Marriott and MVC changes to changing name on RES.

[soslios]

When I rent unit I can no longer change name on Marriott site.

When I Go to MVC they now ask You to check boxes You are responsible for damage to unit when changing name.

I don't remember these issues last year???

 

[sponger76]

When I rent unit I can no longer change name on Marriott site.

When I Go to MVC they now ask You to check boxes You are responsible for damage to unit when changing name.

I don't remember these issues last year???

You weren't supposed to be able to change MVC reservation names on the Marriott site. It was a technical loophole that they eventually closed. The check boxes on the name change form on MVC have always been the rules. Now they are just making sure you acknowledge those rules.

 

[SueDonJ]

Here's one of several threads about the guest name change process that Marriott began implementing in 2023: MARRIOTT OWNERS: Important Update to our Guest of Owner Policy from Marriott Vacation Clubs ...

While it's new that owners who add guests to their reservations now have to provide written notice via a form and *acknowledge* that they're aware that Owners are ultimately responsible for damage inflicted by their guests, it's not true that this is a newly added responsibility. The governing docs of every resort and the Abound docs have always contained language stating the same.

 

[vol_90]

One interesting note is when you fill out and submit the form it is a manual process on the Marriott side to update the reservation. Twice in the last six months I have had Marriott incorrectly spell the name change on a reservation. I had to call, speak with an advisor to review the form to verify and then they work with back office technical support to correct as the advisor does not have access to update the name.

 

[DRH90277]

I note some of the resorts are now charging rental guests for parking. The question, if I change the name on a reservation to a member of our family rather than a renter, how does the resort know not to charge my guest family member?

Does anyone know how the resort determines who gets the parking charges?

 

[Pamplemousse]

I think the “renters” they charge are those who book directly with Marriott.
If the unit is booked by an owner it’s not a rental even if you have a guest of some sort stay in it.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I would say that damage to units is not really something I have dealt with in the past, but this past November, I did have a renter who caused some damage to a unit at Sheraton Broadway Resort. I made a post about it at the time I heard about the damage, but I didn't ever get any specific information about what happened.

At this point, I have to remind everyone to use a contract to outline the details about damage to the unit. There is one on TUG. Of course, the renter could easily deny there was damage, and if the resort doesn't give detailed information as to what happened, it is a bit fishy, at least to me. Maybe my guest made someone angry. She denied any damage done to her unit, but she did check out of the unit later than Sheraton would have liked.

Sheraton didn't come back at me about it, but I was told to not rent to this person ever again by Marriott/ Sheraton. Scary, and my first problem with this, and I have been renting since 2007 or 2008.

RW doesn't provide any insurance for damage to a unit to protect the owner. Koala is the only company that provides that insurance at no additional cost, up to $1 million. It's maybe something a person should consider when listing rentals. But you can find a contract on TUG under the Advice article on renting that could put the fear of reimbursement of damage on the renter.

 

[dioxide45]

I note some of the resorts are now charging rental guests for parking. The question, if I change the name on a reservation to a member of our family rather than a renter, how does the resort know not to charge my guest family member?

Does anyone know how the resort determines who gets the parking charges?

Parking fees don't apply to timeshare based stays. A home resort reservation is a timeshare based stay, regardless of who stays in the unit. Thus, no parking fees.

 

[SueDonJ]

I would say that damage to units is not really something I have dealt with in the past, but this past November, I did have a renter who caused some damage to a unit at Sheraton Broadway Resort. I made a post about it at the time I heard about the damage, but I didn't ever get any specific information about what happened.

At this point, I have to remind everyone to use a contract to outline the details about damage to the unit. There is one on TUG. Of course, the renter could easily deny there was damage, and if the resort doesn't give detailed information as to what happened, it is a bit fishy, at least to me. Maybe my guest made someone angry. She denied any damage done to her unit, but she did check out of the unit later than Sheraton would have liked.

Sheraton didn't come back at me about it, but I was told to not rent to this person ever again by Marriott/ Sheraton. Scary, and my first problem with this, and I have been renting since 2007 or 2008.

RW doesn't provide any insurance for damage to a unit to protect the owner. Koala is the only company that provides that insurance at no additional cost, up to $1 million. It's maybe something a person should consider when listing rentals. But you can find a contract on TUG under the Advice article on renting that could put the fear of reimbursement of damage on the renter.

"She denied any damage done to her unit, but she did check out of the unit later than Sheraton would have liked."

"Later than Sheraton would have liked" is an *interesting* way to put it, I'd say. There's a check-out time that's the same for everyone regardless of what Sheraton might like or dislike, isn't there? Unless a later check-out is specifically requested and granted?

Sorry, Cindy, but it's a pet peeve when people think the rules don't apply to them, and checking out late without the resort's authorization can cause a snowball effect that keeps others from checking in at a reasonable time. I think this in itself should be something that results in a charge on the credit card being held. And if that somehow doesn't go through, then the owner should be directly billed.

 

[DanCali]

RW doesn't provide any insurance for damage to a unit to protect the owner. Koala is the only company that provides that insurance at no additional cost, up to $1 million.

