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

[ecwinch]

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

I dont disagree. They want the waitlist to go away - in it's current iteration it requires too much manual labor and they dont want to build the functionality into the next version of the system. Geoff came pretty close to saying as much during the last BoD meeting.

So any hue and cry to end the manipulation is just as likely to be the pretense they need to make that happen.

 

[ronparise]

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.

I was offered money to do make reservations for other owners... My answer was that Id be happy to make their reservation and then rent it to them at fair market prices.

I used to make 40-50 mardi gras reservations each year: some at La Belle Maison with Wyndham points some at Avenue Plaza with Wyndham points and Worldmark credits and some with fixed weeks at Avenue Plaza. I had 20 regulars each Mardi Gra and some of my customers were wyndham and worldmark owners.

 

[ronparise]

I dont disagree. They want the waitlist to go away - in it's current iteration it requires too much manual labor and they dont want to build the functionality into the next version of the system. Geoff came pretty close to saying as much during the last BoD meeting.

So any hue and cry to end the manipulation is just as likely to be the pretense they need to make that happen.

and what Geoff wants Geoff gets

 

[chemteach]

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

Exactly! If the BoD doesn't think evidence of beating the 13 month rule is enough to cancel a reservation, then they can make a rule that says, "Workarounds to beat the 13 month rule will not be permitted. Any reservations created in such a manner can be cancelled and owner accounts associated with this practice may be temporarily shut down."

It doesn't change any rules for how people can use the waitlist - as long as the waitlist is used in a way that gives all owners an equal opportunity to get a 13 month reservation.

The 7 day reservation limit for 13 month reservations seems to also be the most fair system for all owners. Why should any owner get to have 2 to 4 weeks in a prime location just because they "won the lottery" for the first week of the reservation? All owners should have an equal opportunity to get those weeks.

If the BoD isn't willing to make the rule at the top, "Workarounds to beat..." They could allow only 10 (pick a reasonable number) cancellations/changes per year for weeks that were reserved at exactly 13 months. That would minimize the workarounds...

 

[ecwinch]

Court cases where their are vague rules with artibitary enforcement are a little difficult to defend.

And how do you defend yourself if you are caught up in their detection scheme? How do you "prove" you are not circumventing the rules?

Wyndham is far more likely to just say - this is expensive problem to fix, but we have to do something. Let's kill waitlists.

 

[ronparise]

I do not feel Guest Certificate fees have anything whatsoever to do with mega-renters; for many years, buying to become a TimeShare landlord was on Trendwest, Cendant, & Wyndham's list as a good reason to buy large accounts. Also, the BIGGEST MEGA-RENTER x1000 is Wyndham, not owners themselves. The Guest Certificate Scam is nothing more than an additional money stream. Almost 80% of Wyndham's profits come from new sales of TravelShaft Credits, so this creates another way to generate profits. Wyndham IS NOT EVEN AN OWNER OF WORLDMARK, they are only the Developer & Manger, yet they pay NO GUEST CERTIFICATE FEES when giving away credits or renting out WM units to non-owners, II, RCI, Hotels.com, and on & on. I have been going to WM Updates & Sales Presentations for many years now, and in all those years I have only met two sales people that even owned the minimum 5,000 credit WorldMark account, and you know you talk to at least 2, 3, or even more sales people during each Update/Sales Presentation, and I always ask them if they too are owners. The maintenance fees more than pay for all maintenance costs. Once again, the Guest Certificate Fee Scam is nothing more than another profit stream for Wyndham, if they had to follow that rule themselves, the rule wouldn't exist, because it would cost Wyndham money. haha The money generated by GC Fees do not even go to the WorldMark the Club, they go to WorldMark by Wyndham; if you don't know there is a difference, they you don't know much about WorldMark or Wyndham. That is why they created the GC Fee Scam by use of the Wyndham Controlled WM Board, because the REAL owners of WorldMark would have never voted such a scam into existence. There will likely be a Class Action Lawsuit over this, but Wyndham is bragging that they hire the best & most attorneys that money can buy, so WorldMark owners will lose as usual. I think WM Owners would have a chance at winning ONLY because Wyndham doesn't actually own WorldMark, and the owners never even voted on this BS scam.

You need to know that the guest fees do not go to wyndham,, they are income to the club

 

[ronparise]

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.

you are a master of the obvious
of course Wyndham knows whats happening

as Ive said in another post, wyndham knows whats going on, but they havent been willing to create a rule that would only be enforced against certain big owners

However thats exactly what they did with Club Wyndham megarenters

 

[ronparise]

Exactly! If the BoD doesn't think evidence of beating the 13 month rule is enough to cancel a reservation, then they can make a rule that says, "Workarounds to beat the 13 month rule will not be permitted. Any reservations created in such a manner can be cancelled and owner accounts associated with this practice may be temporarily shut down."

