[ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit

[troy12n]

While I have never been a mega renter, I do think the above ignores one simple fact. The mega renters are also OWNERS. Just because they have more points than you do and are can generate an income, does not change this simple fact. Its like saying landlords are responsible for all the problems for home owners. Mega renters were a Wyndham creation and a Wyndham mistake. Wyndham was responsible for all the problems being addressed and WYndham is causing the collateral damage. lets put the blame where it belongs.

That's an absolutely horrible analogy. There's nothing inherently "against the rules" when a property developer decides to develop an apartment complex vs a residential housing development...

Developers aren't obliged to "not develop" because it could potentially impact an existing owner's ability to use their property, or perhaps in some way affect someone's potential resale value. That's not a thing.

Wyndham is a closed system, with rules set by them. It's supposed to be as close to a level playing field as possible, however mega renters manipulate availability by various means to "buy out" entire blocks or weeks of inventory. It's well established, some of them even brag about it.

 

[Roger830]

Honestly it's more like this:

Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days

Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did

You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story.

Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.

I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham...

Anything else is FAKE NEWS

So my take away is if those nasty mega-renters don't book at 60 days it's because they booked at 10 months. Who would have thought?

 

[HitchHiker71]

Yes.

I’m not here to defend the megarenters. I’m just saying I’ve seen a lot of different takes, not always consistent with one another.

I don't think it's a binary choice - I think it's all true. I can recall something that Ron said that made a lot of sense to me (putting aside my contention with the commercial use issue), which is to focus in on a couple specific locations and really get to know every minute detail of those locations. For Ron I know at least one of his focus areas was New Orleans. He got to know the resort managers, cleaning crews, support staff, pretty much everyone. I would therefore surmise that other MRs did not focus on New Orleans during his ownership tenure - so those MRs had other focus areas. Some booked up long term inventory right at 13/10 months - as much as possible - and worked the system using specific processes that worked for their use cases and their specialty areas. Some probably focused on the discount window reservations and shorter term windows - some did both at least while cancel/rebook was around before it came to an end. My overall point is that the answer is realistically "all of the above" when we add up all of the various uses cases and methods used by the collective MR ownership base. If we assume that there were multiple methodologies used to consume inventory for commercial use rentals - then at least some of that inventory that will no longer be consumed for rentals will be accessible for personal use - and that's a good thing regardless of the details as to the how/what/when with respect to personal use.

 

[Rolltydr]

“ Just because they have more points than you do and are can generate an income…”

This negates everything else you said in your post because generating an income (running a commercial enterprise ) is against the rules, for any owner. Full. Stop.

 

[Richelle]

Anti-megarenters: Megarenters book all of the prime locations and units exactly at 13 months.

Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters have been abusing their VIP benefits by booking tens of millions of points inside 60 days.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every possible argument here on all sides over the last few weeks,

Megarenters book both ARP for prime reservations they know they can sell for a profit, and utilize their discount for the rest. Renting a week in four bedroom at Clearwater during April at full point value is rough. Let alone trying to make a profit. A four bedroom presidential at Clearwater over Fourth of July week would fetch a premium and the megarenter can sell it above their cost, even at full point value. So a megarenter would book that in ARP and then try to nab a weekend in a four bedroom presidential some other time in the discount window. The same can be said for bike week. Book the three bedroom in ARP. Then try to nab the one bedrooms in the discount window. I know of someone who made most of their revenue on AirBNB with Daytona bike week, renting one and two bedrooms that popped up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cyrus24]

Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.

I'm a VIP with a small resale contract and I am collateral damage. I blame Wyndham!!!! Please do not attempt to speak for me as I do not blame the MR's.

 

[Sandi Bo]

And here is my take away.

First and foremost. How did Wyndham allow someone, this year, to own 67 Million points. That is absurd. How is that not complete failure with the responsibility sitting squarely on Wyndham's shoulders? And this one person has been held up as an example multiple times (feels like I've read about them 67 Million times now). I for one do not believe there is nearly the issue that Wyndham would like us to believe. (They probably paid Yvonne to refile a lawsuit so they could utilize the publicity).

Now I'll calm down just a bit, and state my overall thoughts.

This is an unprecedented year. A crazy number of points were forwarded to this year.

