REDWEEK refuses to police non owners renting exchanged weeks

[Carolinian]

The airlines have ''revenue protection units'' that police eBay and other sites for people selling ff miles and they nail them when they catch them. I suspect that exchange companies do that to some degree, and they will get more to the airlines level of proficiency as time goes by.

I think it is beyond hypocritical for RCI to rent out members exchange deposits themselves and then prohibit members from renting exchanges. Fairness would dictate that both be prohibited.

 

[dms1709]

Has anyone ever rented and then been turned away when they arrived at the resort?

Donna

 

[ronparise]

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 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.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth

On the one hand you say most owners (that cant use their "big bucks" high demand week prefer to exchange because renting their week will be a hassle....on the other hand you say the flood gates will open and everyone will become a landlord. Its either a hassle or it isnt

Which is it...renting is a hassle and most wont do it...or allowing rentals will open the floodgates for everyone to become a landlord

There are already exceptions made by RCI...first of all they rent themselves. but second...if you read their disclosures you will see that there are exceptions to their rules and procedures on practically every page, for "corporate owners"

I know a corporate owner that rents rci weeks every day I assume that he has an exception


But you didnt speak to my main argument...Its my week and my membership in RCI. I pay the same fees as you do. There shouldnt be two classes of owner, one that gets to make exchanges and one who dosent

I am a real estate salesman...When a house comes on the market I dont discriminate among the folks that might want to buy it based on their intended use...why should timeshares (rci) be able to discriminate in this way.

Why should it be ok for you to give an exchanged unit to your wife's cousin but I cant charge my guest for the same thing..either way an owner wont be using the unit.


Please understand...I own what I rent, I dont break the rules.(thats too much hassle) If I see a week I want to use for rental, I buy it....I just think its wrong that rci discriminates among their members and my (paying) guests cant use what your free loading cousin can

By the way...my buying that week takes it out of the exchange pool too, making it unavailable to all but those I want it to go to..You are still iced out

 

[JoyC]

The rule of renting an exchange illegal is made by RCI, so RCI can rent out all deposit weeks by members to make profit, plain and simple.

This rule has allowed RCI robbed their members. It is a totally unfair for our timeshare owners!

If someone on TUG is interested to catch some illegal renting of timeshare weeks, he/she should investigating the RCI rentals that happening every minute, and every day!

 

[NTHC]

I do not believe it is the responsibility of Redweek to police the rentals on their site. They post the exchange company rules as a protection to their advertisers not to protect the exchange companies. There is no law prohibiting the rental of exchanges, it is simply a "rule" and there is a tremendous difference between breaking the law and breaking a rule.

The rule at my daughters high school is no chewing gum, if her 6th period teacher looks the other way, it isn't my job to call them and tell them. If she wants to spend her day listening to 100 15 year olds chomping like cows it is simply her choice.

Additionally, a guest certificate from an exchange company is not necessarily a sign of a rental that is breaking the rule. All exchange companies offer weeks on the wholesale market with the intention of having them resold. They even offer free guest certificates for just this purpose.

To me this seems to be majoring in minors. If you don't like the rules set forth, then you have the option to opt out of your exchange company membership. I personally do not believe the rule is fair, but to this point no one has been able to sway the system. Additionally, you aren't required to be a member of Redweek.

JMHO,

Cindy

540-560-2987

 

[timeos2]

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

Every owner gets exactly the same opportunity to make a reservation for the highest demand times IF they are in a system that allows that (some type of points/float process). Otherwise the time is fixed use meaning they have ZERO chance of obtaining the desired time unless they take extra effort and/or cost to trade in or rent. Add in that those so-called super-times in a fixed scenario probably pay the same fees as the other owners (which cannot get them) so how is that fair?

The idea that somehow the overall availability of the super-demand times would be harmed by allowing open renting of exchanged weeks (already done by the exchange companies themselves but they don't allow the mere owners to do the same under their rules) is outdated and wrong. Once the big guys decided to place rental as their primary goal it should have been opened to owners (who actually pay the fees, purchase costs and supply the inventory) to do the same. As it is it is totally unfair to the"members" suckers that pay the exchange companies to give them their inventory.

