REDWEEK refuses to police non owners renting exchanged weeks

[icydog]

I was told in so many words that REDWEEK will not police ads even if they know they are exchanged weeks.

It's very easy to know if someone is renting an exchanged week. For instance, if the view is left blank on Marriott exchanged weeks or if there is a request for a $95 resort fee on Disney Rentals. These are instant tip offs that the weeks are exchanged and that the ad was placd by a non owner

Renting exchanges can lead to folks being turned away at the front desk. When I explained this to the REDWEEK rep she said it is not Redweek's job to police ads. I wonder whose job it is?

 

[aliikai2]

Redweek, Tug, Myresort, etc

are advertising sites, they are not responsible for what people list any more than Ebay, Amazon, etc.
It really isn't their job. If someone takes the gamble to list an exchange, then they should be prepared to face the possible repercussions.

Greg

I was told in so many words that REDWEEK will not police ads even if they know they are exchanged weeks.

It's very easy to know if someone is renting an exchanged week. For instance, if the view is left blank on Marriott exchanged weeks or if there is a request for a $95 resort fee on Disney Rentals. These are instant tip offs that the weeks are exchanged and that the ad was placd by a non owner

Renting exchanges can lead to folks being turned away at the front desk. When I explained this to the REDWEEK rep she said it is not Redweek's job to police ads. I wonder whose job it is?

 

[icydog]

My point is there are glaring examples of illegal rentals on REDWEEK and they know it. Their own website states you must own the week you are advertising.

This is taken verbatim from their dos and don'ts list

In order to add a posting to RedWeek.com, you must be legally able to sell the unit(s) or designated time period for the unit you post for sale or rent on our Web site.

 

[aliikai2]

Yes, and like Ebay if you have a confirmation

that works as showing that you have control or ownership of the week.
I don't think renting exchanges is an acceptable practice, but it is done every day, and the only groups that can stop it are the exchange companies. They used to be real good at cracking down on these renters, but anymore it looks like it is opens season.

Greg

My point is there are glaring examples of illegal rentals on REDWEEK and they know it. Their own website states you must own the week you are advertising.

This is taken verbatim from their dos and don'ts list

In order to add a posting to RedWeek.com, you must be legally able to sell the unit(s) or designated time period for the unit you post for sale or rent on our Web site.

 

[icydog]

that works as showing that you have control or ownership of the week.
I don't think renting exchanges is an acceptable practice, but it is done every day, and the only groups that can stop it are the exchange companies. They used to be real good at cracking down on these renters, but anymore it looks like it is opens season.

Greg

I disagree. Ownership is not implied--as REDWEEK states "you must be LEGALLY able to rent the week".

Since it is expressly illegal to rent a week you do not own-- one cannot rent out an exchanged week --by definition.

 

[ronparise]

I disagree. Ownership is not implied--as REDWEEK states "you must be LEGALLY able to rent the week".

Since it is expressly illegal to rent a week you do not own-- one cannot rent out an exchanged week --by definition.

Thats just not true

I own a unit/week that is part of a floating weeks program. I can make a reservation for a week I dont own and rent it.

In the Wyndham system, I own a week at one resort and make a reservation for another week at another resort which I can rent

if I exchange something I own for something else thru RCI and give it away, thats not a problem either, If I rent it is a problem in that it violates rci's policies ...but its not illegal

I called RCI today and asked about the enforcement of their rental policy. The person I talked to said no one there cares what we do with our exchanges...They would never know

 

[DeniseM]

I am going to play the devil's advocate here - Redweek is a for-profit business:

What benefit would they get out of spending time and money to police another company's rules?

Answer - Nothing - it would just cost them $$$, and possibly cause them to lose business.

This is why: There is no easy way to verify that every rental is not an exchange, unless the owner is required to submit the confirmation to RW for verification, and that just opens up another can of worms, requires more staff, & costs more money

RW's statement is simply for "CYA" purposes - it's not really feasible to enforce it.

 

[SueDonJ]

Thats just not true

I own a unit/week that is part of a floating weeks program. I can make a reservation for a week I dont own and rent it.

In the Wyndham system, I own a week at one resort and make a reservation for another week at another resort which I can rent

if I exchange something I own for something else thru RCI and give it away, thats not a problem either, If I rent it is a problem in that it violates rci's policies ...but its not illegal

I called RCI today and asked about the enforcement of their rental policy. The person I talked to said no one there cares what we do with our exchanges...They would never know

But Marilyn's first post is specific to Marriott and DVC. DVC does prohibit renting of intervals booked through exchanging and the $95 fee is a dead give-away that the rental is an exchange - owners aren't charged that fee. With Marriotts, most exchange through II and II has a very specific rule against renting exchanges.

