stop to all this nonsense on 'renting'/using the membership
In terms of Club Wyndham, the value of a developer purchase is in any VIP level that might exist, and that's retained when the ownership is kept in the immediate family. It would be a smart move to add the adult children to the contract, to minimize the use of guest certificates and preserve the chain of family ownership - if the kids are willing to take on the financial responsibility of that ownership and mainly use it themselves.
Again, I’m not looking it up for you. There is language in the contracts, as well as, the website rules of use which speak to the issue. The FACT that you can’t find it, don’t want to look for it yourself, or don’t like what it says, is irrelevant. I’m going to assume that Wyndham is on solid legal ground since they haven’t been sued successfully over the issue.
I would call Wyndham and have them add the kids' names to the contracts that they own, if they want to use them. I think Wyndham will do that for free. Add each kid's name to the account. Important to do that so heirs don't have to pay for guest certificates, and the heirs are not accused by Wyndham of renting. All of our kids are on our account, and it's been a blessing.
I think the language about Wyndham being able to change the program at any time is what really applies here. It's in the contracts, I believe. They run it, they can change it, and that is why I feel that Wyndham did what they had to do because owners should be able to use the points and not renters.
There's also language in the directory (which extends from the contracts by reference) about restricting accounts for behaviors that "negatively impact" the program or other owners. That's pretty broad language and could also entail the steps they've taken to try to curtail renting. Between that and the personal/commercial use language that's also in the directory, Wyndham is pretty well covered.