On Megarenters - and why hasn't Worldmark fixed this...

[am1]

Maybe all the BoD needs to do is to publicize how people are using loopholes - which makes the loopholes themselves no longer loopholes - just part of the reservation process. LOL TOTAL SARCASM here... The one thing that really irked me was a post I read about someone offering to get people the reservations they wanted for a $100 charge. That's INSANE!!!! I have no doubt there are a LOT of Worldmark members who are paying that person to work the system for them. And the person is making $100 for doing about 10 minutes of work. It's crazy! When that sort of thing is happening, you know there is something broken in the system.

The $100 is not for the 10 minutes work. It is for the results. Some may not agree but it beats having point expired.

As a Wyndham owner I never did this as there was more profit renting the units.

 

[bbodb1]

You paid the club pass booking fee. That is the fee for a Wyndham to Worldmark exchange (or vice versa) it isn't the guest certificate fee and doesn't go to the club. It really doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

Thanks for clarifying that, Bizaro. I wasn't sure exactly how that fit in here but I am still learning the Worldmark system.

 

[chemteach]

The $100 is not for the 10 minutes work. It is for the results. Some may not agree but it beats having point expired.

As a Wyndham owner I never did this as there was more profit renting the units.

The point I was making is that people are making money off the Worldmark system without even needing to own Worldmark. There are people who know how to work the system, and there are people willing to pay $100 to have the system worked for them. The person working the system has figured out how to do it - and uses that knowledge to allow Worldmark owners to have an advantage on the 13 month rule. If the person charging $100 to do this performs 500 owner reservations a year, that's $50,000 a year tax free that they are earning off of a broken system with loopholes. I have no idea how many owners use this person's service, or even who this person is. I just know that this seems like a truly problematic reservation system. This person doesn't use their own account for the actual reservation - the people paying him/her get the reservation they want in their own account - and the only way Worldmark could track this would be to identify the internet ISP address used for the reservations, and find that they all come from the same ISP address.

 

[dioxide45]

that's $50,000 a year tax free

Technically not tax free, just another loophole...

 

[am1]

The point I was making is that people are making money off the Worldmark system without even needing to own Worldmark. There are people who know how to work the system, and there are people willing to pay $100 to have the system worked for them. The person working the system has figured out how to do it - and uses that knowledge to allow Worldmark owners to have an advantage on the 13 month rule. If the person charging $100 to do this performs 500 owner reservations a year, that's $50,000 a year tax free that they are earning off of a broken system with loopholes. I have no idea how many owners use this person's service, or even who this person is. I just know that this seems like a truly problematic reservation system. This person doesn't use their own account for the actual reservation - the people paying him/her get the reservation they want in their own account - and the only way Worldmark could track this would be to identify the internet ISP address used for the reservations, and find that they all come from the same ISP address.

$100 seems like good value.

 

[geist1223]

I have been an owner of Trendwest/Worldmark for about thirty years. When I bought in, we were told our ownership could be transferred by WILL to new owners. Since our ownership makes it a part of our ESTATE, why do we have to buy gift certificates for our children to use our credits???

If I remember correctly, when Windham took control they were give a very large amount of credits as part of the deal. I believe, Windham is probably the LARGEST MEGARENTER. The last two times I was at our resort at Daytona Beach I asked people on elevator and hallways if they were with World Mark or Other. Less than three out of ten were World Mark. My 3 visits to Los Vegas are another story.

Why are the employees at our World Mark resorts not wearing World Mark uniforms?

First off Worldmark The Club has zero employees. Worldmark consists of the Resorts (partial or total), Owners, and the BOD. Wyndham besides being our Developer has separately been retained by the WMTC BOD as the day to day managers of the Resorts. So all the employees are employees of Wyndham.

WMTC only owns a small percentage of the Units at Daytona Beach. Wyndham owns the majority of the Units. We have many shared Resorts. Some with Wyndham, some with Raintree, some with Shell, and some with VI.

Your children may become Owners upon your death. They are not now Owners. I am not defending GC's. I hate them. I consider them one more restriction on my use of WMTC.

Wyndham (actually Cedant ) was not given a large number of Points upon their purchase of the Developer Rights. They bought the unsold Points from Trendwest.