Redweek has it right. It isn't their job and isn't going to break anything that isn't already badly broken.

 

[timeos2]

The airlines have ''revenue protection units'' that police eBay and other sites for people selling ff miles and they nail them when they catch them. I suspect that exchange companies do that to some degree, and they will get more to the airlines level of proficiency as time goes by.

I think it is beyond hypocritical for RCI to rent out members exchange deposits themselves and then prohibit members from renting exchanges. Fairness would dictate that both be prohibited.

Or both allowed.

 

[Beefnot]

In the digital content world, the "it's not our responsibility" position is not legally defensible. If a site has no proactive mechanisms or efforts to deter/discourage stealing, then it is considered a facilitator of such behavior and subject to civil or criminal liability. Though of course, renting a timeshare exchange is not an infringement of copyright law...

 

[BocaBum99]

The airlines have ''revenue protection units'' that police eBay and other sites for people selling ff miles and they nail them when they catch them. I suspect that exchange companies do that to some degree, and they will get more to the airlines level of proficiency as time goes by.

I think it is beyond hypocritical for RCI to rent out members exchange deposits themselves and then prohibit members from renting exchanges. Fairness would dictate that both be prohibited.

Wrong. Fairness would dictate that both be allowed.

Everything should be a rental. Rentals are the truist reflection of supply and demand. What needs to be eliminated is one-for-one bartering exchange companies.

 

[Catira]

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.

I think most renters do not know exactly the way this works. They see an ad for the exact week they want and if they like the price they contact the seller. I know my husband is clueless is to how the timeshare exchange works. We know that an ad for DVC that states " at checkin you will be required to pay $95" is an exchange and not booked by a DVC member. Honestly, I have no idea what a redflag would be for Marriott unit or HGVC rental. Why? Because the only systems I own are Wyndham points and my weeks acct with RCI.

 

[Carolinian]

Wrong. Fairness would dictate that both be allowed.

Everything should be a rental. Rentals are the truist reflection of supply and demand. What needs to be eliminated is one-for-one bartering exchange companies.

RCI cannot be a fair and objective middle man in exchanges involving their members if they are renting exchange deposits and putting the money directly in their own pockets. It is a huge conflict of interest for an exchange company.

 

[rrlongwell]

RCI cannot be a fair and objective middle man in exchanges involving their members if they are renting exchange deposits and putting the money directly in their own pockets. It is a huge conflict of interest for an exchange company.

Not in Wyndham's view. I believe that they have made public releases to Wall Street regarding their efforts to increase the role of their rental arm. What is happening is not inconsist with that direction. A number of posters have commented on the Sales Pitches pushing buying new retail purchases then have their rental arm rent them on the buyers behalf. Remember Wyndham is very much interested and attempting to expand properties they can sell/rent that they do not own. It appears to be working for them, they take the profits, owners take the losses if there are not enough profits to go around.

 

[Beefnot]

RCI cannot be a fair and objective middle man in exchanges involving their members if they are renting exchange deposits and putting the money directly in their own pockets. It is a huge conflict of interest for an exchange company.

I am in general agreement. Insofar as an exchange company's rental practices place it at odds with meeting the demand of its core exchange customers for those very units, then this is unequivocally wrong.

 

[timeos2]

RCI cannot be a fair and objective middle man in exchanges involving their members if they are renting exchange deposits and putting the money directly in their own pockets. It is a huge conflict of interest for an exchange company.

Owners should demand that RCI give them fair rental rates for any time they rent out thus solving the problem of below market rentals of inventory RCI basically gets paid to take while still giving RCI a fair percentage commission as any rental agency would get. The current setup is totally unfair and has a negative impact on resort and owner rentals. It has to be stopped. Right now the best choice is to simply stop paying the exchange companies to take the free inventory they turn around and rent.

