NO PAY on unit rented via LMR ... by a regular TUG Guest/Broker

theo said:

I certainly have "no dog in this fight", but it is nonetheless my personal hope that Cindy Townsend of NTHC will, as a good faith gesture, make good on her previously and openly stated offer to compensate Linda $800; money lost as a direct result of Rachael Arrington's improper (and seemingly larcenous) activity while apparently representing herself (even if falsely) as being associated with NTHC. Ms. Townsend has undertaken efforts to notify others of this "misunderstanding", going forward.

Click to expand...

It's definitely a nice thing to do, especially if NTHC didn't take the proper security measures when firing a dishonest employee. It makes me wonder, though, if someone wanted to rent a week a said, "I need to book a week for Presley. She will send you a check," and I would know nothing about the situation, would I be expected to pay for it? It doesn't really make sense to me if a third party who knew nothing about a transaction would be expected to pay for fraud that she didn't commit.

Linda was completely taken advantage of, but I think she needs to go after the person who she had the agreement with. If I trusted a Tugger to pay and they didn't pay, I wouldn't go after a third party.

Jennie said:

I have been a TUG member for many years.

Linda is obviously upset about what has happened. Here are a few things that I learned about the situation during a phone conversation with this evening.

Linda owns a lot of weeks and Points in the Wyndham Resorts Programs.
My family, friends, and I have rented many weeks from her through the years and have always been extremely satisfied .

A family from Canada contacted Linda and she agreed to rent ONE week to them at a Florida a timeshare. At the end of the week, the family went down to the Front Desk and asked the staff member when their unit would be ready, and does he know which unit they would be moving to next week.

The agent checked the computer but could find no indication that there were confirmations for them for the next two weeks. So he called Linda, who owns many weeks there, thinking that it must be some computer glitch.

But Linda said that she had no reservations for them beyond the one week they had just completed. She then asked them how they had obtained the next two weeks reservations and they named Rachael Arrington as the agent who had charged them about $5,000 for the alleged reservation.

For many years Rachael had worked (as an agent, I think) for the National Timeshare Help Center. Many TUG members, including myself, have done business with them and they are well respected.

Click to expand...

Probably lost in translation, but now I'm more confused. Canadians rented directly from Linda? I thought they rented from Rachel who then rented Linda's week to give them.

vacationhopeful said:

The only clarification on TUGBrian's post is ... I agree to rent one 7 night stay I had on the LMR thread to "Rachael" ... guests checked in and on the morning of checking out of my unit, the guests ASKED the front desk supervisor as to which unit they were moving to for their NEXT 7 nights. The corporate computer system had "link" my reservation for the first stay to the 2nd reservation stay for these guests ... but was NOT my reservation. Confusion abound in FL but the resort's employee CALLED me directly at my home and ASKED about the guest's continuing stay ... having ONLY a single night stay "link" on the computer (that night) .. nothing else.

I never communicated with the guests ... these were Rachael's guests ... they had paid $6000 (not sure if CA or USD) to Rachael ... used my week, used someone else's 1 night booking ... then the RESORT gifted 2 additional nights (FREE) to the HOMELESS/abandon/ripped off family from another country (Canada) ... to try to resolve and/or investigate this issue. The POLICE were involved/called according to 2nd hand info ... but I was NOT contacted by the police.

It was supposed to be a 4 week stay ... the guests were provided lodging for ONLY 8 nights by the vendor they PAID their money to; the resort extended it for 2 additional nights.

Click to expand...

davidvel said:

Probably lost in translation, but now I'm more confused. Canadians rented directly from Linda? I thought they rented from Rachel who then rented Linda's week to give them.

Click to expand...

See Linda's post above. Jennie's translation that you are referring to is obviously wrong.

I appreciate the time that Linda took to warn fellow TUG members about Rachel. Linda appears to also want compensation from NTHC because of the previous working relationship Rachel had with the NTHC. I guess the discussion now is should NTHC be obligated to pay Linda, because of Rachel's fraud? I'd say no, since Rachel was no longer employed with NTHC. But for good public relations, it appears NTHC has agreed to do so. Kudos to NTHC!

I think that should put an end to this discussion, no? Or is there something else that I'm missing?

JudyS said:

As some long-time Tuggers may recall, a number of years back I rented out a week for $1200. The renter paid me via PayPal. After my renter checked in, PayPal information me the renter had used a stolen credit card, and billed my account $1200. Paypal was completely unhelpful in doing anything to help me get my money, and I had to eat the $1200 loss.

I think PayPal is reasonably safe, but if anything goes wrong, PayPal does not have the seller's back.