 

[chemteach]

This morning it became quite clear what many people are doing to game the system. I have attached clips of Kihei availability over the last week.

There is a very easy solution to halting the manipulation without making any rule changes. The Worldmark board could decide to put a message out to all members stating that, "It has come to our attention that some owners are using the current system to give themselves an unfair advantage to obtaining reservations at the 13 month mark. We know how these owners are doing this. Should any owner show signs of this manipulation, Worldmark will send them a letter to cease and desist. Should such owner continue to manipulate the system, Worldmark will cancel the reservations obtained in such manner (and freeze the owners account?)."

Of course, this could be bad for Worldmark because publicly admitting they know there is a problem could put them in a difficult legal position. Alternatively, Worldmark could just directly email owners guilty of reservation manipulation with a statement to cease and desist, including that reservations will be cancelled for reservations obtained in such a manner.

It's very easy to identify accounts that are doing this - Worldmark has all the information they need. They can look for any account that consistently creates a midweek reservation and cancels such reservation one to five days later. Any account that does this more than once is working in cahoots with another Worldmark account, and emails could be sent to those accounts.

It's very clear that this is being done with the Kihei 3 bedroom special needs unit. Whoever is reserving that one is manipulating the system. The evidence is pretty conclusive. I've been taking pictures of all the Kihei units over time. I have attached the prior week for Kihei. The BoD can easily identify who is doing the manipulation. I don't really understand why they haven't contacted people about stopping the manipulation. If the same account continually makes and cancels reservation, and/or an account is somehow continually obtaining reservations off the waitlist in a prescribed manner, those account owners should be warned about their reservations being cancelled.

The BoD shouldn't be worried about megarenters or people who are managing other people's accounts to get them reservations they desire. The BoD should be worried that the system has loopholes. The bylaws never said megarenting is not okay. But there are rules about 13 month, 11 month, 10 month, etc. reservations.

 

[ronparise]

It's wyndham who wants to turn worldmark into wyndham because it presumably is more profitable for them. They were going to find a way to do this regardless of what owners here or other worldmark owners want or do not want. The moment the BOD opened the door a crack to Wyndham the old club was gone. It was just a matter of time.

That’s nonsense a week at a legacy wyndham resort is 154000 points and they start their sales pitch at about $200/1000 points so roughly $30000 a week. A week at a legacy Worldmark resort is 10000 credits and they start with them at about $3 a credit so also $30000. One is not more profitable than the other

As far as operations Wyndham created club Wyndham Access some years ago to be exactly like Worldmark (no deeds, the club holds the deeds.) Owners are members not owners.)

My experience tells me that are trying to make club Wyndham like Worldmark, not the other way around

The subject of this thread however isn’t how Wyndham profits. Rather it’s wyndhams attitude and approach to megarenters. And in that regard it’s the same

That is the one thing where Wyndham is trying to do at Worldmark what they have done at club Wyndham is limit renting

Sometime ago on another forum, (from which I’m banned) I said that if you want to know what Wyndham is going to do (with renting) at Worldmark, just look at what they have done at Club Wyndham.
Their first approach was to attack profits. With Junk fees, and a limit on owner to owner transfer of points club Wyndham first, followed by similar actions at Worldmark

Most recently at club Wyndham they gave up on the rule changes and got to each megarenter and made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. I’m betting they do the same at worldmark

 

[ronparise]

Wyndham did not want to pay me before for that info so I doubt they would pay wm owners now.[/QUOTE]

They didn’t pay us for information but the sure got it when they sat down with us one on one. They had no idea how cancel and rebook or how the credit pool worked or that it was possible to be vip without ever buying a point from them until they talked to us

I stripped points. But at first I didn’t sell anything, I only bought more and I continued to pay all my fees when due. There would be a day coming when I would have to “catch up” but my plan was to die before that happened. Turned out that wasn’t necessary. When ovation came along I could just give the stripped contracts back to wyndham. Seems it was cheaper for them to take my contracts, pay 2 years fees (total expense about $20/1000) and resell them for $200/1000 than to build new resorts

 

[ronparise]

WMTC only owns a small percentage of the Units at Daytona Beach. Wyndham owns the majority of the Units. We have many shared Resorts. Some with Wyndham, some with Raintree, some with Shell, and some with VI.
.