I agree with you, Marilyn, that if Redweek is going to put such a specific rule on its website, it should do something to prevent rentals by users who are NOT "legally able to sell the unit(s) or designated time period for the unit you post for sale or rent on our Web site." Why bother making up the rule if you're not going to enforce it? As a renter I'd be leery of using RedWeek knowing that there's a possibility some rules are being broken, and maybe being turned away at check-in for a stay that I assumed was legitimate based on the rules at the RedWeek website.

 

[DeniseM]

As a renter I'd be leery of using RedWeek knowing that there's a possibility some rules are being broken, and maybe being turned away at check-in for a stay that I assumed was legitimate based on the rules at the RedWeek website.

As a renter you would ALWAYS know if it was an exchange, because the confirmation would be from an exchange company, so there would be no doubt. That's one of the first things you should ask about a rental - and then ask to see the confirmation as proof.

 

[SueDonJ]

As a renter you would ALWAYS know if it was an exchange, because the confirmation would be from an exchange company, so there would be no doubt. That's one of the first things you should ask about a rental - and then ask to see the confirmation as proof.

Will most renters show copies of confirmations before any money is exchanged? I don't know, but if they do then you're right, and that's the perfect solution. Thanks.

 

[DeniseM]

Will most renters show copies of confirmations before any money is exchanged? I don't know, but if they do then you're right, and that's the perfect solution. Thanks.

If they won't - then something is fishy (or the owner is such a newbie they don't know what they are doing.)

 

[am1]

If they are not willing to police their own rules then the best advice is to not use them. If they do not care about this rule then what other rules will they not care about in the chase of the all mighty dollar.

 

[DeniseM]

If they are not willing to police their own rules then the best advice is to not use them. If they do not care about this rule then what other rules will they not care about in the chase of the all mighty dollar.

But HOW will they enforce it?

Example: Right now, TUG has 4,402 Ads in the Marketplace. Can you imagine the man power it would take to verify all those Ads???

 

[am1]

But HOW will they enforce it?

If redweek feels they are losing business because they are renting exchanges they will find a way. If everyone starts renting exchanges it will not be a good thing for individual owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

If they won't - then something is fishy (or the owner is such a newbie they don't know what they are doing.)

Good to know, but ...

I just thought of something - II confirmations for Marriott resorts include the II confirmation number as well as a reservation number specific to Marriott's system. A Marriott Rewards member can add that res number to his/her MR online account and then print out a confirmation that's similar to those an owner gets when reserving his/her home usage. So if the folks on RedWeek who are Marriott owners are renting out weeks they've gotten through II exchanging, or II Getaways, won't they be able to show a confirmation that gives the false impression that what they're renting is not against II's rules - and RedWeek's?

Hmmmm. Something to think a little more about. Maybe am1's suggestion is the one I'd be most comfortable sticking with.

 

[DeniseM]

If redweek feels they are losing business because they are renting exchanges they will find a way. If everyone starts renting exchanges it will not be a good thing for individual owners.

Your average casual renter couldn't care less. The cost of verifying every Ad would be far more than any possible PR gain.

Again - look at the cost vs benefit.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

If they are not willing to police their own rules then the best advice is to not use them. If they do not care about this rule then what other rules will they not care about in the chase of the all mighty dollar.

The rule is there because of the lawyering.

Think of how many things there are in our world where someone posts a sign and makes a notice, just simply to avoid liability in case something happens.

Example - people routinely ignore "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" signs in Hawaii to go visit a waterfall - there's no intention to enforce.

But if something goes wrong you can't say you weren't warned.

 

[ronparise]

If redweek feels they are losing business because they are renting exchanges they will find a way. If everyone starts renting exchanges it will not be a good thing for individual owners.

I dont understand how renting an exchange can be bad for an individual owner...or any worse than renting a week that is owned.

Im an individual owner and I dont feel the pain when someone rents an exchange

 

[rrlongwell]

I dont understand how renting an exchange can be bad for an individual owner...or any worse than renting a week that is owned.

Im an individual owner and I dont feel the pain when someone rents an exchange

Agreed. If more owners could rent exchanges, than I would think there would be fewer defaults on timeshare ownership because many owners would be finding renters through local contacts. This would benifit all owners, I believe.

 

[tschwa2]

There are so many ways resorts send or don't send confirmations to both exchangers and owners.

I have received letters/packets from exchanged resorts both in RCI and II when I have exchanged more than a month ahead of time. Some give both information to owners and exchangers that may be different but does not indicate on the letter which I am. Some confirmations directly from the resort does indicate exchange status.

I don't receive a letter from Starwood or Marriott when I reserve my week, I believe I only see the information online (as I requested). I own 2 fixed weeks which never send me anything when I pay my MF indicating that the week is reserved for me. Sometimes they call to verify. Even when I rent or send a guest they don't send out a confirmation but I ask if the guest can call to verify. I own one that sends out a postcard asking if I will use, not use, let a guest use, deposit with RCI or deposit else where. I never respond and my fixed week is ready for me to check in. I own a float week at a small resort that sends a paper reservation.