 

[SueDonJ]

For me it still simply comes down to, if RedWeek publishes such a specific rule against renting what is not allowed to be rented, why doesn't RedWeek do anything to stop the rentals which break RedWeek's rules? I'm not asking about RedWeek policing any other systems' rules, I'm asking about their rule on their website. With Marriott and DVC exchanges, at least, it is sometimes glaringly obvious that RedWeek's rule is being broken. RedWeek should either enforce its own rule or take the stupid thing off its website, because some folks who are using the website are probably relying on that rule to protect their vacations.

 

[DeniseM]

It comes down to 3 things:

1. They can't take it down, because their lawyers won't let them.

2. They can't enforce it, because it's cost prohibitive.

3. They don't care, because there is no financial incentive to enforce it.

It is not that difficult to verify the source of a rental. If a renter is unwilling, or unable to do their due diligence, they probably shouldn't be renting on the internet.

Here's the other thing - I don't know of ANY online rental website that enforces the rule.

 

[chriskre]

Has anyone ever rented and then been turned away when they arrived at the resort?

Donna

I know someone who had their II account cancelled and all their exchanges cancelled when doing megarenting of getaways. So yes it has happened. I don't personally know anyone who's had it happen with RCI though I'm sure someone here has heard it. Maybe II is more protective of their inventory than RCI.

 

[icydog]

It comes down to 3 things:

1. They can't take it down, because their lawyers won't let them.

2. They can't enforce it, because it's cost prohibitive.

3. They don't care, because there is no financial incentive to enforce it.

It is not that difficult to verify the source of a rental. If a renter is unwilling, or unable to do their due diligence, they probably shouldn't be renting on the internet.

Here's the other thing - I don't know of ANY online rental website that enforces the rule.

If their lawyers won't let them it is because renting of non owned weeks is not allowed. That's the end of it. To assume a sophistication by renters is naive. Most REDWEEK renters are Not timeshare savy and have no idea that they would not be renting from a reliable timeshare owners. In the case of Marriott and DVC it is EASY to police and REDWEEK should be doing whatever they can to protect their client bade

 

[chriskre]

If their lawyers won't let them it is because renting of non owned weeks is not allowed. That's the end of it. To assume a sophistication by renters is naive. Most REDWEEK renters are Not timeshare savy and have no idea that they would not be renting from a reliable timeshare owners. In the case of Marriott and DVC it is EASY to police and REDWEEK should be doing whatever they can to protect their client bade

Red week is like a big classified ad section of the newspaper that you pay a subscription for. How are their readers considered clients? I think that's a stretch to say that if you read and answer a "for rent" ad, that suddenly you're a client.

 

[chriskre]

Fairness would dictate that both be prohibited.

How is that fair to owners? We've paid our MF's. If our home resort cannot command enough rental revenue to offset our holding onto that ownership, why not allow owners to benefit from the system that they are subsidizing? It would be fair that there be no restrictions to level the playing field for the struggling owner of a mudweek unit.

Wrong. Fairness would dictate that both be allowed.

Everything should be a rental. Rentals are the truist reflection of supply and demand. What needs to be eliminated is one-for-one bartering exchange companies.

I agree that both should be allowed but then why should one for one companies be eliminated? There is food for everyone in this TS world. The one for one model helps to turn a frog into a prince for those who otherwise may abandon ship. At least some value is gleaned by using the alternate exchange companies.

Owners should demand that RCI give them fair rental rates for any time they rent out thus solving the problem of below market rentals of inventory RCI basically gets paid to take while still giving RCI a fair percentage commission as any rental agency would get. The current setup is totally unfair and has a negative impact on resort and owner rentals. It has to be stopped. Right now the best choice is to simply stop paying the exchange companies to take the free inventory they turn around and rent.

Since that would be a cumbersome and expensive solution for RCI to undertake wouldn't it be easier for RCI and it's members to just stop the foolishness and open the market to all who dare enter? Possibly limiting the amount of transactions to what would be reasonable for the average TS owners portfolio.