You are so wrong here. Worldmark the club owns 28 units at Daytona. Cloud Wyndham owners own some units and a large number of units are not timeshares at all they areowned by individuals

Where you are so wrong is with your statement that Wyndham owns units here (or anywhere.) Club Wyndham is no different than Worldmark or most other timeshares in this regard. The owners own the condos. Wyndham is the developer and manager, at club Wyndham and Worldmark an Shell they not the owners of the condos

 

[Marathoner]

That’s nonsense a week at a legacy wyndham resort is 154000 points and they start their sales pitch at about $200/1000 points so roughly $30000 a week. A week at a legacy Worldmark resort is 10000 credits and they start with them at about $3 a credit so also $30000. One is not more profitable than the other

As far as operations Wyndham created club Wyndham Access some years ago to be exactly like Worldmark (no deeds, the club holds the deeds.) Owners are members not owners.)

My experience tells me that are trying to make club Wyndham like Worldmark, not the other way around

The subject of this thread however isn’t how Wyndham profits. Rather it’s wyndhams attitude and approach to megarenters. And in that regard it’s the same

That is the one thing where Wyndham is trying to do at Worldmark what they have done at club Wyndham is limit renting

Sometime ago on another forum, (from which I’m banned) I said that if you want to know what Wyndham is going to do (with renting) at Worldmark, just look at what they have done at Club Wyndham.
Their first approach was to attack profits. With Junk fees, and a limit on owner to owner transfer of points club Wyndham first, followed by similar actions at Worldmark

Most recently at club Wyndham they gave up on the rule changes and got to each megarenter and made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. I’m betting they do the same at worldmark

Ron, I believe you are right. What level of rentals are you thinking constitutes a mega renter for Worldmark in the minds of Wyndham?

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[ecwinch]

This morning it became quite clear what many people are doing to game the system. I have attached clips of Kihei availability over the last week.

There is a very easy solution to halting the manipulation without making any rule changes. The Worldmark board could decide to put a message out to all members stating that, "It has come to our attention that some owners are using the current system to give themselves an unfair advantage to obtaining reservations at the 13 month mark. We know how these owners are doing this. Should any owner show signs of this manipulation, Worldmark will send them a letter to cease and desist. Should such owner continue to manipulate the system, Worldmark will cancel the reservations obtained in such manner (and freeze the owners account?)."

Of course, this could be bad for Worldmark because publicly admitting they know there is a problem could put them in a difficult legal position. Alternatively, Worldmark could just directly email owners guilty of reservation manipulation with a statement to cease and desist, including that reservations will be cancelled for reservations obtained in such a manner.

It's very easy to identify accounts that are doing this - Worldmark has all the information they need. They can look for any account that consistently creates a midweek reservation and cancels such reservation one to five days later. Any account that does this more than once is working in cahoots with another Worldmark account, and emails could be sent to those accounts.

It's very clear that this is being done with the Kihei 3 bedroom special needs unit. Whoever is reserving that one is manipulating the system. The evidence is pretty conclusive. I've been taking pictures of all the Kihei units over time. I have attached the prior week for Kihei. The BoD can easily identify who is doing the manipulation. I don't really understand why they haven't contacted people about stopping the manipulation. If the same account continually makes and cancels reservation, and/or an account is somehow continually obtaining reservations off the waitlist in a prescribed manner, those account owners should be warned about their reservations being cancelled.

The BoD shouldn't be worried about megarenters or people who are managing other people's accounts to get them reservations they desire. The BoD should be worried that the system has loopholes. The bylaws never said megarenting is not okay. But there are rules about 13 month, 11 month, 10 month, etc. reservations.

I think we pretty much have come full circle.

That is a great statement - and it might even encourage some of them to stop. But what by-law or guideline do you cite to to justify a suspension?

Because the BoD still needs to follow due process if they are going to deprive a member of their rights. You know.... that pesky clause from the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution.

As a footnote - be aware that about five years ago the BoD created a guideline that stated that commercial renting was not allowed. It failed upon being challenged. Your suggestion is not much different.

 

[geist1223]

You are so wrong here. Worldmark the club owns 28 units at Daytona. Cloud Wyndham owners own some units and a large number of units are not timeshares at all they areowned by individuals

Where you are so wrong is with your statement that Wyndham owns units here (or anywhere.) Club Wyndham is no different than Worldmark or most other timeshares in this regard. The owners own the condos. Wyndham is the developer and manager, at club Wyndham and Worldmark an Shell they not the owners of the condos

Excuse me for not being more precise. Boy why the hostility from someone that has no skin in the Game and was only involved for a couple years.

The poster seemed to under the impression that Daytona Beach was primarily if not solely a WMTC Resort. As you point out WMTC only owns 28 of the Units. No wonder I felt like a second class citizen when we stayed there. Trying to get things fixed in the Unit was an exercise in futility.

I guess to be precise you would have to say No Owner of Worldmark owns a single Condo in the Worldmark System. The Deeds for the Condos are held by WMTC. The Members of WMTC have a limited right to use for eternity depending on how many Points they have.

Would you agree that Wyndham or Members of Wyndham in one form or another have control of most of the Units at Daytona Beach? However you want to phrase it.

 

[geist1223]

As for any Constituion Protection such as "due process" they do normally apply to private business. They apply to Governmental Organizations. Many of the protections that apply to private businesses are the result of federal legislation.

 

[ecwinch]

As for any Constituion Protection such as "due process" they do normally apply to private business. They apply to Governmental Organizations. Many of the protections that apply to private businesses are the result of federal legislation.

Tom - do you mean that to say "they do not"...

If so it is disappointing to think you believe that....as many courts have ruled that HOA's are quasi-governmental bodies since they have the ability to levy owners and deprive them of their property. You might advance the argument that the Club is not an HOA, but portions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act still apply to the Club. And the due process provisions of the Club are outlined in the Discipline section of the by-laws.

Discipline. The Board shall establish uniform fines and temporary suspensions
which shall be imposed for violation of the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules.
Determination of responsibility, such as for maintenance or repairs of damage, or determination
of what constitutes a nuisance, shall be only by the following procedures, or by a court or
arbitration proceeding. Violations may be determined and penalties imposed only after thirty
(30) days' written notice to the offending Member served personally or by mail, first class
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, mailed to the latest address for such Member shown on
the Club records, specifying the possible action and the alleged reasons therefore, and an
opportunity for the Member to be heard before a quorum of the Board at least five (5) days
before the effective date of any possible action.

 

[chemteach]

I think we pretty much have come full circle.

That is a great statement - and it might even encourage some of them to stop. But what by-law or guideline do you cite to to justify a suspension?

Because the BoD still needs to follow due process if they are going to deprive a member of their rights. You know.... that pesky clause from the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution.

As a footnote - be aware that about five years ago the BoD created a guideline that stated that commercial renting was not allowed. It failed upon being challenged. Your suggestion is not much different.

Can't they create a rule that if owners found to be obtaining reservations outside of the 13 month rule by playing games with the system will have their account frozen and/or reservations obtained through nefarious means cancelled?

Alternatively, could they create a rule that each owner can only cancel x number of reservations per year?

The issue seems to be with 13 month reservations - so any new rules would only have to apply to 13 month reservations. If the restrictions mentioned would not be allowed by bylaws, the board could switch to 7 day only reservations for 13 months out.

How did they stop the person who had been playing the system with the summer Yellowstone reservations last year or the year before? (Or is that person still working the system...?)

Whatever it is, the BoD needs to do something. All the information is out there showing that Worldmark TC BoD and management know that a problem exists. It is their responsibility to deal with the problem so that the reservation system works fairly for all Worldmark owners, not just those in the know.

 

[chemteach]

Because the BoD still needs to follow due process if they are going to deprive a member of their rights.

There are clear rules that reservations are not allowed more than 13 months in advance. A member is not being deprived of their rights if they are told they can no longer use a loophole to guarantee themselves or others reservations outside the 13 month window.

Worldmark TC can send out a message describing exactly what is not allowed. I believe they have the authority to cancel reservations created through loopholes if they have sent out a message of what is not allowed. People using the loopholes would have to always worry that their "non-allowed but nevertheless created" reservations could be cancelled at any time. That should give megarenters concern about their rentals getting cancelled. Should such a reservation get rented and then cancelled, the "landlord" would likely be responsible for expenses caused by rental cancellations, which in turn would cause megarenters to end their use of loopholes. It won't stop people from renting their units out. There isn't a problem with people being megarenters per se. There is a problem with any owner using loopholes to ensure a reservation for 13+ any number of days out.