 

[SueDonJ]

Agreed. If more owners could rent exchanges, than I would think there would be fewer defaults on timeshare ownership because many owners would be finding renters through local contacts. This would benifit all owners, I believe.

One way it wouldn't benefit all owners is that competition for the highest-demand/holiday intervals would increase substantially, and it's already difficult enough to get them for occupancy. Now you have at least some scrupulous owners who don't request those in exchanges unless they're planning to occupy them. If it was within the rules for everyone to rent them, wouldn't more folks be taking advantage of the big-bucks opportunity?

 

[am1]

One way it wouldn't benefit all owners is that competition for the highest-demand/holiday intervals would increase substantially, and it's already difficult enough to get them for occupancy. Now you have at least some scrupulous owners who don't request those in exchanges unless they're planning to occupy them. If it was within the rules for everyone to rent them, wouldn't more folks be taking advantage of the big-bucks opportunity?

exactly. Individual owners would be left with the scraps. if that is what they want then lets open the flood gates.

 

[gnorth16]

I don't receive a letter from Starwood or Marriott when I reserve my week, I believe I only see the information online (as I requested). I own 2 fixed weeks which never send me anything when I pay my MF indicating that the week is reserved for me. Sometimes they call to verify. Even when I rent or send a guest they don't send out a confirmation but I ask if the guest can call to verify. I own one that sends out a postcard asking if I will use, not use, let a guest use, deposit with RCI or deposit else where. I never respond and my fixed week is ready for me to check in. I own a float week at a small resort that sends a paper reservation.

When I rent my SDO, I book a week under my name. When I find a renter, I change it to their name, and include their email. The same day both the renter and myself get an emailed copy of the reservation and once they are happy, I expect payment. If for whatever reason they are not happy, Starwood doesn't charge anything to change the name on the reservation back and are always happy to do so. A similar scenario with HGVC, except they charge $29 for a guest reservation, so I usually get a $100 deposit to cover any potential loss if the renter changes their mind.

As for renting exchanges, I know of one person that had their II account suspended. There are loads of exchange rentals on eBay as well. I would never do it, nor would I rent one, but that is a cost cutting measure I would not take. Imagine flying to Orlando on your first family vacation and finding out you can't get into the room you paid for because it was an exchanged rental....

 

[ronparise]

One way it wouldn't benefit all owners is that competition for the highest-demand/holiday intervals would increase substantially, and it's already difficult enough to get them for occupancy. Now you have at least some scrupulous owners who don't request those in exchanges unless they're planning to occupy them. If it was within the rules for everyone to rent them, wouldn't more folks be taking advantage of the big-bucks opportunity?

For the really good weeks the demand will always out strip the supply, so I dont think it makes any real difference whether there are a thousand end users searching for a Christmas week in Orlando or a thousand end users and a couple of renters...The fact is only a few very lucky individuals will be successful...and we all have an equal shot

I feel as if I own a timeshare and make a deposit I should have the same chance at an exchange whether my intended use is to spend time vacationing myself or to make money renting it to someone that will spend time vacationing... either way the place is being used for a vacation. and I dont see that an owners vacation is any more special than my tenants vacation

This is actually something of a stupid argument...Much ado about Nothing...If these are truly big bucks opportunities you wont see them in any exchange pool....the owners will be using them themselves or renting them they wont end up dumped in rci for us to fight over...Its that time of year...New Orleans Mardi Gras, so Ill use it as my example...I own a Mardi Gras event week...and Im not going....but I didnt deposit my week to RCI....I doubt that any owner did

 

[Dave*H]

For the really good weeks the demand will always out strip the supply, so I dont think it makes any real difference whether there are a thousand end users searching for a Christmas week in Orlando or a thousand end users and a couple of renters...The fact is only a few very lucky individuals will be successful...and we all have an equal shot

You won't be adding to the pool just a couple of renters. You will be opening the floodgates to everyone who wants to upgrade their week to a higher demand week for better rental demand and to professional exchanges/renters.

This is actually something of a stupid argument...Much ado about Nothing...If these are truly big bucks opportunities you wont see them in any exchange pool....the owners will be using them themselves or renting them they wont end up dumped in rci for us to fight over...Its that time of year...New Orleans Mardi Gras, so Ill use it as my example...I own a Mardi Gras event week...and Im not going....but I didnt deposit my week to RCI....I doubt that any owner did

This isn't the case with everyone. I have successfully exchanged into some very high demand weeks. Some owners prefer an exchange even if they know they are likely to get a week with lesser value. For someone who only rents out on occasion, an exchange might be less hassle.

Whether or not you believe that it should be OK to rent exchanges, allowing the rental of exchanges will have a significant impact on the exchange system. There would be threads on TUG about which weeks rent for the most money, and we'd all add those to our exchange requests.