The time I got stiffed, the name on the PayPal account did not match the name on the reservation. When I agreed to rent the week, I wasn't worried about the difference in names, because there are plenty of reasons why one person might contact me, and a different person's Paypal account might be used for payment. After I got stiffed, though, I decided it was very risky to rent in any situation where the last name on the payment doesn't match the name on the reservation. I generally will ask for extra ID if the check-in name is say, Sarah Smith, and payment is made in the name of, say, Jill Jones.

I actually think a personal check drawn on a US bank is safer than PayPal. Knowingly writing a bad check is a crime, and it is much easier to trace a bad check than a stolen credit card.


I'm not sure how payment was made in this case. Did someone say the renters wired money to pay for their reservation? Wiring money is very unsafe.

Click to expand...

There are two ways to use paypal. One is sending an invoice to be paid which can be paid using a cc. The other is for a person to initiate the transaction by sending someone money. Those funds must come out of a bank account.

Sending the money incurs no paypal fee and there is no way to phony a claim and no way to get the money back.

I recently had a lady invoice me for a Bluegreen rental I was getting from here and paypal took some out. When she informed me of this we looked into the rules and sure enough, even between friends, if you invoice there is a fee.

I sent her the balance of what I owed her, a few dollars, and it was from my bank account, no paypal fees.

This is how I will do rental in the future so the person renting to me does not have to worry that I'll scam them later.

ace2000 said:

I appreciate the time that Linda took to warn fellow TUG members about Rachel. Linda appears to also want compensation from NTHC because of the previous working relationship Rachel had with the NTHC. I guess the discussion now is should NTHC be obligated to pay Linda, because of Rachel's fraud? I'd say no, since Rachel was no longer employed with NTHC. But for good public relations, it appears NTHC has agreed to do so. Kudos to NTHC!

I think that should put an end to this discussion, no? Or is there something else that I'm missing?

Click to expand...

I agree, kudos to NTHC for stepping up here, participating in the thread to clear up some of the confusion, and offering to compensate Linda despite them not being at fault. I wonder, though, if the Canadiens happen to see this are they going to also expect NTHC to compensate them?

SueDonJ said:

I agree, kudos to NTHC for stepping up here, participating in the thread to clear up some of the confusion, and offering to compensate Linda despite them not being at fault. I wonder, though, if the Canadiens happen to see this are they going to also expect NTHC to compensate them?

Click to expand...

Good question.

It seems that Linda has deleted her last post clarifying some of the statements.

ace2000 said:

See Linda's post above. Jennie's translation that you are referring to is obviously wrong.

Click to expand...

Obviously wrong? I guess that's possible.

If Jennie got it wrong she sure got a lot wrong, and put it in a post soon after talking to her:

Jennie said:

[...] Here are a few things that I learned about the situation during a phone conversation with this evening.

[...]

A family from Canada contacted Linda and she agreed to rent ONE week to them at a Florida a timeshare. At the end of the week, the family went down to the Front Desk and asked the staff member when their unit would be ready, and does he know which unit they would be moving to next week.

The agent checked the computer but could find no indication that there were confirmations for them for the next two weeks. So he called Linda, who owns many weeks there, thinking that it must be some computer glitch.

But Linda said that she had no reservations for them beyond the one week they had just completed. She then asked them how they had obtained the next two weeks reservations and they named Rachael Arrington as the agent who had charged them about $5,000 for the alleged reservation.
[...]

Click to expand...

I agree, this conflicts with what Linda posted here.

ANd remember,

ace2000 said:

I think that should put an end to this discussion, no? Or is there something else that I'm missing?

Click to expand...

Remember, TUGGERS never end the discussion until: !

davidvel said:

Remember, TUGGERS never end the discussion until:

!

Click to expand...

Sometimes, Tuggers even talk about [deleted].

This is probably the last time I choose or want to weigh in on this particular matter, but perhaps a few points warrant some repetition and clarification, having already been provided directly by Cindy Townsend herself (Cindy is the principal in NTHC; see post #46 in this thread for direct reference). This is (hopefully a completely accurate) summation of facts and input from the actual participants, with some personal observations and opinions thrown in for good measure, as is my prerogative:

1. The unfortunate Canadians may very well never have even heard of NTHC at all in the first place, having apparently conducted their transaction directly with Rachael Arrington, dba Vacation Time Bargains (the latter name appearing on the last 3 out of 4 total weeks in this matter at Palm Aire). Accordingly, why on earth would the robbed Canadians seek or expect any compensation from NTHC, of which they have likely never heard in the first place, even now? That makes no sense.
Their "beef" is clearly (and solely) directly with Rachael Arrington, dba Vacation Time Bargains, to whom they reportedly paid about $6k CDN around October, 2015.