You always seem to tout Koala and their benefits but I asked in another recent thread (also in response to your post) if anyone actually rented with them anything recently, and got zero responses to that question. Not even from you . They can offer whatever insurance, but when they cost owners more for rentals and nobody actually rents anything through them reliably, their demise is just a matter of time (maybe a myresortnetwork sequel).

Is Redweek only offering two verified and protected options now?

@DeniseM If you renew an ad, will it let you still have it as DIY?

tugbbs.com

So I'll ask again I guess - Aside from TUG (which is as close to free as you can get and I'd definitely use) is anyone using Koala, Vacation Candy or any other Redweek alternative with success (say in the past 12-18 months)?

The reality is that Koala's 8% success fee for the owner is still more expensive for the owner for rentals over ~$1900 when compared to the flat ~$150 Redweek listing+success fees. But that's a minor point - the bigger issue is that Redweek seems to get at least 5x (maybe even closer to 10x) the internet traffic that Koala does, with less seasonal fluctuations. And Koala is not acting like a business trying to catch up and actually compete. If they started not charging anything on the owner side for a successful rental (or maybe just a nominal $9-$15 flat listing fee), that will be hard for owners to ignore and listings will naturally gravitate to them. You can't act like you are a luxury vacation rental site without giving those owners a proper incentive to list with you - their 8% fee does the opposite.

I honestly don't think the Koala fee structure incentivizes owners enough to list with them. Your don't compete with a market leader by outpricing them. It's great that the listing is free, but they more than make up for it on the back end. Unless they change it, it's still too much of a hassle for an owner to even bother, in my view. You have to list and then, if you change the price, it's another place to update, and then, if it rents via Redweek, you have to remove the listing - all that is time consuming, and that's wasteful if the end result is that the owner still rents through Redweek. Of course if I hear multiple (recent) success stories, that may change my mind.

Source: https://ahrefs.com/traffic-checker

 

[dioxide45]

So I'll ask again I guess - Aside from TUG (which is as close to free as you can get and I'd definitely use) is anyone using Koala, Vacation Candy or any other Redweek alternative with success (say in the past 12-18 months)?

I have no direct experience, but I have seen reports where Vacation Candy will contact owners through Redweek for listings that they have. I recall also seeing at least one report where Koala did the same. So it seems in these situations Redweek is still the hub where most of the major rentals go through.

The problem with other sites that have membership and listing fees is, who wants to pay for something twice by listing on Redweek and somewhere else when they can just list once on Redweek. It doesn't make economic sense to list on Redweek and another site that was mentioned in another thread. It doesn't seem like the other site is providing additional exposure and if you rely on it 100%, and not list on Redweek too, then you could end up not renting your week at all. I do think that is kind of where Koala gets it right with no upfront listing fee. It doesn't cost you any more to throw your listing up on there in addition to Redweek. If they rent it first, then great. Perhaps it wouldn't have rented on Redweek.

 

[BigDawgTUG]

I would really like to love Koala. I like the platform and the ease of listing. However, after up to 100 listings, I have rented ZERO times with Koala. The only time I even ever had an inquiry to one of my listings, it was one day before the check in date and I had already cancelled the week. In fact, the only time I ever rented anything "through" Koala was when they responded to one of my listings on Redweek on behalf of one of their guests.

For Vacation Candy, I have successfully rented through them about 20 times. In most, but not all cases, they reached out to me through a Redweek listing. In a handful of cases, the rental was listed on their site and not on Redweek. So, I typically list all of my rentals on Vacation Candy as I do not put all of my rentals on Redweek.

I have had great success on Redweek using DIY listings. The traffic is far superior to any other site and, most importantly for me, most brokers reach out to me through Redweek in search of rentals for their guests.

 

[DanCali]

I have no direct experience, but I have seen reports where Vacation Candy will contact owners through Redweek for listings that they have. I recall also seeing at least one report where Koala did the same. So it seems in these situations Redweek is still the hub where most of the major rentals go through.

This has also happened to me in the past with Vacation Candy (I refused) and also plain real estate brokers that also do rentals.

It doesn't cost you any more to throw your listing up on there in addition to Redweek. If they rent it first, then great. Perhaps it wouldn't have rented on Redweek.

It doesn't cost more to put it on there - but there is an extra hassle factor. If you list on multiple sites and change the price, you then have to log into 3-4 websites to update.

And if it does rent, the Koala success fee would be substantially higher for those $3500/week ($500/nt) rentals - 8% perhaps disincentivizes the listing of the rentals they want/need to attract. Otherwise, they are more likely to get the less attractive resorts/seasons and shorter stays. Or they get the pricy rentals listed at a substantially higher price than on Redweek because owners won't just pay 8% on a $4500+ Maui 2BR rental when the $99 on Redweek is much less (~3%, including listing fee); they'll mark up the listing and then it's a lot less likely to rent.

I'd probably still do it if I had listings to post and if there was proof it actually works for others. But nobody has yet pointed out that Koala actually did much for them in the past 1-2 years. This kind of summarizes what I suspected; I'm surprised they are still in business...

However, after up to 100 listings, I have rented ZERO times with Koala.