DVC does this. They allow 20 rental transactions a year across all accounts. I think this is a reasonable solution for all. It provides a rental relief valve for an otherwise struggling owner to subsidize their MF's for any given year and also allows for the cottage industry to provide an obviously desired alternative. It's a win-win in DVC and does not overtly compete with Disney directly. It could be the same in RCI and II as well. There will always be those renters who will only deal directly with the developer. I think this is a workable solution but of course it's JMHO.

Enough with the lawyers and lawsuits already. :ignore:
It's happening and it's happening apparently with RCI's silent blessing when they turn a blind eye on ebay and other rental outlets. Apparently there is some threshold that only a few are aware of that will trigger them shutting down your account. Many are getting away with it without any consequences to their accounts.

 

[Dave*H]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth

On the one hand you say most owners (that cant use their "big bucks" high demand week prefer to exchange because renting their week will be a hassle....on the other hand you say the flood gates will open and everyone will become a landlord. Its either a hassle or it isnt

Which is it...renting is a hassle and most wont do it...or allowing rentals will open the floodgates for everyone to become a landlord

It is one or the other depending on the individual. Some owners have no desire to get into the rental business and all that it entails to do it properly. They are perfectly content to use the exchange system even for their high value weeks. Those who rent will recognize that allowing the renting of exchanges opens the possibility of exchanging to a higher value unit before renting. It also opens the up the exchange system to professionals. There are already too many people chasing the same high value exchanges.

But you didnt speak to my main argument...Its my week and my membership in RCI. I pay the same fees as you do. There shouldnt be two classes of owner, one that gets to make exchanges and one who dosent

It wasn't my intent to pass judgement on whether renting of exchanges should be allowed or not. While I have an opinion, there are valid arguments supporting either side. My intent was to point out the dramatic shift that would occur if renting of exchanges was allowed.

Think about the huge advantage a well informed tugger has over other exchangers. If we add professional exchanges to that mix, even a well informed tugger will be challenged.

Not allowing the rental of exchanges puts some restraints on the system because you can only exchange for what you will use and gives average joes a better chance at getting a good exchange.

 

[rschallig]

Has anyone ever rented and then been turned away when they arrived at the resort?

Donna

Donna asked a good question that I don't think was specifically responded to. I have the same question - has anyone that rented a timeshare that wasn't owned by the seller and then been turned away when they arrived at the resort??

The reason that I don't rent from any private party is that I fear arriving at the resort and be denied the week I paid for. I simply won't take the chance that when I fly to Hawaii with family to then be denied access to the resort because some goofball is hustling for dollars renting me an exchange.

Sooooo - has any renter been turned away??
Bob

 

[DeniseM]

The reason that I don't rent from any private party is that I fear arriving at the resort and be denied the week I paid for. I simply won't take the chance that when I fly to Hawaii with family to then be denied access to the resort because some goofball is hustling for dollars renting me an exchange.

On TUG, scams by owners are virtually unheard of. It is not the least bit difficult to verify the legitimacy of a rental - there is no reason to be afraid of private rentals.

I have never heard of a renter being turned away, but I know for sure of some owners who were renting exchanges and had all their reservations cancelled by II and RCI. They (the II & RCI members) complained bitterly about it on TUG. I hope, that they immediately called their renters and rectified the situation, but who knows.

 

[rschallig]

On TUG, scams by owners are unheard of. It is not the least bit difficult to verify the legitimacy of a rental - there is no reason to be afraid of private rentals.

I have never heard of a renter being turned away, but I know for sure of some owners who were renting exchanges and had all their reservations cancelled by II and RCI. They (the II & RCI members) complained bitterly about it on TUG. I hope, that they immediately called their renters and rectified the situation, but who knows.

Thank you Denise. Clear bottom line answer. Also, when I used the term "goofball" that certainly doesn't apply to any TUG member.
Bob

 

[e.bram]

In a Getaway and exchange, are they not issued a reservation confirmation a name. Does not the resort check the ID of the party requesting occupancy? How do thsy get around that?
How are the reservations issued if the TS is in a trust, LLC or corp?
They always ask me for ID and I am an owner.