2. Week 1 of the (4 total) was seemingly reserved (separately, by Linda --- at Rachael Arrington's initiative or request?), without any payment being provided to Linda, who was evidently of the (later revealed to be mistaken) belief that Rachael Arrington was still directly affiliated with and operating under the aegis of NTHC, with which Linda has conducted previous successful transactions in several prior, consecutive years, all while Rachael Arrington was indeed still actually an employee of NTHC.

Is NTHC legally obligated to compensate Linda (or the robbed Canadians)? No, clearly not. However, Cindy Townsend has overtly offered to at least make Linda whole, to Cindy's credit and as a admirable good faith gesture, being well aware that Linda only made that reservation (without payment) based upon her prior transactions with NTHC, a measure of trust in NTHC as a result of those prior transactions, and the (unfortunately mistaken) belief that this was another legitimate NTHC transaction.

Jurisdiction wise (for legal action and / or service of process), it's a bit of a mess. The resort at issue is in FL, some of the larceny victims somewhere in Canada, Rachael Arrington is in GA, Cindy Townsend is in VA, Linda is in PA or NJ. Would litigation be cost effective? That's not my call to make, but color me dubious.

I'll just repeat in closing my own hope that Rachael Arrington is ultimately held accountable in a criminal proceeding somewhere for what is clearly larcenous activity, knowingly and willfully conducted (multiple times), resulting in financial harm to a number of people and maybe some damage to the reputation of her former employer.

90 degree turn

davidvel said:

ANd remember,

Remember, TUGGERS never end the discussion until:

!

Click to expand...

T_R_Oglodyte said:

Sometimes, Tuggers even talk about [deleted].

Click to expand...

Ha, a little levity to this thread. The "Seinfeld threads" threads about nothing, are the most enjoyable part of TUG.

That and completely taking a thread off topic

theo said:

Jurisdiction wise (for legal action and / or service of process), it's a bit of a mess. The resort at issue is in FL, some of the larceny victims somewhere in Canada, Rachael Arrington is in GA, Cindy Townsend is in VA, Linda is in PA or NJ. Cost effective litigation? Not my call to make, but just color me dubious.

I'll just repeat my hope in closing that Rachael Arrington is ultimately held accountable in a criminal proceeding somewhere for what is clearly larcenous activity, knowingly and willfully conducted (multiple times), resulting in financial harm to a number of people and maybe some damage to the reputation of her former employer.

Click to expand...

The Canadian travelers paid with Paypal and will hopefully be able to dispute the transaction through them. They don't really need to go after Rachael if Paypal has as good of buyer protection as people claim.

The real downside to NTHC paying Linda is that NTHC has no legal basis at all for going after Rachael. I am sure she is aware of that and is probably just going to count it as a loss in order to keep her company's good name. Rachael won't be gone after by Linda, as Linda will be paid and won't have any motivation to go after Rachael. If the whole transaction occurred on the internet, I hope Linda at least files a complaint on ic3.gov for internet crimes. It may not bite Rachael in the butt this time, but that report will be there for the rest of her life.

If it were me and I didn't have a contract, I'd just accept the loss as bad business. If I had a contract, I'd file a police report locally, fill out an ic3.gov report and maybe file a small claims suit. I wouldn't ask a former employer to pay. That's just me and how I roll.

theo said:

Jurisdiction wise (for legal action and / or service of process), it's a bit of a mess. The resort at issue is in FL, some of the larceny victims somewhere in Canada, Rachael Arrington is in GA, Cindy Townsend is in VA, Linda is in PA or.

Click to expand...

Same Racheal Arrington?

http://www.wfxg.com/story/17470879/...or-underage-drinking-to-face-magistrate-judge

presley said:

The Canadian travelers paid with Paypal and will hopefully be able to dispute the transaction through them. They don't really need to go after Rachael if Paypal has as good of buyer protection as people claim.

The real downside to NTHC paying Linda is that NTHC has no legal basis at all for going after Rachael. I am sure she is aware of that and is probably just going to count it as a loss in order to keep her company's good name. Rachael won't be gone after by Linda, as Linda will be paid and won't have any motivation to go after Rachael. If the whole transaction occurred on the internet, I hope Linda at least files a complaint on ic3.gov for internet crimes. It may not bite Rachael in the butt this time, but that report will be there for the rest of her life.

If it were me and I didn't have a contract, I'd just accept the loss as bad business. If I had a contract, I'd file a police report locally, fill out an ic3.gov report and maybe file a small claims suit. I wouldn't ask a former employer to pay. That's just me and how I roll.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. NTHC has been victimized at least as much as Linda has although I think more so, and by both Rachael and Linda.

Linda's first post in this thread was definitely a Public Service Announcement to warn others about Rachael, as many here have said. But I don't think it was limited to only that. In Linda's own words: "So ... think I am happy? I look at the LMR/LMW and see multiple posts by the "Other Half" offering or asking for rentals. The person who took my week .. their id is "void" ... deactivated ... after sending a PM to TUGBrian.

