So we are not allowed to rent out the week we own?

I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:

"I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."

When did this happen?
Are my renters going to be asked if they rented this from me?
Has anyone had a problem with this?

I saw that too. It does specifically speak to SVN reservations even though it appear for home week reservations as well. Since the unit I was renting is a home reservation (and not even a part of SVN) I ignored it.

It looks like this may be another step toward tightening up on rentals of SO rentals.

I see this as a CYA move by Starwood to appease owners who complain about other owners renting their timeshare.

They will not ask your guest any questions, nor do they care if you rent your timeshare.

If it bothers you, don't use that form to request the confirmation - you won't hear the statement if you call, or use online chat.

Iwant2gonow said:

.
"I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."....

Click to expand...

I get that same message when I change a guest name online, and I don't even belong to the Starwood Vacation Network! I just have fixed/floating weeks.

DeniseM said:

to appease owners who complain about other owners renting their timeshare.

Click to expand...

MYOB to those complainers IMHO.

DeniseM said:

They will not ask your guest any questions, nor do they care if you rent your timeshare.

If it bothers you, don't use that form to request the confirmation - you won't hear the statement if you call, or use online chat.

Click to expand...

How can you be so sure? We've all been asked questions that aren't necessarily appropriate. You might want to CYA by making more general statements such as "They usually won't..."

torontobuyer said:

MYOB to those complainers IMHO.

How can you be so sure? We've all been asked questions that aren't necessarily appropriate. You might want to CYA by making more general statements such as "They usually won't..."

Click to expand...

I do many, many rentals - I'm sure. The resorts do not care if a guest is a renter, or the guest of an owner.

Remember - renters are fresh meat for sales presentations...

I purchased in 1998 and remember being verbally told I could rent my week, also being told about their rental program if as owners we wanted them to rent our week and they would receive some of the proceeds. I have not looked to see if my paperwork has this is writing. Having purchased before Starwood I am not even sure which bylaws affect me. I would think new bylaws instead of outdated paperwork especially since Starwood changes the rules as they see fit.

I think the main issue with renting SVN weeks, as opposed to the weeks you actually own, is that it is an abuse of the system to ren otut an exchange into a resort with much higher maintenance fees and cost than the one you own.

It is unfair for someone from say a Florida resort, that can be acquired for $0, to exchange into a July WKORV week and reduce availability for owners that actually own there and pay the associated maintenance fees. The intent is to prevent people from making a profit by buying at cheap locations and taking away units from owners at more expensive places. Owners at these expensive resorts are rightfully mad when this happens. SVO is trying to reduce this.

Iwant2gonow said:

I just went to MyStarCentral to change the name on my reservation and besides asking if I would be present on my reserved week and if the person's was arriving before me it stated this:

"I acknowledge that the reservation is for personal use and not for rental or commercial purposes. In accordance with the Starwood Vacation Network Membership terms and conditions, rental of SVN reservations is prohibited. Violations of the SVEC Rules and Regulations may result in the suspension of an owner's right to reserve within SVN until compliant."

When did this happen?
Are my renters going to be asked if they rented this from me?
Has anyone had a problem with this?

Click to expand...

Simple...
You are allowed to rent the VOIs that you own.
You are not suppose to rent SVN exchanges that were obtained using SOs.
This is according to SVO/SVN rules that every Owner agrees to when purchasing a SVO VOI (see your Owners' Manual/CCRs).

Certain people railing against this SVO/SVN rule have another motive ($$$), but in reality they are shutting out those who want to legitimately use their SOs to exchange into WKORV/N and HRA by grabbing weeks for no other reason other than to profit.

The origin and history of this topic has been previously been discussed on this forum. But, I suspect it will be tangentially spun to distract from the real issue.

