People need to READ their rental agreements! Some will try to get by with anything.

Our daughter rents some of our Wyndham and Sheraton points/ weeks, and she has noticed something recently that is quite annoying. I think it goes to personal responsibility, but you be the judge.

One woman stated by email that her son would be checking in one day earlier than she to a Wyndham resort (Atlantic City), and so our daughter, obliging the request, added his name to the reservation, as the mom requested. Turns out, he was 17!

Of course, Wyndham would not let him check in, even if it was only one day ahead of the adult. Our rental agreement states that the renter must be 21. Well, the woman argued she is 21 and is the renter because she paid. She said she deserved a refund because her son couldn't check in.

Our daughter realized, after nearly 9 years of renting to hundreds of people with this same contract, she needs to change the contract to say something about the person checking in had to be 21.

This happened once before, only about six months ago, when another young man rented a week somewhere from our daughter, I think Nashville, and he was not quite 21. He tried to check into the resort and was turned away. He called our daughter, angry that she didn't tell him the rule about being 21. She told him, "It's in the contract you signed and sent back to me." He wanted a refund and flatly refused to pay the guest fee again, so his brother could check into the resort for him. His brother would drive down because he was over 21.

After talking to the mother of the two men, who called to argue for a refund for her son, our daughter discovered the young man tried to rent directly from Wyndham and was told he had to be 21. So he thought renting from an owner would be the way around the rule.

The credit card company in both instances sided with our daughter and her contract.

Thanks again to Timeshare Von for her great contract, by the way, which is posted on TUG in the Advice Section. It's now been altered a few times for people who would try to find a way around the wording. Geesh!

rickandcindy23 said:

... it goes to personal responsibility.... Geesh!

Click to expand...

Cindy,

What is funny is I bet Mom still calls her 17 year old, "her baby".

Yes, Linda, in both cases "Mom" was offended her son was treated so badly by our daughter

This is two very recent incidents we have had with under-aged people trying to check into resorts. What in the world is going on?

The contract now states the renter and the person checking in must be over 21. Already we have changed the contract numerous times, including the changes to our contract when Wyndham decided to charge $99 for guest certificates. Changing a guest name requires another fee.

Hi Cindy,

Honestly, I think the renter in your first case may have a legitimate beef. I know it may sound like common sense that a 17 yo would not be able to check in, however I can see the renter's point of view with the contract saying nothing about minimum age to check in, only that the "renter" needed to be 21. And given that her son was added to the reservation after communication w/ your daughter, it seems reasonable that the renter assumed their son could check in.

Obviously a miscommunication issue, but I think your daughter should shoulder some of the blame for not asking / confirming people being added to the reservation also meet the minimum age for check in. I wouldn't put 100% of the blame on the renter in this case.

If it were me, I might consider offering the renter a refund of one day's worth of the rental, and chalk up the expense to experience gained (resulting in a stronger rental agreement now).

Just my thoughts,
Kurt

I don't use a rental agreement. There are far too many possibilities to try and foresee everything and everything that might come up

I put a few notes on my invoice and I provide my guests with a copy of their Wyndham confirmation

FYI the age requirement on the confirmation clearly states the owner or guest checking in has to be 21

Well, Kurt, you are right about that, and exactly the reason she added to the contract the phrase, "The person checking in must be 21."

She did refund the one night's stay, but the credit card company did side with her, when the woman wanted the full refund.

I would never assume a kid of 17 to check into a resort or hotel, but that's just me. I consider a 17-year-old too young to travel alone to a place like Atlantic City.

I find it odd/ interesting these two incidents were recent occurrences, something that never came up in the past. It's just so weird! The timeshare contract of Von's is so incredibly detailed, it's amazing someone could find a flaw like that and play, gottcha! with the lack of the words, "The person checking in must be 21."

FYI the age requirement on the confirmation clearly states the owner or guest checking in has to be 21

Click to expand...

That is true, Ron. You would think that would be enough reason not to send a 17-year-old to check into the resort!

rickandcindy23 said:

I would never assume a kid of 17 to check into a resort or hotel, but that's just me. I consider a 17-year-old too young to travel alone to a place like Atlantic City.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I am constantly amazed at how many things I think are "common sense" are not to so many people. I'm glad the CC company sided with you; demanding a full refund is just crazy in that case!

Kurt

Instances like this are why I never bother to read the online site called Rip-Off Report. There are to many people who can't read road signs let alone a rental contract and, those that can, many think the rules just don't apply to them.

The era of affluenza...

dougp26364 said:

many think the rules just don't apply to them.

Click to expand...

every admin and moderator on the site will agree with this one =)

---Deleted---

sptung said:

The era of affluenza...

Click to expand...

Perhaps presenting with symptoms of "entitled-itis" as well?

You really think offering to change the guest name into someone that is over 21 so they can check in someone who is under 2, that is already annoyed with the owner/possibly front desk staff is a good idea?