Yes, I did rat you out to TUGBrian .. both of you.

... think I should just sweep this $800 under the rug?"

So Linda's getting what she aimed for when she posted, but to me it seems the wrong person is paying for it. I'm glad Cindy made her way to the thread and has been able to add her own version of events, IMO clearing her of any wrongdoing and solidifying her professionalism.

T_R_Oglodyte said:

Same Racheal Arrington?

http://www.wfxg.com/story/17470879/...or-underage-drinking-to-face-magistrate-judge

Click to expand...

Now that's classic. The story is from Georgia...

eh, in the OP's defense...I specifically urged her to post her story here as a warning to others.


at this point its becoming more of a he said, she said, the rest of the group said...so I see no reason to continue on there.

The sole purpose of the post (in my eyes) was to warn folks who may regularly contact said person, and for regular renters to heed a bit more caution in their "trustworthyness" in order to avoid the seemingly endless supply of a$$holes in this industry who want to part you from your money.

csxjohn said:

There are two ways to use paypal. One is sending an invoice to be paid which can be paid using a cc. The other is for a person to initiate the transaction by sending someone money. Those funds must come out of a bank account.

Sending the money incurs no paypal fee and there is no way to phony a claim and no way to get the money back.

I recently had a lady invoice me for a Bluegreen rental I was getting from here and paypal took some out. When she informed me of this we looked into the rules and sure enough, even between friends, if you invoice there is a fee.

I sent her the balance of what I owed her, a few dollars, and it was from my bank account, no paypal fees.

This is how I will do rental in the future so the person renting to me does not have to worry that I'll scam them later.

Click to expand...

You can still send money to family and friends using a credit card. Those funds on transactions initiated by the sender do not have to come out of a bank account. There is a fee to send money to Family and Friends using a credit card, that fee iss paid by the sender instead.

Grand larceny and wire fraud are criminal activities --- not just "nothing"...

BevL said:

<snip>...threads about nothing, are the most enjoyable part of TUG.

Click to expand...

A family of your fellow Canadians is out $6k and was deprived of resort occupancy for 3 out the 4 total weeks for which they had pre-paid, in full, months in advance.
A long standing TUG member is (at least for now) also out $800, thanks to the same thieving parasite. I respectfully submit this is not at all "about nothing".

dioxide45 said:

You can still send money to family and friends using a credit card. Those funds on transactions initiated by the sender do not have to come out of a bank account. There is a fee to send money to Family and Friends using a credit card, that fee iss paid by the sender instead.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right, I think I was trying to say if you want to send the money with no paypal charge, it must me from a bank account.

T_R_Oglodyte said:

Same Racheal Arrington?

http://www.wfxg.com/story/17470879/...or-underage-drinking-to-face-magistrate-judge

Click to expand...

Quite possible given this...

theo said:

Jurisdiction wise (for legal action and / or service of process), it's a bit of a mess. The resort at issue is in FL, some of the larceny victims somewhere in Canada, Rachael Arrington is in GA, Cindy Townsend is in VA, Linda is in PA or NJ. Would litigation be cost effective? That's not my call to make, but color me dubious.

Click to expand...

When did all this happen?
Where are the Canadians now?
Do they have a place to stay without paying out of pocket again?

thinze3 said:

When did all this happen?
Where are the Canadians now?
Do they have a place to stay without paying out of pocket again?

Click to expand...

In the posts above, it says this happened 30 days ago, and they went home.

DeniseM said:

I don't think this has anything to do with the LMR Forum, except both Rachela and Linda post there.

Let's say I have a post on the LMR Forum for XYZ resort for $700, and a poster contacts me and says, can you get me a reservations at XYZ resort for tomorrow? (different date than my Ad.)

That is completely outside the Ad on the LMR Forum, and I have to obligation to offer the same price.

*I have also rented to long time Tuggers who I trusted because of their long-time tenure here with no more documentation than an email. It is not rare at all. Obviously, you don't do that with a stranger.

Recently, a long time Tugger sent me a PM and asked me if my Scotland TS was available. I made the reservation and rented it to her on the basis of her reputation here on TUG. She trusts me and I trust her.

Click to expand...

yes, and Linda rented to me at the last minute (and I very seldom rent) and wanted a check to avoid paypal charges, and TRUSTED that I would actually mail the check. this is what Linda probably did with a person who has an active rental business and with whom she had done business before

DeniseM said:

In the posts above, it says this happened 30 days ago, and they went home.

Click to expand...

...deprived of three out of four weeks of occupancy for which they had pre-paid, in full, several months in advance. Shameful, by any measure or standard. :annoyed: