Is renting an exchange allowed?

[Lakeshore]

Hello, I am looking at renting a week on Redweek, and responded to an unverified ad. I got a quick response saying he would send me the contract. I then emailed him yesterday and asked him a few questions….is this an exchange or your annual week? Has he rented this timeshare out before? If so, can He provide references? And I asked if I could see a copy of his reservation. Anyway, he responded tonight. Unfortunately, he said that it IS an exchange…he said they own a bunch of Marriott timeshares and trade into this one and the weeks they can’t use they rent out. He said they do this every year. He made it sound likes it’s no problem.
However, I thought you weren’t allowed to rent exchanges. He said once I fill out the contract, he will call the resort and switch the name on the certificate and email it back to me. Then I would pay a 50% deposit.
Am I correct about not renting out exchanges?
Thanks for your help.…I’m very grateful for this forum.

 

[goaliedave]

Great question. Depends on the brand so not sure about Marriott, but generally not allowed. He is allowed to put your name on the certificate no problem, as owners are allowed to book for friends, but its a fine line.

 

[Ianneyan]

Hello, I am looking at renting a week on Redweek, and responded to an unverified ad. I got a quick response saying he would send me the contract. I then emailed him yesterday and asked him a few questions….is this an exchange or your annual week? Has he rented this timeshare out before? If so, can He provide references? And I asked if I could see a copy of his reservation. Anyway, he responded tonight. Unfortunately, he said that it IS an exchange…he said they own a bunch of Marriott timeshares and trade into this one and the weeks they can’t use they rent out. He said they do this every year. He made it sound likes it’s no problem.
However, I thought you weren’t allowed to rent exchanges. He said once I fill out the contract, he will call the resort and switch the name on the certificate and email it back to me. Then I would pay a 50% deposit.
Am I correct about not renting out exchanges?
Thanks for your help.…I’m very grateful for this forum.

Renting an exchange is technically not permitted, but as long as you don't mention it when you check in no one will know. You are just a guest.

 

[ocdb8r]

It also depends on the type of "exchange" - if we are talking about an Interval International exchange, it's not allowed.

If it's another internal Marriott type of exchange (Destination/Abound points, Florida Club...) then it's a bit of a grey area. Still not technically allowed if he's a "weeks" owner, but not easy for the end resort to know.

 

[jmhpsu93]

It also depends on the type of "exchange" - if we are talking about an Interval International exchange, it's not allowed.

If it's another internal Marriott type of exchange (Destination/Abound points, Florida Club...) then it's a bit of a grey area. Still not technically allowed if he's a "weeks" owner, but not easy for the end resort to know.

I rented my Florida Club week and when I booked it with MVC I told the rep that's what I was going to do and he helped me find a good one to rent. Abound reservations are rent-able as well, sales people often tout that as a good way to make money on the super expensive, highest-demand weeks (a dubious claim for sure, but OK within the MVC world). Now if you're renting out fifty weeks that becomes a commercial venture, which IS prohibited.

To the OP: you're probably OK renting from an II exchange owner, but based on what they said about renting a bunch of them that is EXACTLY what Interval looks for when cracking down on exchange renters, which is expressly prohibited at Interval.

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

I rented my Florida Club week and when I booked it with MVC I told the rep that's what I was going to do and he helped me find a good one to rent. Abound reservations are rent-able as well, sales people often tout that as a good way to make money on the super expensive, highest-demand weeks (a dubious claim for sure, but OK within the MVC world). Now if you're renting out fifty weeks that becomes a commercial venture, which IS prohibited.

To the OP: you're probably OK renting from an II exchange owner, but based on what they said about renting a bunch of them that is EXACTLY what Interval looks for when cracking down on exchange renters, which is expressly prohibited at Interval.

Your Florida Club week is your reservation that you own, hence it is rentable.

An Interval International Exchange is not your reservation (it is an exchange). It previously belonged to someone else, hence it is not rentable.





.

 

[Mongoose]

Renting an exchange is technically not permitted, but as long as you don't mention it when you check in no one will know. You are just a guest.

I think it depends on the brand and type of exchange. Certainly buying inventory of RCI or II and trying to rent is against the rules. I have rented a few weeks with Hyatt, WM and HICV, however not through II or RCI.