Many owners that typically don't rent, have rented this year -- a year where all owners have more points available than ever. People that have never rented before are renting, people that typically rent are renting more than ever. And now, more than ever, people are ready to go on vacation. No one can find reservations, renting (by anyone) has exacerbated that problem. Of course, even without renting, the most popular of destinations would not be available. This would be the only reason I can support the blackout dates.

To look at anyone's usage this year will be skewed. And what a great opportunity for Wyndham to swoop in, make some pretty major changes, and be sure to publicize to all owners that they are doing it for the good of the common owner. I have no doubt, this is just one more wave, and there will be more, as Wyndham controls/takes back more and more contracts.

My approach to most things for me is to break down and simplify things. All these different theories and approaches, seem to cater to each individuals needs and make things much more complicated than they need to be. People want the rules to support specifically how they use the program. Simplistic example, it's okay if I rent 1 or 2 reservations (even during bike week) but if I rent x of them, I'm a megarenter. (Kind of feels like it's okay to pee in the shallow end mentality to me). Wyndham doesn't need anything to systematically support anything. Obviously. If they'd only state things clearly and concisely, the rules would be known. Supporting systematically ideal, but not necessary.

If Wyndham would define clear and concise rules, we wouldn't have these issues. We have them because Wyndham historically has not done well stating or implementing policies or procedures. And here, still, they have not nor does it appear they are going (thus here we are on page 17 of speculation and guessing - and this is one post).

I'll never understand why Wyndham didn't require separate accounts for VIP versus resale (unless they wanted it that way -- until now). So I'll say it again, it was that way before because that is how Wyndham wanted it. Now the proposed system changes (that we anticipate will occur tonight) will bring that about (in a more complicated manner than not allowing the 2 to comingle, but so be it). And why would Wyndham ever add millions of points to one account? Why not limit that? And limit GCs to what are allowed per account or allow people to call for exceptions, perhaps. Anything beyond that is adding layers of complication no one needs. If they would have done those 3 things in the 1st place, these conversations would not be necessary.

Thankfully resorts are not involved in determining who should or should not be staying. They are not in the business of cancelling or turning people away. They are in the business of making an exceptional vacation experience and they do that well. The simplest of examples there is that whether or not you attend a sales presentation, your room assignment or resort experience will not be affected (and I have to say in general because there are some resorts known to be managed otherwise, not the topic here).

For me personally, what I did with my account was to make it as easy to use, as possible, for our family. My #1 priority is family usage (something my father paid dearly for). Making the account as self managing as possible was always the goal. Being able to rent to offset the maintenance was a bonus. Side note - define offset maintenance - am I only supposed to charge my maintenance fees, or can I charge double so my vacations are covered? (Interesting what some think is okay and where lines are being drawn.

With the new changes, managing for the family will be more of a challenge. But we'll figure it out.

 

[HitchHiker71]

@Sandi Bo excellent post. While we might be spending some time and effort debating the finer points of ownerships the past week or so here on TUG - the fun really starts tomorrow once the changes have been implemented. I suspect tomorrow we'll at least pause most of the debating and start identifying website issues where things aren't working as expected - so after this evening - I suspect the MR/PM threads will die down quite a bit as we will likely be consumed with the more practical website matters. My website spreadsheet stands ready for more regressions/bugs/enhancements folks!

 

[Sandi Bo]

@Sandi Bo excellent post. While we might be spending some time and effort debating the finer points of ownerships the past week or so here on TUG - the fun really starts tomorrow once the changes have been implemented. I suspect tomorrow we'll at least pause most of the debating and start identifying website issues where things aren't working as expected - so after this evening - I suspect the MR/PM threads will die down quite a bit as we will likely be consumed with the more practical website matters. My website spreadsheet stands ready for more regressions/bugs/enhancements folks!

Thank you. I'm on vacation at the moment having a hard time keeping up with all this. Probably for the best. And, honestly, at this time realizing my VIP did nothing for me for my current 400K stay. Who needs VIP for a full point booking of a 4 BR Presidential booked 7 months in advance? Next time I'll be using my resale points for this type stay. Especially since we don't get a newspaper anymore.

