Does anyone have a copy of the recent email Wyndham sent to owners alleging commercial use violations?

[Eric B]

When does renting morph into "commercial use?"

That's easy - when it suits Wyndham.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I am a VIPP member and have owned with Wyndham (formerly Fairfield) for 39 years. In February, my wife and I attended an update at Wyndham Nashville and requested to speak to the Sales Manager. I asked if renting was allow and he said, "yes". Then, I specifically asked if it was only through Extra Holidays (EH) and he said it didn't have to be through EH; it could be through other rental companies, or however I wish to rent. He said my Guest Certificates were mine and I could use them as I see fit. I asked if I could rent to help offset maintenance fees by using other than EH and he said, "Yes".

In May, we attended an update at Wyndham Ocean Ridge and requested to speak to the Sales Manager. Again, I asked if renting was allowed and he said Yes". I asked if it only applied to EH and he said "no". He said I could rent as I see fit. I asked if I could rent to help pay maintenance fees by using other than EH and he said "Yes"

I understand it is not legal to record conversations without permission, but it seems to me that it would carry a lot weight if Wyndham owners corroborated the fact that Sales Centers are regularly communicating that renting is allowed, and not just through EH. Additionally, it is not just being communicated by sales agents, but higher ups in the Sales Centers. Wyndham must be held responsible to speak a consistent, truthful message to owners. Don't tell us we are allowed to rent on the one hand, in order to sell us points, and then threaten to freeze our accounts on the other if we do. This is unacceptable and we are not going to put up with it any more.

Take a look at the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

 

[chapjim]

That's easy - when it suits Wyndham.

Exactly my point!

 

[cbyrne1174]

I am a VIPP member and have owned with Wyndham (formerly Fairfield) for 39 years. In February, my wife and I attended an update at Wyndham Nashville and requested to speak to the Sales Manager. I asked if renting was allow and he said, "yes". Then, I specifically asked if it was only through Extra Holidays (EH) and he said it didn't have to be through EH; it could be through other rental companies, or however I wish to rent. He said my Guest Certificates were mine and I could use them as I see fit. I asked if I could rent to help offset maintenance fees by using other than EH and he said, "Yes".

In May, we attended an update at Wyndham Ocean Ridge and requested to speak to the Sales Manager. Again, I asked if renting was allowed and he said Yes". I asked if it only applied to EH and he said "no". He said I could rent as I see fit. I asked if I could rent to help pay maintenance fees by using other than EH and he said "Yes"

I understand it is not legal to record conversations without permission, but it seems to me that it would carry a lot weight if Wyndham owners corroborated the fact that Sales Centers are regularly communicating that renting is allowed, and not just through EH. Additionally, it is not just being communicated by sales agents, but higher ups in the Sales Centers. Wyndham must be held responsible to speak a consistent, truthful message to owners. Don't tell us we are allowed to rent on the one hand, in order to sell us points, and then threaten to freeze our accounts on the other if we do. This is unacceptable and we are not going to put up with it any more.

Another reason to never buy retail. If we can just have our accounts frozen for literally just renting our points out at cost ($0 profit) and not be given an option to get 100% reimbursement for the points we can't use in a year through Wyndham, then why on earth would anyone pay tens of thousands to a company like that upfront for a membership?

 

[RENTER]

What you don't seem to understand is that the IRS definition of commercial business is not relevant to renting Wyndham reservations. This is not a tax issue. The important matter is what Wyndham deems to be commercial use and that is whatever Wyndham says it is.

Can't say I'm sorry to see you go. Every year or two, we seem to get someone like you who blows into TUG with much bombast and hubris. They raise a ruckus and leave.

Sayonara.

It is people like you that makes it difficult to make me keep quiet. You miss that I also pointed out THE COURTS ruled the same when homeowner associations tried to prevent renting under the commercial business clause. Homeowner associations rarely lose except in this case where they always lose. Sorry cherry picking for your wishful thinking just does not work.

 

[chapjim]

It is people like you that makes it difficult to make me keep quiet. You miss that I also pointed out THE COURTS ruled the same when homeowner associations tried to prevent renting under the commercial business clause. Homeowner associations rarely lose except in this case where they always lose. Sorry cherry picking for your wishful thinking just does not work.

No wishful thinking here, at least not the way you seem to think. I wish Wyndham allowed renting. It doesn't and I don't rent anymore. I wish someone would win a court case against Wyndham so that Wyndham would be required to allow renting. Alas, we are not talking about HOAs. We are talking about a major corporation.

I thought you were leaving.

 

[comicbookman]

It is people like you that makes it difficult to make me keep quiet. You miss that I also pointed out THE COURTS ruled the same when homeowner associations tried to prevent renting under the commercial business clause. Homeowner associations rarely lose except in this case where they always lose. Sorry cherry picking for your wishful thinking just does not work.

HOA's, have to deal with zoning laws, and often lose because there is a local definition of comercial use. Wyndham is unlikely to lose in court if they can present some kind of consistent definition of comercial activity. HOA's are usually subject to laws specifically directed at regulating them. With Wyndham contracy law will prevail. I also note you cite no actaul cases for your assertion. Just your amature opinion.

 

[sjdanb]

"More owners who tell the story that Wyndham sales agents told them they could rent their points to help them pay for VIP helps their case."
No it won't, not even a little. Wyndham already has the legal precedents on their side that they aren't held accountable for what the sales people say. This group and the Facebook groups have repeatedly warned OP that it doesn't matter what the sales person told them if it's not in the paperwork they signed.

This will be just as successful as when Voyager came out effectively putting a stop to VIP owners being able to book, cancel, rebook and upgrade. I would be willing to bet there were attempted lawsuits over that. Protesting that sales people taught us how to book, cancel, rebook and upgrade, which they did, made not one iota of difference. Five years later it still comes up in the discussions and is still a sore subject with some owners.

"most owners broke even and were only covering their loans and MF's"
That's neither accurate or true. There were a number of owners and point managers who became knowledgeable enough about renting to make it quite profitable. Some may still be renting but that number was significantly reduced with the certified letters and the changes of last year

Every time we bought developer, all 8 times from 2002 to 2022, the commercial prohibition clause has always been in the paperwork. In recent months OP have posted several places it appears in the club governing rules. We've seen the specious reasoning as to what constitutes commercial and how Wyndham can't win. Sure, keep on tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.

"Renting was a money maker for Wyndham"
Yes Wyndham does make money on the guest confirmations and point protection. (Side note for anyone who doesn't know this: point protection doesn't cover a reservation once a guest name is added.) These aren't even close to being major sources of income for Wyndham. Sales always has been and will continue to be the major source of income. Hence why sales rules the roost in Wyndham. It's long been a fallacy about how owners renting helps Wyndham. A common complaint from salespeople that was heard clear up to the top in Wyndham was how owners renting hurt sales. The salespeople repeatedly were told why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy when I can rent from an owner any time I want for several hundred dollars or even a grand or so. Many of those renters learned that they could rent from a VIP for far less than a reservation would cost them if they owned. Many renters also told the sales people they preferred to rent from owners over making the financial commitment of owning even if owning meant their stays would cost them less.

Wyndham spent considerable time and money developing Extra Holidays and continues to spend a goodly amount promoting Extra Holidays. The owners who rent for less than what Extra Holidays charges hurts Wyndham. The knowledgeable owners making good money on their rentals also hurt Wyndham because Extra Holidays gets no cut. Extra Holidays is a major marketing tool and owners renting outside of it hurts Wyndham's profits.

"why they are backing down when challenged"
So you're saying that you're openly renting? That when Wyndham took further action because you continued to rent and blocked you from being able to add guest names that you and other owners you know challenged Wyndham and they removed the restriction?

 

[sjdanb]

"More owners who tell the story that Wyndham sales agents told them they could rent their points to help them pay for VIP helps their case."
No it won't, not even a little. Wyndham already has the legal precedents on their side that they aren't held accountable for what the sales people say. This group and the Facebook groups have repeatedly warned OP that it doesn't matter what the sales person told them if it's not in the paperwork they signed.