Where does your daughter advertise?

My hope is other then common sense that my prices are high enough where people under 21 would look to stay somewhere else. With anyone my hope is similar in that sine they paid a lot of money for the week they look after the place. This strategy leaves me with unrented rooms but I do not want the risk of renting them too cheap and the renter damages the place.

am1 said:

You really think offering to change the guest name into someone that is over 21 so they can check in someone who is under 2, that is...

Click to expand...

I'm in the minority here, but IMHO, the minimum age should be 18 -- the age at which youths are considered emancipated in most jurisdictions, held liable for contracts they sign and are not owed support by their parents.

But allowing a person to check-in for someone else (whatever the age), when neither of them were a party to the contract, could be a problem. I'd require that the person checking in be a person named in the contract.
.

A sister's in-laws owns a beachfront condo in Ocean City. She gets the task of handling the summer rental market but she and the other family members ONLY get to use the last weeks of June every year. WHY? It is called "Senior Week" ... and graduating high school seniors flood the shore towns for those weeks. The number of hotel rooms, condos and houses which are trashed, destroyed, or pigged out is unbelievable ... My friend has been bald faced lied to by very good friends, grandparents, neighbors, church members, etc ... but the family's rule is "NEVER" rent those weeks. Sitting empty is far cheaper than losing the entire summer rental season plus the time & effort to repair.

Any those are the ONLY summer weeks the family uses .... unless someone cancels a reservation and it is not rented ... the family gets to use it.

Talent312 said:

<snip> ...allowing a person to check-in for someone else (whatever the age), when neither of them were a party to the contract, could be a problem. I'd require that the person checking in be a person named in the contract.

Click to expand...

On the very rare occasions that we (reluctantly) conduct a rental of an owned week, my rental contract very clearly specifies that, among other things:

a). the person(s) signing the contract affirm(s) that they are 25 years of age or older, and that said person(s) understand, acknowledge and agree by signing this contract that proof of age may be required by resort personnel at check-in if age is questionable --- and that occupancy will be denied if not in compliance with the specified age requirement. (The resort's own "in house" policy is actually a lower minimum age of 21);

b). only the person(s) who has executed (signed) the contract is authorized to check-into the identified unit for the date / time frame precisely identified within the contract, whether checking-in alone or checking-in accompanied by others;

c). families are certainly welcome, but unit occupancy limits are very clearly identified within this contract and are strictly enforced by on-site resort management. Number of occupants are determined by "head count", regardless of the ages of individual occupant(s); a roundabout way of pointing out in advance that infants and toddlers do indeed still "count" toward applicable occupancy limits. Violation of occupancy limits will result in on-site management requiring the violating occupants to promptly vacate the unit / property;

d). the credit card damage deposit authorization required (by the resort, not by me) at check-in must be via a credit card in the same name as the person(s) who signed the contract and subsequently identified to the resort (by me, the owner) as the renter(s) authorized to occupy the unit for the date / time period specified;

e). No refunds if the pre-paid rental is cancelled by the renter for any reason. Trip cancellation / travel insurance is overtly and strongly recommended in the contract.

Overkill? Maybe. Age discrimination? Perhaps --- so sue me (...or just find a different rental). Most of our weeks are high demand FL "Snowbird" weeks, several of which overlap with college "Spring Break" periods and I have personally witnessed far too much property damage and other irresponsible behavior over the years by the "Spring Breakers". Not with my help or collusion; I respect and am considerate of my fellow owners, who do not need or want weeks of drunken noise and / or other bad behavior involuntarily foisted upon them all hours of the day and night at their resort by partying "students". My minimum renter age of 25 has (so far, anyhow) effectively discouraged and eliminated the college crowd as prospective tenants. Consequently, we haven't had a renter problem yet (knocking on wood) in 30+ years.

There will always be those who try to outsmart or tweak the rules to meet their needs.

In 16 years I have not had this occur, but pretty much anything and everything else has.....

I rent condos to students in Panama City during March and then again in June. I take a cash deposit of $500 plus a cc hold of $150. I have a responsible adult who I have spoken to sign the agreement and my staff does two random "well checks" during the week. I have had adults do more damage than the kids over the years.

I am glad to hear that the cc company actually backed the OP instead of the guest, because that is something that does not always happen.

Cindy

theo said:

On the very rare occasions that we (reluctantly) conduct a rental of an owned week,

Click to expand...

Are you renting out weeks you don't own instead?

dioxide45 said:

Are you renting out weeks you don't own instead?

Click to expand...

Good one --- carelessly imprecise wording on my part.

Then again, there are people who do rent out weeks they don't own (i.e., weeks obtained via exchange with II or RCI and then rented out to someone else, in clear and obvious violation of the terms and conditions of membership of both of those two exchange companies). We no longer even belong to any exchange companies at all.