As the "Buyer" I would be very careful, if you buy an exchange online you have little recourse if things go sideways.

 

[ocdb8r]

Abound reservations are rent-able as well, sales people often tout that as a good way to make money on the super expensive, highest-demand weeks (a dubious claim for sure, but OK within the MVC world).

Abound reservations are technically only rentable if made using trust points. Points generated from converting a weeks ownership are technically not permitted to be used for rental reservations per the Ts&Cs of the program. As I said, very hard for anyone to distinguish so agree that in practice it's unlikely an issue unless you're doing it "commercially" noting that such term is not defined anywhere.

 

[silentg]

Only rent my weeks myself, never rented an exchange.

 

[dioxide45]

Abound reservations are technically only rentable if made using trust points. Points generated from converting a weeks ownership are technically not permitted to be used for rental reservations per the Ts&Cs of the program. As I said, very hard for anyone to distinguish so agree that in practice it's unlikely an issue unless you're doing it "commercially" noting that such term is not defined anywhere.

The Abound Exchange Procedures only prevent "commercial activity". Even trust point reservations are coming from the exchange pool of inventory.

Can you perhaps cite the specific text in the Abound Exchange Procedures that prohibit renting of reservations to those using elected points vs Trust points?

 

[dioxide45]

The worst case situation here could be that II finds out about the rental and cancels the exchagne. Unlikly, but can happen.
Second worst case is that II finds out about the rental of the exchnage and locks the members account and says that they will unlock it if the member (owner) agrees to refund all moneies paid and still let the renter use the week (this actually happened to a Tugger)
Most likely scenario is that II doesn't find out about it at all, owner continues to rent out exchanges and renter uses the week without issue.

 

[MOXJO7282]

II really doesn't care but if the owner is blatantly listing and renting exchanges they will send a letter saying to cease and desist. I recall one instance a long time ago someone said they received such a letter.

 

[Dean]

Hello, I am looking at renting a week on Redweek, and responded to an unverified ad. I got a quick response saying he would send me the contract. I then emailed him yesterday and asked him a few questions….is this an exchange or your annual week? Has he rented this timeshare out before? If so, can He provide references? And I asked if I could see a copy of his reservation. Anyway, he responded tonight. Unfortunately, he said that it IS an exchange…he said they own a bunch of Marriott timeshares and trade into this one and the weeks they can’t use they rent out. He said they do this every year. He made it sound likes it’s no problem.
However, I thought you weren’t allowed to rent exchanges. He said once I fill out the contract, he will call the resort and switch the name on the certificate and email it back to me. Then I would pay a 50% deposit.
Am I correct about not renting out exchanges?
Thanks for your help.…I’m very grateful for this forum.

As others have said, it is absolutely against II's rule. I wouldn't do it for 2 reasons. First simply because it's against the rules and I would consider that dishonest, at least for the other party. I don't want to be renting from dishonest people. Secondly, it creates risk for you in that you may send your money and not get the week. While this could happen with any rental, it's a far greater risk here partly because you're dealing with a dishonest person and partly because II could pull the plug even up until the minute of check in.

 

[andre10056]

Over many years, I've rented many timeshare weeks that had been exchanges.

Was I fearful that something would go "wrong"? Never. Because I always (1) made sure the person had what he said he had (and the exchange confirmation was enough to establish that).

Then, after (2) payment (and I most often used something with insurance), I made sure he (3) changed his name on the reservation to my name on the reservation. And (4) called the resort to confirm that. By simply saying, "Joe Shmoe just a couple of days ago designated me as his guest. I just want to make sure I'm in your computer system so I will be able to check in without problems".

And the resort front desk has always without exception confirmed that I'm then on the reservation.

So what's the difference between me checking in and any one of the other owners checking in? No difference at all. Well. Maybe a slight difference if I was designated "RCI" or "II" rather than "home resort owner" as they might aggressively try to sell me a timeshare. But I always play Mr. Unnaturally Loud Talker and loudly ask something like, "I saw a 2 BR timeshare at this resort advertised on ebay for $1. Are you selling them for $1 too?"...and they quickly thank me and show me the door so as to not "disturb" their other potential sales (i.e., their other potential victimizations of naive innocents). And if they don't show me the door, then I'll follow up with a loud, incredulous, "The annual maintenance fee is THAT high!!!??? Are you kidding? Who would be interested in something like THAT???!!!" or some such objection. And hope that others hear me so that they may perhaps not be defrauded.

So let me respond to people who have said "that's illegal". I was a police officer for a time after I got out of the Marine Corps before getting some higher education and embarking on another career path. I don't recall a single part of the penal code that said anything like "renting a timeshare that had been exchanged via RCI or II".

Moreover, the resort could care less. It's an II or RCI rule. Not a resort rule. All the resort cares about is "is the person on the reservation?".

But what about RCI or II? If there's absolutely no way for them to know anything about whatever the rental deal was, if you're simply officially the "guest" of the person with the RCI or II reservation, how will they know any different? No way whatsoever.

So why would RCI or II even have such a stupid rule? The timeshare owner, having exchanged his owned high maintenance fee timeshare week plus having paid $289 (!!!) SHOULD (in my opinion) be able to do whatever he darn well pleases with it. But no. RCI won't allow the exchanger (for whom something came up and who won't be able to himself use the timeshare...like an elderly parent who died) to rent out the exchange for which he paid so much. The exchange company wants him to buy the right to return the timeshare into inventory (for an additional $89), even though he loses the entire $289 exchange fee. And then the exchange company will re-list it in order to double dip and get another $289.

So I understand the exchange company's motivation to stick it to the timeshare owner: pure greed. But I will always be on the side of the timeshare owner and not on the side of the (I would call crooked) big corporations.

Indeed, it's the exchange companies who make all the fraudulent timeshare sales possible. Their biggest and most effective argument sleazebag salespeople make are untrue claims about how wonderful the exchanges you'll be able to get. It's no wonder the exchange companies are owned by and in bed with timeshare resort networks.

So your rental will almost certainly go off without a hitch if you take reasonable "due diligence" precautions. Check in with complete confidence.

And quite frankly, you're in the driver's seat and can be very aggressive in your negotiations with the person renting his exchanged week so you can get a pretty sweet deal.

 

[SueDonJ]

Abound reservations are technically only rentable if made using trust points. Points generated from converting a weeks ownership are technically not permitted to be used for rental reservations per the Ts&Cs of the program. As I said, very hard for anyone to distinguish so agree that in practice it's unlikely an issue unless you're doing it "commercially" noting that such term is not defined anywhere.

This isn't correct - the Exchange Procedures docs actually contain language that expressly allows rentals of Abound (formerly Destination Club) reservations, as well as transfers of the points themselves. The same docs contain language prohibiting members engaging in "commercial activity" but as yet, that hasn't been clearly defined and there haven't been any reports of rentals being disallowed (although recently points transfers have been restricted to only 20,000/year incoming. *I think it's 20,000, can't remember exactly off the top of my head.*)

I don't own Trust Points. For the last +/-five years I've elected Abound Exchange Points for my Weeks, used those points to book high-demand Hawaii inventory and listed those for rentals with a broker. *Every single time* I've called to add the renter's name to any of these 10+ reservations, I've told the rep that they are rentals and that I want my name as the Primary replaced with that of the renter, and for my Bonvoy Number to be removed as well so that the renter could replace mine with his/hers. Before this year I'd forward the email confirming the change to the broker who would deal with the renter, but something changed this year and they started requiring the renter's name/address/phone/email address to make the name change, so the latest ones I've done have resulted in the emails confirming the changes to go directly to the renter. I've also directly rented several reservations to others without benefit of a broker, and did the same name replacements on those. Not one time has any rep ever told me that what I was doing was not allowed.

If I were this OP I'd confirm which exchange company issued the reservation confirmation. If it's Abound, I wouldn't be at all hesitant about renting it. If it's II, I'd run far and fast in the other direction because II expressly prohibits rentals (for cash or other consideration!) of any of its intervals, and there have been reports of both renters and rentees being found out and facing consequences. Any other exchange company in play, I'd make sure I knew their rules allow rentals before renting it.

 

[SueDonJ]

Over many years, I've rented many timeshare weeks that had been exchanges.

Was I fearful that something would go "wrong"? Never. Because I always (1) made sure the person had what he said he had (and the exchange confirmation was enough to establish that).

Then, after (2) payment (and I most often used something with insurance), I made sure he (3) changed his name on the reservation to my name on the reservation. And (4) called the resort to confirm that. By simply saying, "Joe Shmoe just a couple of days ago designated me as his guest. I just want to make sure I'm in your computer system so I will be able to check in without problems".

And the resort front desk has always without exception confirmed that I'm then on the reservation.

So what's the difference between me checking in and any one of the other owners checking in? No difference at all. Well. Maybe a slight difference if I was designated "RCI" or "II" rather than "home resort owner" as they might aggressively try to sell me a timeshare. But I always play Mr. Unnaturally Loud Talker and loudly ask something like, "I saw a 2 BR timeshare at this resort advertised on ebay for $1. Are you selling them for $1 too?"...and they quickly thank me and show me the door so as to not "disturb" their other potential sales (i.e., their other potential victimizations of naive innocents). And if they don't show me the door, then I'll follow up with a loud, incredulous, "The annual maintenance fee is THAT high!!!??? Are you kidding? Who would be interested in something like THAT???!!!" or some such objection. And hope that others hear me so that they may perhaps not be defrauded.

So let me respond to people who have said "that's illegal". I was a police officer for a time after I got out of the Marine Corps before getting some higher education and embarking on another career path. I don't recall a single part of the penal code that said anything like "renting a timeshare that had been exchanged via RCI or II".

Moreover, the resort could care less. It's an II or RCI rule. Not a resort rule. All the resort cares about is "is the person on the reservation?".

But what about RCI or II? If there's absolutely no way for them to know anything about whatever the rental deal was, if you're simply officially the "guest" of the person with the RCI or II reservation, how will they know any different? No way whatsoever.

So why would RCI or II even have such a stupid rule? The timeshare owner, having exchanged his owned high maintenance fee timeshare week plus having paid $289 (!!!) SHOULD (in my opinion) be able to do whatever he darn well pleases with it. But no. RCI won't allow the exchanger (for whom something came up and who won't be able to himself use the timeshare...like an elderly parent who died) to rent out the exchange for which he paid so much. The exchange company wants him to buy the right to return the timeshare into inventory (for an additional $89), even though he loses the entire $289 exchange fee. And then the exchange company will re-list it in order to double dip and get another $289.

So I understand the exchange company's motivation to stick it to the timeshare owner: pure greed. But I will always be on the side of the timeshare owner and not on the side of the (I would call crooked) big corporations.

Indeed, it's the exchange companies who make all the fraudulent timeshare sales possible. Their biggest and most effective argument sleazebag salespeople make are untrue claims about how wonderful the exchanges you'll be able to get. It's no wonder the exchange companies are owned by and in bed with timeshare resort networks.

So your rental will almost certainly go off without a hitch if you take reasonable "due diligence" precautions. Check in with complete confidence.

And quite frankly, you're in the driver's seat and can be very aggressive in your negotiations with the person renting his exchanged week so you can get a pretty sweet deal.

That's a whole lot of words to say, "I don't care what the stated rules are for the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation, and neither should anybody else." I wonder how often you let the bad guys slide when you were the police officer and they decided the rules didn't apply to them?

 

[andre10056]

That's a whole lot of words to say, "I don't care what the stated rules are for the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation, and neither should anybody else." I wonder how often you let the bad guys slide when you were the police officer and they decided the rules didn't apply to them?

What are you talking about? So whenever someone makes up a completely unreasonable rule you should abide by it? [Deleted.]

What does that have to do with violent criminal activity or something similar? You don't see a difference? So fine, don't rent any exchanged week. You're free not to do so. I'm just saying I NEVER had any problem. Nor any guilt about having done so. It's the exchange companies who are in the wrong with their unjustified rules, just like [Deleted.]

Moreover, you seem to think, by mentioning "the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation", that RCI or II have an ownership interest here. They are merely a computer software platform. They're middlemen. They don't own anything in that transaction. But, due to greed, have made up rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the true owners.

Moderator Note: Post edited. Please review the TUG Rules re "contentious social issues."] <-- SueDonJ

 

[SueDonJ]

What are you talking about? So whenever someone makes up a completely unreasonable rule you should abide by it? [Deleted.]

What does that have to do with violent criminal activity or something similar? You don't see a difference? So fine, don't rent any exchanged week. You're free not to do so. I'm just saying I NEVER had any problem. Nor any guilt about having done so. It's the exchange companies who are in the wrong with their unjustified rules, just like [Deleted.]

Moreover, you seem to think, by mentioning "the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation", that RCI or II have an ownership interest here. They are merely a computer software platform. They're middlemen. They don't own anything in that transaction. But, due to greed, have made up rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the true owners.

Moderator Note: Post edited. Please review the TUG Rules re "contentious social issues."] <-- SueDonJ

Well, the unrelated topic you've introduced comes under the TUG Rule that prohibits "contentious social issues," and I'm a moderator, so I edited your post to delete that nonsense.

But keeping to the topic in this thread, yep, I like for the stated rules to be followed. When I don't agree with the stated rules I choose whether to continue doing business according to the rules or whether to challenge them appropriately, but I don't take it upon myself to break them and/or encourage others to do the same. You do you, and I'll do me.

 

[andre10056]

It seems you deleted too much. If you say that I made mention of an alleged "contentious social issue", and that caused you to delete that section, why would you delete this statement (as close as I can come to what I originally wrote):

"You seem to imply with your "the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation", that they have an ownership interest here. They are a computer software platform. They have numerous computer programmers working on their website. They are merely middlemen. They have no ownership interest whatsoever.

But they've made rules to benefit themselves out of sheer greed and, in so doing, are harming the true owners."

How was that discussion a "contentious social issue"? That's right on target a timeshare related discussion. Methinks you moderate too much.

 

[SueDonJ]

It seems you deleted too much. If you say that I made mention of an alleged "contentious social issue", and that caused you to delete that section, why would you delete this statement (as close as I can come to what I originally wrote):

"You seem to imply with your "the exchange company which issued the reservation confirmation", that they have an ownership interest here. They are a computer software platform. They have numerous computer programmers working on their website. They are merely middlemen. They have no ownership interest whatsoever.

But they've made rules to benefit themselves out of sheer greed and, in so doing, are harming the true owners."

How was that discussion a "contentious social issue"? That's right on target a timeshare related discussion. Methinks you moderate too much.

Moderator Note: I can see the post history. You added that last bit as an edit within seconds of posting, and my edit and response were done before I saw it posted. But you're right, the blurb isn't related to the contentious issue you introduced so I cleaned up my edit (and I'll clean up the copy of your edited post in my reply as soon as I'm done here.) As always, anybody who has a problem with my moderation can ask @TUGBrian anytime if he agrees.

As for the blurb and my response to it, as just another TUG participant? I don't at all mean to imply that exchange companies have an "ownership interest" as you say. I only said that they make their rules and we can choose to either follow their rules or not follow their rules. You're not the first to disagree with me, you won't be the last, and that's okay.

 

[Dean]

Over many years, I've rented many timeshare weeks that had been exchanges.

Was I fearful that something would go "wrong"? Never. Because I always (1) made sure the person had what he said he had (and the exchange confirmation was enough to establish that).

Then, after (2) payment (and I most often used something with insurance), I made sure he (3) changed his name on the reservation to my name on the reservation. And (4) called the resort to confirm that. By simply saying, "Joe Shmoe just a couple of days ago designated me as his guest. I just want to make sure I'm in your computer system so I will be able to check in without problems".

And the resort front desk has always without exception confirmed that I'm then on the reservation.

So what's the difference between me checking in and any one of the other owners checking in? No difference at all. Well. Maybe a slight difference if I was designated "RCI" or "II" rather than "home resort owner" as they might aggressively try to sell me a timeshare. But I always play Mr. Unnaturally Loud Talker and loudly ask something like, "I saw a 2 BR timeshare at this resort advertised on ebay for $1. Are you selling them for $1 too?"...and they quickly thank me and show me the door so as to not "disturb" their other potential sales (i.e., their other potential victimizations of naive innocents). And if they don't show me the door, then I'll follow up with a loud, incredulous, "The annual maintenance fee is THAT high!!!??? Are you kidding? Who would be interested in something like THAT???!!!" or some such objection. And hope that others hear me so that they may perhaps not be defrauded.