 

[Richelle]

While I get this theory, without knowing exactly where the megarenters were booking and for what time frames, it is hard to say for sure one way or the other. For e.g. in 2020 I had a 2-bed BC rental that upgraded for spring break and I can not imagine I booked that at 10 months- probably 6ish, at most 8. I would have presumed that time to be high on rental demand and megarenters snapping it all up so no one could get it after the 10 month mark.
Personally, I would presume 10 regular owners to be more competition for the resorts I actually want to book at prime times because I’m not going where EVERYONE else is going to be. Which makes my reservation chances harder and my vacations more crowded.


Given Wyndham can also grab that inventory at 60 days, not so sure about that. If they can rent it versus giving discounts on it - they are going to rent it. Capitalism 101 right there.

1 mega renter books 10 rooms. Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else. So now you have 10 owners who booked 10 rooms. That is 9 more people that got bookings because they got rid of one mega renter. I am not really focusing on one resort or one week. What I was trying to say was, that instead of those millions of points being concentrated on prime reservations (any prime reservations), they will be used on non-prime reservations as well. I'm willing to bet the majority of mega renters didn't bother with a low season reservation unless someone specifically asked for it. They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters. Sometimes they will hold them for months. Those points they used to hold prime season reservations, can now be used to book Branson in the spring, or Myrtle Beach in the fall. The prime season reservations can now go to people who will actually use them for personal use.

 

[Gypsy65]

Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not agreeing with the plan
But aren’t they also owners and entitled to the weeks or points they bought wether for person use or other?

What would the difference be if they owned 100 weeks worth or a 100 people each owned 1?

Again, not saying they’re right for doing this but they also own and have what looks like a pretty high investment and fees as well

I think or see the bigger problem being with Wyndham being able to flex their muscle and change usage and that they could do it to anyone

 

[VacayKat]

1 mega renter books 10 rooms. Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else. So now you have 10 owners who booked 10 rooms. That is 9 more people that got bookings because they got rid of one mega renter. I am not really focusing on one resort or one week. What I was trying to say was, that instead of those millions of points being concentrated on prime reservations (any prime reservations), they will be used on non-prime reservations as well. I'm willing to bet the majority of mega renters didn't bother with a low season reservation unless someone specifically asked for it. They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters. Sometimes they will hold them for months. Those points they used to hold prime season reservations, can now be used to book Branson in the spring, or Myrtle Beach in the fall. The prime season reservations can now go to people who will actually use them for personal use.

I get what you are saying, I am just saying that because those prime weeks and locations were not on my to reserve list anyway, distributing their points makes it more likely I will see more competition for what I want to reserve. Also on the odd occasion I want to consider a prime place/time, I grab the reservation and hold on to it even if I think it is a long shot. I think we all do to some extent.

 

[dgalati]

Honestly it's more like this:

Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days

Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did

You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story.

Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.

I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham...

Anything else is FAKE NEWS

Wyndham has some blame in the mega renter issue. Sales upsold vip package to owners that they could rent points and cover maintenance fees as a perk. Wyndham made it known in owners directory that VIP benefits were not available on resale points but did not prevent owners from using resale points with VIP benefits. Wyndham sales sold cancel and rebook as a benefit and customer service aided and abetted owners in doing it. There are many more examples of Wyndham aiding the abuse to make sales. But what do I know? Other then it was cheaper to rent from a VIP in the 60 day discount window then to pay maintenance fees. Add in the sunk cost for a developer purchase and you wonder @ronparise if many owners really understood 3rd grade math.

 

[Richelle]

I did my best to get through all 19 pages. I'll add my two cents.

1. It is my understanding that there has always been a rule about no commercial use. If it wasn't in the directory, then it is likely in the contract that you signed when you bought. Either way "Subject to change" has always been in play. So even if it was left out of one directory, it's in the current directory. It could be considered a "change" that they are allowed to make.

2. If I were Wyndham, I would have done everything I could to wipe out mega renting a long time ago. Setting aside the fact that you are profiting from my company, you are using my systems to make money, without my authorization. You own the points, but that reservation system you used to make the reservation for that renter is owned and maintained by Wyndham. You used their system to make money, without their permission. It would be like you using your work computer to run a side business. It's your business, but it's your employer's computer you're using to make money. In general, employers don't like that.