This will be just as successful as when Voyager came out effectively putting a stop to VIP owners being able to book, cancel, rebook and upgrade. I would be willing to bet there were attempted lawsuits over that. Protesting that sales people taught us how to book, cancel, rebook and upgrade, which they did, made not one iota of difference. Five years later it still comes up in the discussions and is still a sore subject with some owners.

"most owners broke even and were only covering their loans and MF's"
That's neither accurate or true. There were a number of owners and point managers who became knowledgeable enough about renting to make it quite profitable. Some may still be renting but that number was significantly reduced with the certified letters and the changes of last year

Every time we bought developer, all 8 times from 2002 to 2022, the commercial prohibition clause has always been in the paperwork. In recent months OP have posted several places it appears in the club governing rules. We've seen the specious reasoning as to what constitutes commercial and how Wyndham can't win. Sure, keep on tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.

"Renting was a money maker for Wyndham"
Yes Wyndham does make money on the guest confirmations and point protection. (Side note for anyone who doesn't know this: point protection doesn't cover a reservation once a guest name is added.) These aren't even close to being major sources of income for Wyndham. Sales always has been and will continue to be the major source of income. Hence why sales rules the roost in Wyndham. It's long been a fallacy about how owners renting helps Wyndham. A common complaint from salespeople that was heard clear up to the top in Wyndham was how owners renting hurt sales. The salespeople repeatedly were told why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy when I can rent from an owner any time I want for several hundred dollars or even a grand or so. Many of those renters learned that they could rent from a VIP for far less than a reservation would cost them if they owned. Many renters also told the sales people they preferred to rent from owners over making the financial commitment of owning even if owning meant their stays would cost them less.

Wyndham spent considerable time and money developing Extra Holidays and continues to spend a goodly amount promoting Extra Holidays. The owners who rent for less than what Extra Holidays charges hurts Wyndham. The knowledgeable owners making good money on their rentals also hurt Wyndham because Extra Holidays gets no cut. Extra Holidays is a major marketing tool and owners renting outside of it hurts Wyndham's profits.

"why they are backing down when challenged"
So you're saying that you're openly renting? That when Wyndham took further action because you continued to rent and blocked you from being able to add guest names that you and other owners you know challenged Wyndham and they removed the restriction?

Is it really true that "point protection doesn't cover a reservation once a guest name is added"? Where in the rules is this stated? That means it never would make sense if I chose to purchase it or if my guest wanted to purchase it for my point protection.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Is it really true that "point protection doesn't cover a reservation once a guest name is added"? Where in the rules is this stated? That means it never would make sense if I chose to purchase it or if my guest wanted to purchase it for my point protection.

Apparently... I've not used Points Protection since they added the new terms and conditions (sometime in the last 6 months or so it appeared). Last time I used it, if you had points protection, you could cancel online, I'm not sure how they enforce these new terms. I've not used it since they upped the price to $149, the cost alone is prohibitive as far as I'm concerned. Nor would I ever add it until the 15 day mark, and at that point, it would need to be a high point reservation and extenuating circumstances.

These are the terms and conditions, if you clink on read terms and conditions, when choosing points protection:

TERMS & CONDITIONS

Points Protection Terms & Conditions: When Points Protection is purchased, it allows you to cancel your reservation without forfeiting your points up until the day of check-in. Points Protection may be added to your reservation up to 15 days prior to check-in and may not be added to reservations confirmed with Charitable Gift, WYNDHAM® Club Pass or Plus Partners travel. Additional terms may apply.