To my knowledge, I am the only one who has contacted SVO/SVN about this topic, and that was to clarify SVO/SVN's position when Tugger Glorian posted the SVO/SVN rule against renting non-HomeResort SOs. This contact was a couple of years ago, and documented in this forum. Their response was that they were aware, and we're discussing it internally. Apparently, SVO/SVN approach is to remind Owners about the rule of not renting out SVN reservations (non-HomeResort)

David - please address this: this message comes up on home resort reservations too. What do you make of that?

emuyshondt said:

I think the main issue with renting SVN weeks, as opposed to the weeks you actually own, is that it is an abuse of the system to ren otut an exchange into a resort with much higher maintenance fees and cost than the one you own.

It is unfair for someone from say a Florida resort, that can be acquired for $0, to exchange into a July WKORV week and reduce availability for owners that actually own there and pay the associated maintenance fees. The intent is to prevent people from making a profit by buying at cheap locations and taking away units from owners at more expensive places. Owners at these expensive resorts are rightfully mad when this happens. SVO is trying to reduce this.

Click to expand...

Exactly - we met a couple last year at WKORV that were bragging how they owned multiple weeks at SVV (like 12), and used them to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them out.

This topic came up on this forum a while ago, because it was openly suggested that people use their SOs to reserve WKORV/N and then rent them. However, when this approach was brought up in regards to II exchanges they were immediately told that this was not allowed. Guess what? It is also not allowed for SVN exchanges, but for some reason (aka $$$) continues to be recommended.

DeniseM said:

David - please address this: this message comes up on home resort reservations too. What do you make of that?

Click to expand...

I do not need to - it is obvious.

I rent my VOIs legitimately. I only contacted SVO/SVN about this a couple of years ago to get clarification. Do you want me to contact Suzanne again and ask why they include this for all reservations? I think you already know the answer.

Let the tangents begin...

DavidnRobin said:

I do not need to - it is obvious.

I rent my VOIs legitimately. I only contacted SVO/SVN about this a couple of years ago to get clarification. Do you want me to contact Suzanne again and ask why they include this for all reservations? I think you already know the answer.

Let the tangents begin...

Click to expand...

It isn't obvious to me at all - please explain it to me.

I will contact SVO/SVN and ask them if you wish.

My speculation is that it is easier for them to remind Owners of this rule for all reservations.
Personally, I have no skin in this game as I use my HomeResort weeks, and rent out my other VOIs (legitimately) even though it would be easy to use my WKV to reserve and rent WKORV/N for even more profit. In fact, I just reserved my WKV weeks for 2016 last night on-line, and will be renting these out if you know anyone interested...

Home resort owners have up to a year to book their units and SO users only have up to 8 months? So, how does this rule affect home resort owners?

If anything else this rule should anger other SO exchangers since it increases competition for highly sought resort weeks.

Sicnarf said:

Home resort owners have up to a year to book their units and SO users only have up to 8 months? So, how does this rule affect home resort owners?

If anything else this rule should anger other SO exchangers since it increases competition for highly sought resort weeks.

Click to expand...

^^^^ this ^^^^
It does not affect HomeResort Owners - it is all about some people taking SO SVN reservations for their own profit. Some even have it as a side business.

DavidnRobin said:

I will contact SVO/SVN and ask them if you wish.

My speculation is that it is easier for them to remind Owners of this rule for all reservations.

Click to expand...

So, you are saying that you know they won't enforce it on home resort reservations, so you are just ignoring the statement?

DeniseM said:

David - please address this: this message comes up on home resort reservations too. What do you make of that?

Click to expand...

Not David, but I would guess they chose to not do the needed programming to differentiate between the different types of reservations. It was just easier to put the statement in for all reservation types.

The only gray area in my mind is if you rent out your home resort with a reservation made less than 8 mos. out. Technically, it is an SVN reservation, but there was some language that indicated that it was allowable.

Glorian

Here on TUG, it is considered very wrong to break RCI/II rules by renting out an exchange week. Yet, it is apparently considered OK to break SVN rules by renting out a week obtained with StarOptions through SVN's internal exchange. Why the difference? Both involve breaking stated rules, both involve "trading up" using an exchange system and then renting out the exchange one has obtained, thus reducing availability for owners who want to follow the rules and book for their own use.