Am I missing something? I don't see how a member is being deprived of their rights if they are using the system in a that is not allowed. (Yes, I understand people are using the system to their advantage in the way the system works - but if there is a clear rule that gaming the system will result in cancelled reservations, then the member is not losing a right.) The bylaws say that a letter would need to be mailed to the owner - that can be done.

The reservations would be cancelled 30 days after a letter was sent to the owner (quoting ecwinch below):

Discipline. The Board shall establish uniform fines and temporary suspensions
which shall be imposed for violation of the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules.
Determination of responsibility, such as for maintenance or repairs of damage, or determination
of what constitutes a nuisance, shall be only by the following procedures, or by a court or
arbitration proceeding. Violations may be determined and penalties imposed only after thirty
(30) days' written notice to the offending Member served personally or by mail, first class
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, mailed to the latest address for such Member shown on
the Club records, specifying the possible action and the alleged reasons therefore, and an
opportunity for the Member to be heard before a quorum of the Board at least five (5) days
before the effective date of any possible action.

So all is needed is a rule that clarifies what constitutes enabling a reservation for greater than 13 months out. The "fine" could include cancelling such reservations.

If some subset of owners figures out a new loophole, the board can add that loophole to "enabling a reservation for greater than 13 months out" clause. Based on what I have read, people have concluded that Wyndham cares about megarenters. Owners should care that some owners work the system to their advantage.

When Interval International and RCI heard enough complaints about people renting their exchanges, both companies added a clause to their resort confirmations about units not being rentable. I don't know if that changed the habits of people who were renting their II / RCI exchanges, but it certainly forced people to worry at least a bit each time they rented out an exchange.

Worldmark could add a clause stating that, "If this reservation was obtained through nefarious (definition of nefarious to be created by the BoD) means, the reservation is subject to cancellation." That statement should go far to get people to use the reservation system in the spirit in which it is meant to be used.

 

[ecwinch]

For me there is a lot of irony in this discussion, because I actually drafted a rule along the lines you are suggesting. But I don't think it is workable:

Multiple Accounts. The booking guidelines contained herein are binding upon the individual members, regardless of the number of separate accounts the individual member controls. Use of multiple accounts to gain an unfair advantage is prohibited. Members found to be circumventing these guidelines by using multiple accounts are subject to having their member privileges restricted. Such restrictions may include, but are not limited to, refusal to provide services and/or access to owner service center, reservation center, front desk, website, and any telephone communications with Manager’s employees. The Club’s Manager may enforce such restriction for such periods of time as it determines in its sole and reasonable discretion. The Manager shall exercise its discretion under this Section consistent with applicable provisions of the Club's Bylaws, Communication Policy, and any other applicable statutes, policies, or guidelines.

 

[bizaro86]

I'd be pretty opposed to giving Wyndham the right to shut off people's accounts for an indefinite period of time based on their own judgement.

Based on how things went with the audits in the Club Wyndham side I don't think they deserve that level of trust.

 

[ecwinch]

I'd be pretty opposed to giving Wyndham the right to shut off people's accounts for an indefinite period of time based on their own judgement.

Based on how things went with the audits in the Club Wyndham side I don't think they deserve that level of trust.

Well they already have that power, since the part you are disagreeing with is already in our guidelines.

 

[am1]

Wyndham did not want to pay me before for that info so I doubt they would pay wm owners now.

They didn’t pay us for information but the sure got it when they sat down with us one on one. They had no idea how cancel and rebook or how the credit pool worked or that it was possible to be vip without ever buying a point from them until they talked to us

I stripped points. But at first I didn’t sell anything, I only bought more and I continued to pay all my fees when due. There would be a day coming when I would have to “catch up” but my plan was to die before that happened. Turned out that wasn’t necessary. When ovation came along I could just give the stripped contracts back to wyndham. Seems it was cheaper for them to take my contracts, pay 2 years fees (total expense about $20/1000) and resell them for $200/1000 than to build new resorts[/QUOTE]

It actually never came up. A whole bunch of tricks, loopholes, etc. El Cid points were great but my guess is any el cid points that Wyndham converted or sold are going to expire within 5- 10 years. Still a lifetime. If they still work the same way (not just the cheap mfs).

