How comfortable are you renting (from someone) with all the reported crackdowns on renters?

[RENTER]

Re-read post #37 again, as many times as it takes, to understand the post is simply a statement supported by the 2021 Travel + Leisure 10-k (not 401k ) Report that the owner upgrade ratio is 3:1; so that there would be no more doubt in your mind. That is all. There is nothing that even suggests, much less supports, your random, illogical, uncoordinated conclusions.

The more you post, the more you reveal how little you know about Club Wyndham and timeshares in general.

Oh and by the way, even though I have no way to prove it, I bet that if you take away the elder abuse and taking advantage of gullible and low information people, then it becomes one to one.

If Wyndham or any other timeshare company choses to damage their reputation for the almighty dollar to get that 3 to 1, that is their decision and nothing people can do about it except choose not to invest with them.

I on the other hand, can look at myself in the mirror and know I can make money to cover my costs and treat people fairly at the same time. And do you know who benefits from this?
Wyndham as I bring people into their resorts because of the excellent reviews i get that I did people treat fairly.

But I cannot take all the credit for those reviews. The staff at the resorts deserves credit for helping give the people I rent to a pleasant experience. It is the sales department and corporate that gives Wyndham the bad name.

Which may be why many salespeople ask me to help those three groups. They have guilty feelings that they took advantage of them.

If Wyndham decided to stop me, no problem, I will stop my payments and rent from those three groups I have helped in the past. But if they choose to stop me, my reviews stop and that leaves Fido Chuckwagon here telling people to only buy resale.

Plus, since I mainly rent to young educated families who may buy when they learn what I am doing, I will no longer be bringing them in and that leaves Wyndam to continue to take advantage of senior citizens and the gullible

Yeah 3 to 1, what BS.

 

[jp10558]

you keep on thinking that 3 to 1 is not taking advantage of elderly and gullible people . I can refer you to 27 senior citizens over the age of 70 who are part of that 3 to1 who were taken advantage off.

I feel like you're missing the point - no one I've seen here in this thread is claiming anything about the 3:1 being good or not, just that most sales they're making is to existing owners. For some reason you dispute that, even when it's in the investor disclosures.

I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse because you think the sales practices are bad or if you really think that the fact of the matter of who's getting sold to somehow changes because of "being taken advantage of". Wyndhams sales ratios of 3:1 are not somehow false due to the sales tactics.

 

[RENTER]

I feel like you're missing the point - no one I've seen here in this thread is claiming anything about the 3:1 being good or not, just that most sales they're making is to existing owners. For some reason you dispute that, even when it's in the investor disclosures.

I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse because you think the sales practices are bad or if you really think that the fact of the matter of who's getting sold to somehow changes because of "being taken advantage of". Wyndhams sales ratios of 3:1 are not somehow false due to the sales tactics.

No I did not miss the point. My point is that timeshare companies are being dirtbags to get to that 3 for 1. Many owners are complaining about their vacations being ruined by a lower quality of guests who have no respect for them or the rules of the resorts. Fights, loud music and parties. dogs and the smell of pot are common complaints.

That is because in the past there were aiming for middle class families. Now especially after the 2008 financial crisis they are bringing in anyone thru the door they can take advantage off to get to that 3 for 1.

As the smaller timeshare owners are finding out, when those owners who were taking advantage of cannot pay the maintenance fees they suffer.

If I remember correctly Colorado was one of those who called renters greedy for money. Well, that is what I call timeshare resorts who use people to get to that 3 to 1.

If timeshare companies want to lower their standards and hurt their reputations to get to that 3 for 1, nothing I can do about it. But I do not have to remain silent about it.

By the way, when I rent, no one checks in without my approval. I do not want to rent to trash that will have a negative effect on other owners staying there. I require 10 positive reviews before I accept them.

 

[jp10558]

No I did not miss the point. My point is that timeshare companies are being dirtbags to get to that 3 for 1.

OK, but I don't see any reply in this thread arguing with you on that - you're the one arguing that somehow the Wyndham 3:1 is false. Instead of saying COSkier was wrong on the screenshots of Wyndham documents, you should have accepted his position and then argued your position that timeshares are being dirtbags. These are unrelated arguments. About 20 posts could have been avoided if you had gone about this in a way anyone else trying to be logical could have possibly followed. Instead of getting agreement with a valid point, your framing left most people straight up confused about what you were even talking about in reference to the other posts. It was very inefficient and ineffective.