It also seems to me that some of the people who frequently speak out against renting RCI/II exchanges also speak out in favor of renting SVN exchanges. Why is that?

I don't "have a dog in this fight" because I don't rent out RCI/II exchanges and I don't even own any StarOptions. But, I am confused about the inconsistency here.

This is my take on it:

This rule has always been on the books since day one (15+ years?) and it's never been enforced.

Why? Because Starwood does what benefits Starwood - it does not benefit them to enforce this rule - in fact, it would open a huge can of worms.

1) Do you know what we call people who own a lot of Staroptions? "Elite Owners"

The same people who paid Starwood BIG BUCK$ to buy many timeshares, and were told by every sales person on the planet, that they could make Staroption reservations at the top resorts and rent them to cover their maintenance fees.

The Elite Owners are Starwood's biggest fans, and the core of their client base. Do you really think that after 15+ years, Starwood is going to throw them under the bus, at no benefit to Starwood?

Ain't happening…..

2) Do you know what we call people who have enough money to rent a Starwood timeshare for $3,000- $5,000?

Prime potential buyers who are already AT the resort

Starwood loves these folks - are they really going to do something to forever turn a well-heeled renter against Starwood. NO! They want these people to go to a sales presentation and buy-buy-buy!

Ain't happening...

Judy - This is the difference:

II has a rule that we know that they enforce, and renting an exchange is risky to both the owner and the renter.

Starwood does not care - in fact they promote it.

That is a huge difference.

*BTW - very seldom do people post that renting an exchange is "wrong," - usually they say that it has "risks" - different thing entirely.

I, too, contacted SVO/SVN regarding the rules a while ago, but was probably a bit grumpier than you were about it, David. I wanted to know, "Why have the rule against StarOption rentals if you don't enforce it?"

Why do StarOption rentals bother owners? As an owner in Maui and Harborside, I'm paying up to double the MF's that owners at other resorts pay. We love our resorts, and are very happy with our seasons/weeks/views. The problem comes when we can't use one of our weeks and I want to rent it out. I'm always competing with SVN StarOption exchangers when I choose to rent out one of my weeks. The standard advice on TUG (but it's no secret to others) is to use StarOptions to book a week at WKORV/WKORVN or HRA, and rent that week for far more than what you would get from renting your home resort. Those StarOption exchange rentals (which violate SVN rules) have a detrimental effect on my bottom line, due to supply and demand. If units went to SVN members who actually USED the weeks, I would have less competition in the rental market. The units would definitely not sit empty. SVN members would see many more units available if they weren't being gobbled up at the 8-month mark by a savvy group of owners who reserve solely to rent for profit.

Of course, it's obvious I'm first and foremost looking after my family's self interest, but assuredly that is what a StarOption exchange "landlord" is doing as well. They can make thousands of dollars of profit by renting just one exchange at "my" resorts, so I don't expect they'll willingly give up this cash cow and follow the existing (but up to now unenforced) rules.

BTW, I am amused to read that rules cannot be enforced because salespeople lied to Elite Owners? :hysterical::rofl:

BTW, I am amused to read that rules cannot be enforced because salespeople lied to Elite Owners?

Click to expand...

Hi Pam - of course the rules "can" be enforced, but that is my belief about why it's not being enforced, and why it doesn't benefit Starwood to do so.

What's your take on it?

My take is SVN could absolutely enforce the rule if it wants to, and may be moving in that direction with the addition of the rental restriction notice on reservations.

I think their concern might be more about owners who have set up rental businesses. There's a lot of talk in the industry about trying to shut down the mega owner-renters. That's more about leaving money on the table than anything else, though - they don't want competition. If I wanted to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps SVN wants to provide better availability for owners who started banking StarOptions for their dream vacations in Hawaii, St John, and Harborside. After all, isn't that the reason they're building out St John and Maui?

What would be Starwoods "motivation" to start enforcing the rule, after 15+ years?