3. Wyndham did create the issue. I suspect they allowed renting for a while because old leadership felt allowing it benefited them in at least two ways. First, it was a good way to convince people to buy more points. "You can use the new points to pay for the loan payment and maintenance fees". I personally heard that sales pitch. Second, when the owner starts renting their timeshare to non-owners, it brings in new sales leads. This is just my suspicion. I have nothing to back it up with, but it makes sense to me. Just because they created the issue, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to stop it. They absolutely should put a stop to it, if they think it's getting in the way of the owner using their timeshare for their personal use and enjoyment.

4. I believe that every mega renter knew this was not going to last, so this should not be a surprise. What company would be ok with you profiting off of them, without a formal franchise agreement in place?

5. Why in the world would Wyndham define what they determine a mega renter is? Every time they make a change, someone finds a way around the change. Telling them what makes someone a mega renter will give them to information they need, to know how to fly under the radar. That would defeat the whole purpose of these changes.

6. Wyndham needs to come down hard on the salespeople who continue to tout that "we'll rent the points for you" sales pitch if they are still using it.


I hope Wyndham doesn't settle this lawsuit. If they are serious about stopping renting, they need to make an example out of someone. Who better than someone that is costing them legal fees.

Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year? My guess is 105,000. That could be wishful thinking though. I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed? I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.

 

[dgalati]

I did my best to get through all 19 pages. I'll add my two cents.

1. It is my understanding that there has always been a rule about no commercial use. If it wasn't in the directory, then it is likely in the contract that you signed when you bought. Either way "Subject to change" has always been in play. So even if it was left out of one directory, it's in the current directory. It could be considered a "change" that they are allowed to make.

2. If I were Wyndham, I would have done everything I could to wipe out mega renting a long time ago. Setting aside the fact that you are profiting from my company, you are using my systems to make money, without my authorization. You own the points, but that reservation system you used to make the reservation for that renter is owned and maintained by Wyndham. You used their system to make money, without their permission. It would be like you using your work computer to run a side business. It's your business, but it's your employer's computer you're using to make money. In general, employers don't like that.

3. Wyndham did create the issue. I suspect they allowed renting for a while because old leadership felt allowing it benefited them in at least two ways. First, it was a good way to convince people to buy more points. "You can use the new points to pay for the loan payment and maintenance fees". I personally heard that sales pitch. Second, when the owner starts renting their timeshare to non-owners, it brings in new sales leads. This is just my suspicion. I have nothing to back it up with, but it makes sense to me. Just because they created the issue, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to stop it. They absolutely should put a stop to it, if they think it's getting in the way of the owner using their timeshare for their personal use and enjoyment.

4. I believe that every mega renter knew this was not going to last, so this should not be a surprise. What company would be ok with you profiting off of them, without a formal franchise agreement in place?

5. Why in the world would Wyndham define what they determine a mega renter is? Every time they make a change, someone finds a way around the change. Telling them what makes someone a mega renter will give them to information they need, to know how to fly under the radar. That would defeat the whole purpose of these changes.

6. Wyndham needs to come down hard on the salespeople who continue to tout that "we'll rent the points for you" sales pitch if they are still using it.


I hope Wyndham doesn't settle this lawsuit. If they are serious about stopping renting, they need to make an example out of someone. Who better than someone that is costing them legal fees.

Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year? My guess is 105,000. That could be wishful thinking though. I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed? I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.

Welcome back Richelle!

 

[Richelle]

I get what you are saying, I am just saying that because those prime weeks and locations were not on my to reserve list anyway, distributing their points makes it more likely I will see more competition for what I want to reserve. Also on the odd occasion I want to consider a prime place/time, I grab the reservation and hold on to it even if I think it is a long shot. I think we all do to some extent.

I have as well. Or we will book it far out and months later the plans fall through and we cancel. There will always be instances of inventory being held. The difference is, you intended on using it. Either for yourself or an actual friend or family member. Also, I don't typically hold more than a couple. Mega renters hold a lot more. I see what you're saying now, regarding more competition for the off-season, and it makes sense. I guess we will see what happens. Either way, there will always be people complaining they cannot get a three-bedroom two weeks from check-in.

 

[VacayKat]

I did my best to get through all 19 pages. I'll add my two cents.
[cut out majority of post to save space, see it above]
Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year? My guess is 105,000. That could be wishful thinking though. I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed? I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.

1- The contract asks you to initial that it is for personal use and not for offsetting MF. I don’t remember a highlight of no commercial (which doesn’t mean it isn’t there)

3- Our program fee specifically pays for the reservation system, so that’s a murky at best.