So let me respond to people who have said "that's illegal". I was a police officer for a time after I got out of the Marine Corps before getting some higher education and embarking on another career path. I don't recall a single part of the penal code that said anything like "renting a timeshare that had been exchanged via RCI or II".

Moreover, the resort could care less. It's an II or RCI rule. Not a resort rule. All the resort cares about is "is the person on the reservation?".

But what about RCI or II? If there's absolutely no way for them to know anything about whatever the rental deal was, if you're simply officially the "guest" of the person with the RCI or II reservation, how will they know any different? No way whatsoever.

So why would RCI or II even have such a stupid rule? The timeshare owner, having exchanged his owned high maintenance fee timeshare week plus having paid $289 (!!!) SHOULD (in my opinion) be able to do whatever he darn well pleases with it. But no. RCI won't allow the exchanger (for whom something came up and who won't be able to himself use the timeshare...like an elderly parent who died) to rent out the exchange for which he paid so much. The exchange company wants him to buy the right to return the timeshare into inventory (for an additional $89), even though he loses the entire $289 exchange fee. And then the exchange company will re-list it in order to double dip and get another $289.

So I understand the exchange company's motivation to stick it to the timeshare owner: pure greed. But I will always be on the side of the timeshare owner and not on the side of the (I would call crooked) big corporations.

Indeed, it's the exchange companies who make all the fraudulent timeshare sales possible. Their biggest and most effective argument sleazebag salespeople make are untrue claims about how wonderful the exchanges you'll be able to get. It's no wonder the exchange companies are owned by and in bed with timeshare resort networks.

So your rental will almost certainly go off without a hitch if you take reasonable "due diligence" precautions. Check in with complete confidence.

And quite frankly, you're in the driver's seat and can be very aggressive in your negotiations with the person renting his exchanged week so you can get a pretty sweet deal.

Nice attitude. I think any reasonable person would realize that the term illegal in this context is referring to against the rules, not truly in a legal sense. By definition one who rents out an exchange knowing it's against the rules, is being dishonest since II is never going to give permission as a side deal. RCI will semi officially allow you to recoup exchange and guest cert fees. To relate this more to your work history, it's be like calling in sick to go hunting or similar. I can't speak for others but I was very careful to label the person renting out as dishonest, not the person renting to use, at least that was and is my intent. I don't feel the principles apply equally to both sides of the street here since I'm not aware of any rule that applies on the receiving side. But there is risk of losing the reservation even if it's been transferred though I would agree it's not likely to happen. There are ways they know such as when listed on a commercial website like Ebay or redweeks (yes they look) and when there is a pattern. If you don't agree with II or RCI's rules, don't play in their sandbox. There are reasons beyond their own best financial interest though I'm sure that's part of it.

 

[andre10056]

Nice attitude. I think any reasonable person would realize that the term illegal in this context is referring to against the rules, not truly in a legal sense. By definition one who rents out an exchange knowing it's against the rules, is being dishonest since II is never going to give permission as a side deal. RCI will semi officially allow you to recoup exchange and guest cert fees. To relate this more to your work history, it's be like calling in sick to go hunting or similar. I can't speak for others but I was very careful to label the person renting out as dishonest, not the person renting to use, at least that was and is my intent. I don't feel the principles apply equally to both sides of the street here since I'm not aware of any rule that applies on the receiving side. But there is risk of losing the reservation even if it's been transferred though I would agree it's not likely to happen. There are ways they know such as when listed on a commercial website like Ebay or redweeks (yes they look) and when there is a pattern. If you don't agree with II or RCI's rules, don't play in their sandbox. There are reasons beyond their own best financial interest though I'm sure that's part of it.

"The moderator" decided that my analogy mentioning a current overseas factual scenario whereby rules are defied because they're so unreasonable and wrong, and people even risk their lives in defying them, was somehow a "contentious social issue" and "nonsense". I, personally, felt it was a good analogy in suggesting that some people might not and shouldn't robotically follow any rules simply because they're rules.