For Wyndham Extra Holidays owner reservations, Points Protection only protects points if the entire vacation was not rented; points will not be returned for partial rentals.
Points Protection is only eligible for reservations that involve the personal occupancy and use of an owner or an owner’s immediate family (“Permitted Users”) and for no other purpose including “Commercial Use.” Commercial Use includes, but is not limited to, reserving an accommodation for anyone other than a Permitted User as a regular practice for business, speculative, investment or other similar purposes, or use by an owner of public advertising or an online website to seek renters or other non-Permitted Users. Reservations that are deemed “Commercial Use” are ineligible for Points Protection coverage. Should a reservation identified as Commercial Use have Points Protection coverage, the owner will not receive a refund for any points, reservation transactions, Housekeeping Credits, or monies used to reserve that reservation if cancelled outside of the Standard Cancellation Window.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Is it really true that "point protection doesn't cover a reservation once a guest name is added"? Where in the rules is this stated? That means it never would make sense if I chose to purchase it or if my guest wanted to purchase it for my point protection.

For renters, this fact is documented right in the T&Cs for the PP. Click on the link right on the page where you would make this selection. There are screenshots of this verbiage earlier in this thread as well. Technically the term used in the PP T&Cs is “Permitted Users” which is defined in the same verbiage for reference. The terms are capitalized because they refer back to the founding trust documents that provide the official definitions for the terms referenced. Here's a link to the thread where this topic was discussed:

Points Protection on a Guest Reservation?

Can you add points protection for a guest reservation? If so would you add the points protection first and then transfer reservation to a guest?

tugbbs.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sandi Bo]

For renters, this fact is documented right in the T&Cs for the guest certificate. Click on the link right on the page where you would make this selection. There are screenshots of this verbiage earlier in this thread as well. Technically the term used in the GC T&Cs is “Permitted Users” which is defined in the same verbiage for reference. The terms are capitalized because they refer back to the founding trust documents that provide the official definitions for the terms referenced.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean points protection (versus GC)? I don't see verbiage when adding a GC. In your example are you on the mobile app (versus desktop), I see a link for terms and conditions (on the desktop app), but it's in the body of text not off to the right. And again, that is when adding points protection (not a GC). Just want to make sure I'm seeing the same thing you are referencing. Thanks.

 

[Rolltydr]

Do you mean points protection (versus GC)? I don't see verbiage when adding a GC. In your example are you on the mobile app (versus desktop), I see a link for terms and conditions (on the desktop app), but it's in the body of text not off to the right. And again, that is when adding points protection (not a GC). Just want to make sure I'm seeing the same thing you are referencing. Thanks.

Mobile app?

 

[Sandi Bo]

Mobile app?

I meant is he accessing the website via his cell phone versus his desktop. The presentation can be different.

You made me look (I am not a fan of doing anything (Wyndham) of importance on my cell phone). But I did. I was curious what you were referencing @HitchHiker71 I misread that as to the right and that is not what you said. (You said 'this fact is documented right in the T&Cs for the guest certificate'.

Still, I don't see anything when I add a GC. Attached now is a screenshot from my cellphone when adding points protection. I see the link to Terms & Conditions. Are there other references on the website (whether accessing via a cell phone or a desktop) where the rules for permitted users and/or points protection are referenced?

 

[HitchHiker71]

Do you mean points protection (versus GC)? I don't see verbiage when adding a GC. In your example are you on the mobile app (versus desktop), I see a link for terms and conditions (on the desktop app), but it's in the body of text not off to the right. And again, that is when adding points protection (not a GC). Just want to make sure I'm seeing the same thing you are referencing. Thanks.

Yes sorry I meant PP not GC. Thanks for the corrective post. I edited my original post for accuracy. Here's a link to the TUG thread where this topic was discussed and the screenshots were posted:

Points Protection on a Guest Reservation?

Can you add points protection for a guest reservation? If so would you add the points protection first and then transfer reservation to a guest?

tugbbs.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kenwmey]

That's a question many owners have asked. I've said that I'm sure Wyndham expects to be challenged on this and that their legal team is very hard at work on trying to prepare a defense.

They better hope their legal team is a whole lot better than their IT team. Lol

That's a very low bar. Reminds me of the evaluation I used to give a certain sailor while in the Navy "He fails to live up to the low standards he sets for himself."

Sorry for the bump of an awesome thread.