Many owners are complaining about their vacations being ruined by a lower quality of guests who have no respect for them or the rules of the resorts. Fights, loud music and parties. dogs and the smell of pot are common complaints.

Citation(s) please. I certainly haven't yet experienced this, either personally or seeing complaints on TUG. Most music complaints I have seen are about music put on by the venue, like in Vegas.

That is because in the past there were aiming for middle class families.

You've never met middle class assholes? Sarcasm aside this seems orthogonal to behaving badly. People of all financial levels behave badly and well. I haven't seen much correlation. There's stereotypes of rich people acting like the rules don't apply too...

Now especially after the 2008 financial crisis they are bringing in anyone thru the door they can take advantage off to get to that 3 for 1.

As the smaller timeshare owners are finding out, when those owners who were taking advantage of cannot pay the maintenance fees they suffer.

If I remember correctly Colorado was one of those who called renters greedy for money. Well, that is what I call timeshare resorts who use people to get to that 3 to 1.

If timeshare companies want to lower their standards and hurt their reputations to get to that 3 for 1, nothing I can do about it. But I do not have to remain silent about it.

I can't tell if you think that poor people behave badly, and are getting sold stuff they can't afford, so somehow decide to ruin timeshares, or people renting have no "skin in the game" so don't care and behave badly, or something else. The VIP packages etc all cost $1,800 or so and require being invited somehow AFAIK. That's right around rental costs too so... It seems to me like rentals would be way more likely to have 0 concern about the ongoing aspect of the property,as all being a renter requires is paying the asking price. I'd be more likely to blame them having it for rent on the hotel websites personally, if I thought behavior was both commonly so bad to ruin going to locations yet not at all controlled by the actual resort.

By the way, when I rent, no one checks in without my approval. I do not want to rent to trash that will have a negative effect on other owners staying there. I require 10 positive reviews before I accept them.

I don't even know where you get reviews for renting, but I also don't have a clue how you're renting. At least on here I asked for a rental, someone DMed me, I agreed and paypaled them money. I guess they "knew" me from posting on this forum, but AFAIK no one has "reviewed" my account.

 

[WaikikiFirst]

I forget. What was the question?

 

[jp10558]

I forget. What was the question?

True, the actual topic was - if you are the person paying another owner to rent a week, how comfortable are you with doing that among the Wyndham, MVC and other reported crackdowns? Do you feel like you might have sent money via paypal only to have the resort deny / cancel the checkin? What systems do you feel comfortable renting etc? I'd probably prefer to break off "how to argue" or discussions about timeshare sales to different threads, but I'm not a mod.

 

[Hindsite]

True, the actual topic was - if you are the person paying another owner to rent a week, how comfortable are you with doing that among the Wyndham, MVC and other reported crackdowns? Do you feel like you might have sent money via paypal only to have the resort deny / cancel the checkin? What systems do you feel comfortable renting etc? I'd probably prefer to break off "how to argue" or discussions about timeshare sales to different threads, but I'm not a mod.

I'm not sure what crackdown you relate to with MVC. If you've got a reservation in your name and its not a scam one or an II reservation, you're all set, no risk of being denied check-in.
Most of the decent people who rent out won't take money until you've got the reservation in your name, so all good there too.
MVC haven't done what Wyndham have done. They haven't sent letters to people who overtly rent out saying its commercial use or suspended their accounts. A few people at the margins have been inconvenienced by no longer being able to transfer large volumes of club points into their accounts to use those to book and then rent out, but they've adapted, as you would expect. Neither the MVC nor Vistana name change processes appear to have actually changed in the last few months, but there's been some huff and puff about forms that would need filling in 30 days before, and the loophole where people were getting Bonvoy benefits that they weren't entitled to seems to have been closed.
If you're in the business of renting out they you'll have your act together and know what needs doing when and carry on, just like always.

 

[CO skier]

I feel like you're missing the point - no one I've seen here in this thread is claiming anything about the 3:1 being good or not, just that most sales they're making is to existing owners. For some reason you dispute that, even when it's in the investor disclosures.

Reading comprehension is not RENTER's strong suite -- even when it just involves a sentence or two.