It doesn't change any rules for how people can use the waitlist - as long as the waitlist is used in a way that gives all owners an equal opportunity to get a 13 month reservation.

The 7 day reservation limit for 13 month reservations seems to also be the most fair system for all owners. Why should any owner get to have 2 to 4 weeks in a prime location just because they "won the lottery" for the first week of the reservation? All owners should have an equal opportunity to get those weeks.

If the BoD isn't willing to make the rule at the top, "Workarounds to beat..." They could allow only 10 (pick a reasonable number) cancellations/changes per year for weeks that were reserved at exactly 13 months. That would minimize the workarounds...

No, what they have to do is either modify the rule or create a new one to close tie loophole. "workarounds to beat" doesn't cut it. The problem is that these owners will still control millions of credits and they will still get them all placed into reservations to rent

and all owners do have the opportunity to make any reservation.. when I was making mardi gras reservations all I wanted was the 7 nights (wednesday to wednesday) but Id make 10 day reservations to make sure I got wanted.. The year after I got out someone else stepped in and started making much longer reservations and playing the waitlist game...but you could probably make a 30 day reservation to include Mardi Gras if you wanted it bad enough

The reason Worldmark works for rentals is that the maintenance fees are so low and the fees for high value weeks. You can remove all the loopholes to prevent guys like me from reserving multiple reservations for the same high value week and the megarenters will adapt. they will get all their credits paced in reservations and get them all rented.....maybe for less than they would like, but since fees are so low there will still be a profit...

just do more of them

 

[geist1223]

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.

Yes I meant to say "do not." Due process rights established by Legislation or Contract are not Constitutional Rights. Being a quasi governmental type organization does not turn them in a City, County, State, or USA. The "CONSTITUTION" and it due process rights do not apply to Timeshares and HOA's. The "Due Process" Rights as established by the 5th Amendment apply only to the US Federal Government. It is the 14th Amendment that applies to the States and their political subdivisions. I do not believe that a Timeshare or HOA has ever been legally found to be a political subdivision of a State. So there are no "Constitutional Due Process" that apply to Timeshares or HOAs. Depending on the Contracts, State Legislation there maybe some due process procedures established. So there is no "pesky" 5th Amendment to worry about.

 

[ecwinch]

Excuse me for not being more precise.

Here is what one court said:

By his acceptance, the purchaser automatically becomes a member of the association created by the declaration and submits to the authority of the association and to the restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of the property contained in the declaration. Because each owner automatically becomes a member of the association upon taking title and because the association is empowered to levy and to collect assessments, to make and to enforce rules, and to permit or to deny certain uses of the property, the association has the power, and in many cases the obligation, to exert tremendous influence on the bundle of rights normally enjoyed as a concomitant part of fee simple ownership of property.

With power, of course, comes the potential for abuse. Therefore, the Association must be held to a high standard of responsibility: The business and governmental aspects of the association and the association's relationship to its members clearly give rise to a special sense of responsibility upon the officers and directors.... This special responsibility is manifested in the requirements of fiduciary duties and the requirements of due process, equal protection, and fair dealing. (Id at p. 921.) (See Raven's Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., supra, 114 Cal.App.3d 783, 792-799.) [142 Cal.App.3d 652]

 

[geist1223]

No cite to the 5th or 14th Amendment. For good reason. I do not think you find fair dealing or fiduciary duties anywhere in the US Constitution.

 

[CO skier]

you are a master of the obvious
of course Wyndham knows whats happening

as Ive said in another post, wyndham knows whats going on, but they havent been willing to create a rule that would only be enforced against certain big owners

However thats exactly what they did with Club Wyndham megarenters

The points deposit feature in Club Wyndham eliminating stripping points from future years applies to all CW owners.

The auto-upgrade feature severely restricting the cancel/rebook scheme applies to all VIP owners who could take advantage of this.

What was/is the new rule created in Club Wyndham that was only enforced against certain megarenters?

 

[ecwinch]

The points deposit feature in Club Wyndham eliminating stripping points from future years applies to all CW owners.

The auto-upgrade feature severely restricting the cancel/rebook scheme applies to all VIP owners who could take advantage of this.

What was/is the new rule created in Club Wyndham that was only enforced against certain megarenters?

Having inventory go into a black hole to defeat cancel/rebook is the new rule targeting mega-renters.... but it applies to everyone.