5- I’d say they should define commercial because as long as it stays ambiguous, if anyone receives any compensation of any sort for a reservation they make for another, it is realistic they should expect they are in violation of the commercial clause as it currently stands.

Guess on points? I would say 25% of your VIP points.

 

[Richelle]

1- The contract asks you to initial that it is for personal use and not for offsetting MF. I don’t remember a highlight of no commercial (which doesn’t mean it isn’t there)

3- Our program fee specifically pays for the reservation system, so that’s a murky at best.

5- I’d say they should define commercial because as long as it stays ambiguous, if anyone receives any compensation of any sort for a reservation they make for another, it is realistic they should expect they are in violation of the commercial clause as it currently stands.

Guess on points? I would say 25% of your VIP points.

1. I dug out my contract. It is there. In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.

3. Our program fee pays for the system and to maintain it, but Wyndham owns it. There is nothing in the trust documents that say the owners have ownership of that reservation system. There is nothing in the trust documents that says owners can use that reservation system to book rentals either.

5. That verbage would require Wyndham to prove that the owner got compensation for the reservation in order to enforce it. It is more efficient to say "If they use 100 GC a year, they might be a mega renter". Unfortunately, if you release that information, the mega renters will just make sure they stay below 99 reservations on all their accounts.

Edit: 25% would be very generous. I hope you're right!

Edit again: The red underline is me. I didn't get it like that. When you're asked to initial something, it's common sense to read what you are acknowledging. There should be no need to highlight anything.

 

[raygo123]

I’m not agreeing with the plan
But aren’t they also owners and entitled to the weeks or points they bought wether for person use or other?

What would the difference be if they owned 100 weeks worth or a 100 people each owned 1?

Again, not saying they’re right for doing this but they also own and have what looks like a pretty high investment and fees as well

I think or see the bigger problem being with Wyndham being able to flex their muscle and change usage and that they could do it to anyone

Wyndham would certainly sell I mean choose 100 owning one.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk

 

[VacayKat]

1. I dug out my contract. It is there. In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.

View attachment 38534

3. Our program fee pays for the system and to maintain it, but Wyndham owns it. There is nothing in the trust documents that say the owners have ownership of that reservation system. There is nothing in the trust documents that says owners can use that reservation system to book rentals either.

5. That verbage would require Wyndham to prove that the owner got compensation for the reservation in order to enforce it. It is more efficient to say "If they use 100 GC a year, they might be a mega renter". Unfortunately, if you release that information, the mega renters will just make sure they stay below 99 reservations on all their accounts.

Edit: 25% would be very generous. I hope you're right!

Edit again: The red underline is me. I didn't get it like that. When you're asked to initial something, it's common sense to read what you are acknowledging. There should be no need to highlight anything.

I guess what I was getting at is they could have definitions of terms and include commercial in there to clear it up. I personally do not think it is that unclear because when used in business contracts it is pretty well defined. Problem is most folks don’t read, write or research business contracts or law before signing contracts. All wyndham has to do is define it from a business contract verbiage point which would still allow them to have different internal markers they use to identify those they feel are violating it. Essentially if they define commercial as it is commonly used, then any owner should then know they can not receive compensation for a reservation they make (in other words it isn’t a trade/barter/sale situation or even just someone else covering the cost) without violating it. Those who do take the risk, those that don’t are safe. Where wyndham decides it bothers them is a completely different issue.

 

[Braindead]

1 mega renter books 10 rooms. Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else.
They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters.
Sometimes they will hold them for months.

After Ron, Scooter & Eric posts a couple days ago I’m going to contradict some of my post after rereading the Blackout Dates info on the website. I think the wording changed recently to match the first email. An owner can still make 10 reservations & rent 9 on the blackout dates as long as they keep 1 in an owners name. Here’s my conclusions:
Any owner-mega renter-points manager can still book 10 rooms.
They will still grab prime reservations.
They will still hold the reservations for months.
These changes will have little impact on rental activity.
Rental prices may increase a little to cover some additional costs but will still be a good value for the renter.

This is more like the big freeze than anything else.
Wyndham is forcing a few out of business.
The rule changes haven’t put anyone out of business.