 

[McIma]

It started with Wyndham (that I was aware of), now I'm seeing lots of crack down in MVC. I'm beginning to wonder how much I should be concerned about even trying to rent from someone else - do I need to completely avoid these systems? Where's Worldmark in this - my one rental was Worldmark, but the place when I got there seemed to be Wyndham... Luckily, I had no issues, but it makes me really rethink expanding to trying ebay or general TUG listings etc.

What about other systems - IDK how I'd know an HGVC rental was a home week one, and I have no idea about all the other systems.

How likely am I to end up holding the bag here, unable to check in? IDK how I'd even double check as from this forum, often the renter doesn't know if the system is going to decide "this one was 'commercial'"...

Just went to an HGVC owners meeting at Elara where the salesperson actually encouraged us to rent our home week out on VRBO because it is during Formula One.

 

[geist1223]

Worldmark's Founding Documents allow Owner's to Rent out their Reservations. Wyndham is the Developer for Worldmark. That is why the Sales Staff is from Wyndham. As a separate issue the Worldmark BOD retained Wyndham as the Day-to-Day of the Worldmark Resorts.

 

[rickandcindy23]

The crackdown on renters seems to be just Wyndham, and the punishments are severe.

 

[jp10558]

I guess I misunderstood the MVC and Vistana?? letters about changing the guest name forms and 30 day out "new requirement" threads as being part of a crackdown on renting. It was presented that way by some in those threads. If I'm wrong about that then it's just Wyndham indeed.

 

[CO skier]

I guess I misunderstood the MVC and Vistana?? letters about changing the guest name forms and 30 day out "new requirement" threads as being part of a crackdown on renting. It was presented that way by some in those threads. If I'm wrong about that then it's just Wyndham indeed.

It is not just Wyndham. Wyndham copied the Bluegreen lead from more than a decade ago.

Bluegreen stopping owners from renting?

Hello, I have a client that just received a letter from Bluegreen stating that they are violating the Bluegreen contract by renting. I could not figure out how to attach this letter so I am pasting it here with the names removed. SENT CERTIFIED, RETURN-RECEIPT REQUESTED AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL...

tugbbs.com

"A search of sites through the Internet appears to indicate that you are actually using your Vacation Points to conduct a rental business by means of booking timeshare units in advance and then offering them to customers for vacations and business travel.

Such business activities as mentioned above are in direct contradiction to the personal usage nature of the Bluegreen Vacation Club product that you own. Further, these activities have a substantial adverse effect on the other Bluegreen Vacation Club owners who are seeking to make reservations for their own personal use by removing possible inventory from the reservation pool that would otherwise be available to them for reservations."


Hilton Grand Vacations, technically, allows rentals only for "home week" reservations.

RCI and Interval International prohibit rentals, although II seems more aggressive with enforcement.

There are probably others.

 

[jp10558]

So reading the tea leaves I've been exposed to in this thread and elsewhere:

Traditional Fixed Weeks (and sort of tied to that home weeks in HGVC, if you could even figure out if that was the week offered for rent), Worldmark are the ones I'm generally sure are OK to rent from someone.

Wyndham, Bluegreen would be a big risk.

MVC seems OK but trending against it.

Others are unknown, but somewhere closer to MVC stuff?

 

[RENTER]

OK, but I don't see any reply in this thread arguing with you on that - you're the one arguing that somehow the Wyndham 3:1 is false. Instead of saying COSkier was wrong on the screenshots of Wyndham documents, you should have accepted his position and then argued your position that timeshares are being dirtbags. These are unrelated arguments. About 20 posts could have been avoided if you had gone about this in a way anyone else trying to be logical could have possibly followed. Instead of getting agreement with a valid point, your framing left most people straight up confused about what you were even talking about in reference to the other posts. It was very inefficient and ineffective.

Citation(s) please. I certainly haven't yet experienced this, either personally or seeing complaints on TUG. Most music complaints I have seen are about music put on by the venue, like in Vegas.

You've never met middle class assholes? Sarcasm aside this seems orthogonal to behaving badly. People of all financial levels behave badly and well. I haven't seen much correlation. There's stereotypes of rich people acting like the rules don't apply too...