In that sense I stripped points as well but always paid the fees. Just had to keep stripping to get started.

As for the one wanting to close loopholes. I cancelled tens of thousands Wyndham reservations a year for years. I would book inventory to just get rid of it so I could click the rest away to get rid of it so I could upgrade from a 1 bedroom suite to 4 bedroom presidential. I would book at 13 months then cancel a few days after to get the dates I wanted without any waste. Wyndham let it go for years.

None of that was directly against their policy.

 

[chemteach]

For me there is a lot of irony in this discussion, because I actually drafted a rule along the lines you are suggesting. But I don't think it is workable:

Multiple Accounts. The booking guidelines contained herein are binding upon the individual members, regardless of the number of separate accounts the individual member controls. Use of multiple accounts to gain an unfair advantage is prohibited. Members found to be circumventing these guidelines by using multiple accounts are subject to having their member privileges restricted. Such restrictions may include, but are not limited to, refusal to provide services and/or access to owner service center, reservation center, front desk, website, and any telephone communications with Manager’s employees. The Club’s Manager may enforce such restriction for such periods of time as it determines in its sole and reasonable discretion. The Manager shall exercise its discretion under this Section consistent with applicable provisions of the Club's Bylaws, Communication Policy, and any other applicable statutes, policies, or guidelines.

This would be easy to work around - just have one account in your name and an account in a relative's or friend's name. Worldmark TC needs a rule that closes loopholes. Right now, people can reserve 10 days, waitlist for the last three of the ten days plus 4 days, get rid of the units for the last four days by additional reservations, then cancel the last 3 days of the first reservation and cancel an additional reservation so the waitlist comes through for the new reservation that begins a week past the original 10 day reservation. If an account shows this sort of activity in cahoots with any other account, and it happens like this more than once, then there is reason to send that member a notice that they appear to be using a workaround to enable a reservation at greater than 13 months, and that they have 30 days to prove they are not doing such activity, at which time, fines/temporary suspensions would occur if the member could not disprove the claim

Discipline. The Board shall establish uniform fines and temporary suspensions
which shall be imposed for violation of the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules.

This part of the bylaws seems to give the BoD the ability to cancel reservations and temporarily shut down an account that is using a workaround for 13+ month advantage in reservations. (I believe) the rules clearly state that reservations are not allowed to be made more than 13 months in advance. With that particular rule in place (or if the board passes a rule that workarounds to the 13 month rule will have specific consequences), then workarounds to the 13 month rule go against the rules, and anyone doing this is causing "harm" to other owners, in which case, "uniform fines and temporary suspensions" can be imposed.

There are statistical models that can be used to prove that an account is following something for which the probability is small, such that if two such events occur within a short period of time, the confidence interval for the two events happening is statistically small enough thus showing that the events are not random, and the accounts are actively engaged in obtaining reservations in advance of 13 months. The BoD can use the statistical models and data on reservations, cancellations, and waitlist fullfillment to identify any accounts showing such activity. In the near term, those owners could be sent a letter letting them know Worldmark TC can see what is happening, and tell the account owner to stop what they are doing, or face consequencs. In the longer term, the board doesn't need to change any rules - they could go back to having 8 waitlists at a time and stop charging extra fees for GCs. (That is still a separate issue - something that is also important - but right now it seems this 13 month reservation thing is the largest problem Worldmark has.) They just need to explicitly state that attempted and successful workarounds to the 13 month rule are not permitted. (This isn't a new rule at all - they just have never enforced this - perhaps because they are concerned about legal consequences. By stating this as an explicit rule, the BoD should be in safe legal space.)

None of this directly deals with megarenters - if the BoD and/or owners and/or Wyndham wants to get rid of megarenters, they have no grounds for doing so since the bylaws clearly state renting is allowed, and when the board tried to stop commercial renting, they were shot down. But at least the 13 month rule would be a rule for all, not just the 99% of owners who don't use workarounds. This would put a huge damper in the megarenter business.