Wyndham is 100% at fault!
Wyndham is the sole policeman of the trust & they’ve failed miserably over & over!!
Why did Wyndham let owners have several accounts with the end result of some owners having 50+ million points.
Why did Wyndham allow some owners to buy hundreds or thousands of GCs.
Kleppas & others have been on Wyndhams radar for over 10 years, what took them so long to act?

Lets hope under the “ New Wyndham” CEO Michael Brown Wyndham will go after the ones deemed a problem in a timely manner.
There’s nothing that I can see in writing where Wyndham states renting is not allowed.
Renting is allowed until Wyndham decides you’re a problem, then they selectively bring out the commercial clause.

If renting is absolutely not allowed:
Wyndham could send C&D letters to websites including TUG that owner rentals are not allowed & the rentals must be taken down. Why don’t they?

 

[learnalot]

1. I dug out my contract. It is there. In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.

View attachment 38534

Hi Richelle,
This language has definitely been in the contract for a number of years, but I'm not sure it has always been there - I think it was added to the standard contract language at some point. What was the year of this contract?

 

[Richelle]

After Ron, Scooter & Eric posts a couple days ago I’m going to contradict some of my post after rereading the Blackout Dates info on the website. I think the wording changed recently to match the first email. An owner can still make 10 reservations & rent 9 on the blackout dates as long as they keep 1 in an owners name. Here’s my conclusions:
Any owner-mega renter-points manager can still book 10 rooms.
They will still grab prime reservations.
They will still hold the reservations for months.
These changes will have little impact on rental activity.
Rental prices may increase a little to cover some additional costs but will still be a good value for the renter.

This is more like the big freeze than anything else.
Wyndham is forcing a few out of business.
The rule changes haven’t put anyone out of business.

Wyndham is 100% at fault!
Wyndham is the sole policeman of the trust & they’ve failed miserably over & over!!
Why did Wyndham let owners have several accounts with the end result of some owners having 50+ million points.
Why did Wyndham allow some owners to buy hundreds or thousands of GCs.
Kleppas & others have been on Wyndhams radar for over 10 years, what took them so long to act?

Lets hope under the “ New Wyndham” CEO Michael Brown Wyndham will go after the ones deemed a problem in a timely manner.
There’s nothing that I can see in writing where Wyndham states renting is not allowed.
Renting is allowed until Wyndham decides you’re a problem, then they selectively bring out the commercial clause.

If renting is absolutely not allowed:
Wyndham could send C&D letters to websites including TUG that owner rentals are not allowed & the rentals must be taken down. Why don’t they?

I’m not sure if you saw an earlier post of mine. Wyndham never said they were not ok with renting. In fact, I was told from a higher up not in sales that they are ok with the occasional rental. What they are not ok with, is the level of renting they deem as mega renting. So if you rent to a friend or family member, they don’t care. If you rent to a 100 strangers, then they have issues.

I cannot answer why they allowed people to amass so many contracts other then the reasons I listed for allowing renting. I’m sure there is more to it, but that’s all I got.

 

[Richelle]

Hi Richelle,
This language has definitely been in the contract for a number of years, but I'm not sure it has always been there - I think it was added to the standard contract language at some point. What was the year of this contract?

That was 2018. This one is 2008. So the clause has been in that contract for at least 13 years. If a mega renter bought any set of points in the past 13 years, they would have had to acknowledge that contract.

 

[Richelle]

I guess what I was getting at is they could have definitions of terms and include commercial in there to clear it up. I personally do not think it is that unclear because when used in business contracts it is pretty well defined. Problem is most folks don’t read, write or research business contracts or law before signing contracts. All wyndham has to do is define it from a business contract verbiage point which would still allow them to have different internal markers they use to identify those they feel are violating it. Essentially if they define commercial as it is commonly used, then any owner should then know they can not receive compensation for a reservation they make (in other words it isn’t a trade/barter/sale situation or even just someone else covering the cost) without violating it. Those who do take the risk, those that don’t are safe. Where wyndham decides it bothers them is a completely different issue.

So they are smart enough to start up a rental business, but not smart enough to know they need to read what they signed? I could buy they got caught up on the moment and maybe didn’t read it until later, but if they are running a business around their timeshare, they know exactly what was in their contract now. None of this is a surprise to them. They are just mad Wyndham stopped supplying the gravy train with gravy.