I can't tell if you think that poor people behave badly, and are getting sold stuff they can't afford, so somehow decide to ruin timeshares, or people renting have no "skin in the game" so don't care and behave badly, or something else. The VIP packages etc all cost $1,800 or so and require being invited somehow AFAIK. That's right around rental costs too so... It seems to me like rentals would be way more likely to have 0 concern about the ongoing aspect of the property,as all being a renter requires is paying the asking price. I'd be more likely to blame them having it for rent on the hotel websites personally, if I thought behavior was both commonly so bad to ruin going to locations yet not at all controlled by the actual resort.

I don't even know where you get reviews for renting, but I also don't have a clue how you're renting. At least on here I asked for a rental, someone DMed me, I agreed and paypaled them money. I guess they "knew" me from posting on this forum, but AFAIK no one has "reviewed" my account.

And that is why I do not rent to people here. Only where I can see reviews of renters. If there is somewhere here where I can see reviews, I do not know about it

 

[RENTER]

Reading comprehension is not RENTER's strong suite -- even when it just involves a sentence or two.

I got the point. Yes you were correct. But you missed the point I was making and that was Wyndham in order to get to that 3 to 1 is taking advantage of people with their pressure tactics and destroying their reputation as if they care.

I on the other hand would let renters as long as they are not truly a commercial business, do their thing and bring new people into the system and encourage them to buy VIP to do the same.

But you think renters are bigger dirtbags then Wyndham.

 

[rickandcindy23]

No company is as sleazy and despicable as Wyndham. So many reasons why my opinion has turned to the negative on Wyndham, including the fact that our kids are on our deeds and cannot be on our accounts. I have received no answers as to why. Our kids are in their 40's. I would bet when we die, they will want SOMEONE to continue to pay for the fees.

I didn't feel this way 3 years ago. So many punishments doled out. I am tired of the constant defending of Wyndham, a giant corporation, against people who just want to use weeks.

Our kids were talking about going to Glacier Canyon next summer. I was excited about the trip, four units. We cannot book it except by using our "exceptions." We are already using one of those for 1/2. If anyone knows a way around it, let me know. Our kids are on the DEEDS. How can Wyndham deny them access as owners?

Defenders of Wyndham are dishonest about the true nature of these punishments. I get tired of reading the nonsense by certain TUG members who constantly accuse us of trying to get around the system. We have owned since 2007.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I guess I misunderstood the MVC and Vistana?? letters about changing the guest name forms and 30 day out "new requirement" threads as being part of a crackdown on renting. It was presented that way by some in those threads. If I'm wrong about that then it's just Wyndham indeed.

How is that limiting guests by Marriott? 30 days out seems pretty reasonable for most rentals. Really, a person would need to cancel way ahead of that time, if their plan was to rent.

I would have 100% of my money by 60 days before, if I rented Marriott (which I do not). I don't have any Marriott worth renting. Who is going to rent Shadow Ridge in Palm Desert for even my MF's of about $2,500 with property tax? I could try, but I doubt it would work. Willow Ridge is definitely not worth the maintenance fees to rent. Branson is not a high-dollar location. I love using it for II trades by locking off.

Even Hilton Head is so overbuilt by Marriott that you would be crazy to rent. Now Marriott's Myrtle Beach OF resort would be rentable.

I do rent Vistana. I just need to change the name a few days before, maybe five days is the minimum? Not sure.

I guess I don't understand the negativity on renting Marriott or Westin or Sheraton.

You are close to paranoia , actually.

 

[CO skier]

I got the point. Yes you were correct. But you missed the point I was making and that was Wyndham in order to get to that 3 to 1 is taking advantage of people with their pressure tactics and destroying their reputation as if they care.

When you get stuck on a non-sequitur idea, you really get stuck. You are clearly embarrassed by how post #37 revealed your lack of Club Wyndham knowledge and want to pivot to a different subject. Re-read post #52 until you understand that we are on to your tactics.

I feel like you're missing the point - no one I've seen here in this thread is claiming anything about the 3:1 being good or not, just that most sales they're making is to existing owners. For some reason you [RENTER] dispute that, even when it's in the investor disclosures.

 

[CO skier]

No company is as sleazy and despicable as Wyndham. So many reasons why my opinion has turned to the negative on Wyndham, including the fact that our kids are on our deeds and cannot be on our accounts. I have received no answers as to why. Our kids are in their 40's. I would bet when we die, they will want SOMEONE to continue to pay for the fees.

I didn't feel this way 3 years ago. So many punishments doled out. I am tired of the constant defending of Wyndham, a giant corporation, against people who just want to use weeks.