I also think that Worldmark Owners who know all the loopholes should actively publicize what they do so that no one has an advantage over anyone else. (Well - that's not really the case - the people with super large accounts have an advantage because they can tie up far more units than anyone else with the "reserve x days, drop off the last 3 days so that a waitlist request from another account they are managing picks up the reservation when the first account cancels off the last 3 days.") If all the secret ways of getting around the rules were out, the BoD would be forced to deal with the situation sooner rather than later.

 

[ecwinch]

They are not making reservations more than 13 months in advance. What you outline in your last paragraph is what they are doing.

 

[ronparise]

This would be easy to work around - just have one account in your name and an account in a relative's or friend's name. Worldmark TC needs a rule that closes loopholes. Right now, people can reserve 10 days, waitlist for the last three of the ten days plus 4 days, get rid of the units for the last four days by additional reservations, then cancel the last 3 days of the first reservation and cancel an additional reservation so the waitlist comes through for the new reservation that begins a week past the original 10 day reservation. If an account shows this sort of activity in cahoots with any other account, and it happens like this more than once, then there is reason to send that member a notice that they appear to be using a workaround to enable a reservation at greater than 13 months, and that they have 30 days to prove they are not doing such activity, at which time, fines/temporary suspensions would occur if the member could not disprove the claim



This part of the bylaws seems to give the BoD the ability to cancel reservations and temporarily shut down an account that is using a workaround for 13+ month advantage in reservations. (I believe) the rules clearly state that reservations are not allowed to be made more than 13 months in advance. With that particular rule in place (or if the board passes a rule that workarounds to the 13 month rule will have specific consequences), then workarounds to the 13 month rule go against the rules, and anyone doing this is causing "harm" to other owners, in which case, "uniform fines and temporary suspensions" can be imposed.

There are statistical models that can be used to prove that an account is following something for which the probability is small, such that if two such events occur within a short period of time, the confidence interval for the two events happening is statistically small enough thus showing that the events are not random, and the accounts are actively engaged in obtaining reservations in advance of 13 months. The BoD can use the statistical models and data on reservations, cancellations, and waitlist fullfillment to identify any accounts showing such activity. In the near term, those owners could be sent a letter letting them know Worldmark TC can see what is happening, and tell the account owner to stop what they are doing, or face consequencs. In the longer term, the board doesn't need to change any rules - they could go back to having 8 waitlists at a time and stop charging extra fees for GCs. (That is still a separate issue - something that is also important - but right now it seems this 13 month reservation thing is the largest problem Worldmark has.) They just need to explicitly state that attempted and successful workarounds to the 13 month rule are not permitted. (This isn't a new rule at all - they just have never enforced this - perhaps because they are concerned about legal consequences. By stating this as an explicit rule, the BoD should be in safe legal space.)

None of this directly deals with megarenters - if the BoD and/or owners and/or Wyndham wants to get rid of megarenters, they have no grounds for doing so since the bylaws clearly state renting is allowed, and when the board tried to stop commercial renting, they were shot down. But at least the 13 month rule would be a rule for all, not just the 99% of owners who don't use workarounds. This would put a huge damper in the megarenter business.


I also think that Worldmark Owners who know all the loopholes should actively publicize what they do so that no one has an advantage over anyone else. (Well - that's not really the case - the people with super large accounts have an advantage because they can tie up far more units than anyone else with the "reserve x days, drop off the last 3 days so that a waitlist request from another account they are managing picks up the reservation when the first account cancels off the last 3 days.") If all the secret ways of getting around the rules were out, the BoD would be forced to deal with the situation sooner rather than later.

The board and wyndham have been unwilling to do anything if there was the possibility of an owner or owner suing them because of it
Thats the attitude that i think is cganging.. I believe that they are now willing to risk it
Why.. because thats what they did with us at and Club Wyndham and they got away with it

 

[ronparise]

They are not making reservations more than 13 months in advance. What you outline in your last paragraph is what they are doing.

They may not be making reservations 13 months in advance, but they are using the ability to make long reservations and the wait list to beat the 13 month rule

No different than when we used grouped reservations to do the same thing

It took two tries but they got it done with grouped reservations,, I think they can with the wait list too... but I dont think they are,,, They have known about this loophole for a long time.. I think that they have other plans