To put it simply in this case, just because some simplistic middleman software platform has an unreasonable rule (and you never did point out any reason aside from their greed), doesn't, in my opinion, mean you MUST robotically follow it. Maybe you should be able to use your own judgment as to whether or not you want to follow it.

I also don't appreciate being viciously attacked by my trying to help the OP as prospective renter from achieving a successful transaction. And that it's somehow akin to letting violent criminals go (or any criminal go) or calling in sick to go hunting. What is with you people?

Can you honestly tell me it wouldn't be beneficial and "right" for every timeshare owner to be able to have their exchanges in the "verified" section of redweek?

And as I pointed out before, it's good for me as a renter in that I can be more aggressive in my negotiation with the exchanged week renter-outer. But not in any way right for our fellow timeshare owner who might not be able to use his week due to unanticipated things that may have come up.

 

[sue1947]

has an unreasonable rule

If you don't like the rules of a business, don't do business with them. Period. All the rest is making excuses and rationalization. When renting exchanges, you are being dishonest. A shoplifter might say that the candy bar isn't going to make or break the store so what's the big deal? Lots of excuses but none of it makes it right. You spend a lot of time in various threads making excuses for why you are exempt from any rule you don't like. Do you let your kids decide when to be home or any other rule you impose to keep them safe? If you have kids, you need to do a better job of setting a good example.

 

[andre10056]

If you don't like the rules of a business, don't do business with them. Period. All the rest is making excuses and rationalization. When renting exchanges, you are being dishonest. A shoplifter might say that the candy bar isn't going to make or break the store so what's the big deal? Lots of excuses but none of it makes it right. You spend a lot of time in various threads making excuses for why you are exempt from any rule you don't like. Do you let your kids decide when to be home or any other rule you impose to keep them safe? If you have kids, you need to do a better job of setting a good example.

I don't know what you're referring to about all these various threads, but your analogy about shoplifting stinks (I was going to use another word but so be it). Please tell me if you're harming ANYONE by renting a person's exchanged week. On the other hand, I think someone who shoplifts is an evil person who has no regard for his fellow man. If you can't see the difference, if that's your sense of justice that they're equivalent, I feel sorry for you.

Please refer me to all these alleged threads in which I'm "making excuses for why (I am) exempt from any rule (I) don't like". I know I continually criticize those who defraud or in any way treat badly timeshare owners (and this is sort of the same thing), but I can't think of any such prior threads. To my knowledge, this is my first time challenging RCI's and II's rule but I can't think of any other rule I've challenged.

And in terms of renting from a person who has an exchanged week, I or anyone else is NOT "doing business with (the exchange company)". I/we am/are doing business with another timeshare owner.

And then you fantasize about child rearing with more twisted logic. Wow!.

Everything to defend RCI and II. Are you a part owner of that company? Maybe it's time to collectively tell them we won't renew until they change that obviously predatory rule in which they harm timeshare owners merely out of greed. A lot of TUG users can use their clout to achieve something good, something just, something beneficial to timeshare owners. But you apparently are the robotic follower who believes the rule is right because it's a rule. As the moderator said to me, you be you.

 

[ocdb8r]

The Abound Exchange Procedures only prevent "commercial activity". Even trust point reservations are coming from the exchange pool of inventory.

Can you perhaps cite the specific text in the Abound Exchange Procedures that prohibit renting of reservations to those using elected points vs Trust points?

@dioxide45 and @SueDonJ - you're right. I went back through the docs and couldn't find the references I was remembering. I was sure there used to be explicit reference permitting rental of "home weeks" which when defined included reservations with "trust points" but in the new Abound docs I couldn't find these references. Apologies as I didn't intend to spread any misinformation.

I did notice the "commercial purpose" language says "(including but not limited to, the rental of an Accommodation...)" which seems to me broader than what they say elsewhere regarding a "pattern" of rental activity.

This isn't correct - the Exchange Procedures docs actually contain language that expressly allows rentals of Abound (formerly Destination Club) reservations, as well as transfers of the points themselves.

I actually couldn't find any reference explicitly permitting renting anywhere in the Abound Exchange docs. Like I said above, I also though it used to be in there (albeit with a formulation I thought was restricted to "home weeks"). Could this be somewhere else in the MVC docs?