Our kids were talking about going to Glacier Canyon next summer. I was excited about the trip, four units. We cannot book it except by using our "exceptions." We are already using one of those for 1/2. If anyone knows a way around it, let me know. Our kids are on the DEEDS. How can Wyndham deny them access as owners?

Defenders of Wyndham are dishonest about the true nature of these punishments. I get tired of reading the nonsense by certain TUG members who constantly accuse us of trying to get around the system. We have owned since 2007.

I would much rather have the TUG Wyndham forum talking about topics that actually impact the vast majority of owners - that is what I've always tried to encourage. In turn, I'd like to see us not continue to discuss topics that represent an extremely small subset of the ownership base. In a way, I think this is what @rickandcindy23 is addressing. The TUG Wyndham forum isn't what it used to be, at least in some ways. That's likely true - and I'd argue - it's actually a good thing. I want this forum to focus on topics that impact the vast majority of owners, such as the crappy website user experience, the problems experienced when calling into the vacation hotlines, the stories people are told when attending sales updates, and education about how best to use the system within the rules for the system - by and large for personal vacations. This likely means that some may yearn for the "good old days" and I can certainly more than understand this desire, but if we want more net new Wyndham owners coming here on a regular basis for good advice, what we don't want is to have this forum overly represent topics surrounding commercial timeshare business aspirations like in times past. I think this is the change we've seen play out here on the TUG Wyndham forum since I've joined and subsequently became this forum moderator. I think this makes a lot of sense when we all know that Wyndham itself has done a lot to discourage commercial rentals over the past few years.

Change is the only constant in this world - let's do whatever we can to encourage new Wyndham owners to come to the TUG Wyndham forum and share their ownership experiences taking vacations and dealing with Wyndham corporate in the process. I hope this makes at least some sense.

 

[RENTER]

When you get stuck on a non-sequitur idea, you really get stuck. You are clearly embarrassed by how post #37 revealed your lack of Club Wyndham knowledge and want to pivot to a different subject. Re-read post #52 until you understand that we are on to your tactics.

whatever you say, but please tell me my tactics because I am clueless to what they are. Must disappoint you that I and others greedy SOB's are still renting. I know you will respond that my day will come. Oh I am sorry did I change the subject? So sorry for that.

 

[CO skier]

whatever you say, but please tell me my tactics because I am clueless to what they are. Must disappoint you that I and others greedy SOB's are still renting. I know you will respond that my day will come. Oh I am sorry did I change the subject? So sorry for that.

Back on the subject, what does any of your post have to do with the simple fact that Wyndham owner upgrades outnumber new sales 3-to-1? You can massage that fact any way you want (your tactics), but it does not change the simple fact.

 

[Hindsite]

I on the other hand would let renters as long as they are not truly a commercial business, do their thing and bring new people into the system and encourage them to buy VIP to do the same.

How would you legally define "truly a commercial business"?

 

[RENTER]

How would you legally define "truly a commercial business"?

A travel agency. That is just common sense. It is not someone who was talked into buying VIP by a sales agent who told them they could rent it out to cover the extra costs.

I was able to cover my loans with the rents. But if I still had a loan and they pulled this BS on me, I would not beg them to take it back like many are doing. I would simply stop paying and let them foreclose on it.

Just to tick Colorado off. I am changing the subject again. Some are scratching their heads wondering when I said I require 10 positive reviews. They do not know how I get those reviews. Then they do not know what is out there on social media. The world does not center around what is on Red Week and Tug especially with younger people who will be the future potential buyers.

Guests can review their hosts and hosts can review their guests. I have excellent reviews while Wyndham's reputation is in taters out there on social media. So if Wyndham wants to get rid of me, so be it. That will leave them with mainly poor reviews of their company and Fido Chuckwagon telling people to buy resale.

That is why I think they are foolish by not allowing owners to rent and are depending on taking advantage of seniors and gullible people to get to their 3 to 1. Whereas someone like me using the reviews is bringing in people who will be respectful to the rules of the resort and leave good reviews.

By the way Colorado. that is the only tactic I know of that I am using. Trying to send a public message to Wyndham to reconsider.

 

[Hindsite]

A travel agency.

So do you consider yourself a travel agency based on your pattern of activity? If not what would be different about someone who was acting in that capacity, from what you do?