 

[CO skier]

Having inventory go into a black hole to defeat cancel/rebook is the new rule targeting mega-renters.... but it applies to everyone.

That is why I think only the megarenters and mini-megarenters would think it was directed only at them. It was/is a rule directed at the abuse itself, not any particular cohort.

 

[CO skier]

.... but it applies to everyone.

and that is my point. And that will be the effect of any rule changes in WorldMark.

The key is to affect as few owners as possible with any rule change, while affecting as many megarenter reservations as possible, which is what the Guest Certificate fee is all about. (And what the auto-upgrade, cancel/rebook change in Club Wyndham was all about).

 

[bizaro86]

I really hope if they change the waitlist it won't be to take it away entirely. I'd be completely fine with a "waitlists will be accepted starting at 12 months" rule. Or 11 or whatever.

That would curtail the abuse but still leave the waitlist functionality mostly intact for regular owners.

I use the waitlist all the time. Mostly for stuff I could probably get by checking every day for cancellations. The waitlist is so much more convenient...

 

[CO skier]

Isn't there a rule that if you cancel a reservation, you can't rebook the same unit within 48 hours? I guess you can get around that if someone owns two accounts. Yes-it is more difficult than I originally thought! Many nuances I don't understand. Maybe worldmark could have a sit-down with 5-10 savvy owners who create scenarios and try to find loopholes to any solutions- and keep working until a solution is found. Naive thinking I realize. But wishful thinking... I am an optimist.

That is exactly what they are doing.

If this is true (and I am NOT saying it is false), three points come to mind:

1) What are the savvy owners getting out of their cooperation? Why would they willingly give over their secrets?
2) If the savvy owners are getting something for their cooperation, what exactly are they getting? Full disclosure would be nice...
3) Who is advocating for the small owners?

The WorldMark guideline change in 2016 eliminating advance booking using grouped reservations benefited small account owners by eliminating the practice of throw-away days to lead into premium reservations. The Board acted on the 13-month grouped reservation abuse as a result of owner input, and this was mentioned in the recent annual WorldMark meeting at about the 45:20 minute mark in the broadcast.

https://veconnect.us/ev/g/T8naGs0Ml2j-795/e/Wyndham_Annual_Meeting/k/0

This webcast will be available to WorldMark owners for a limited time through the owner website. For anyone who cannot access the webcast, this is the relevant transcript:

"As we (the WorldMark Board of Directors) started to do that (satellite Board of Directors meetings outside of the Pacific Northwest) more and more, we actually started to get solutions brought forward by the membership. We had a solution on the 13-month issue out of Colorado Springs … it was a regular member of the organization, an owner. He identified the actual problem and brought the solution.

Staff analyzed it; it was implemented within six months. It was a great success."

Savvy owners who recognize the problems in WorldMark are, apparently, presenting "solutions" to these problems at WorldMark Board meetings of their own accord, and presumably with no remuneration. (Posting solutions on TUG leads to thoughtful posts and counter-posts, but that is about it). imo, "solutions" from owners who know and use WorldMark and go to the trouble of presenting their "solutions" to the WM Board are a good thing.

 

[chemteach]

A few comments and a question...

1) Getting rid of waitlists will not solve the problem at all. There are easier workarounds if the waitlist is removed. If Worldmark TC uses this issue as a reason to remove waitlists, owners can post how easy it would be to manipulate the system without a waitlist.

2) 7 day maximum at 13 month reservations are the only way to stop manipulation. Anything beyond 7 days allows people to game the system. If more than 7 days are allowed, owners can cancel the reservation, use a separate account to pick up the original 7 days, and start a new 7 day reservation with the extra day(s) lopped off of the original reservation. (This is assuming the waitlist is removed from the system - if the waitlist is intact, people will just continue to use the current workarounds.)

3) It's crazy that Worldmark TC hasn't fixed the problem. It has existed for over a decade, and it still exists. That's a system where the BoD is not doing their job.

4) I understand that a lot of people would like me to be quiet and stop posting. Sorry - I believe in systems that give everyone equal access. If my postings are making people upset that their workarounds might be in jeopardy, so be it. I also understand that everyone wants the current flexibility of the current system. That flexibility does not need to be removed completely for the system to have equity. It just needs to be less flexible at the 13 month mark for high demand reservations.

5) Worldmark TC could keep the waitlist intact if they created a new rule that reservations at 13 months were only allowable for 7 days with Friday, Saturday, Sunday checkins. That solves the loophole problem. The BoD has the data for how many reservations end up as 7 day reservations for the prime reservations. I would bet that it's greater than 95% of those reservations - so this change would benefit 95%+ of owners. People who want longer reservations could get online at 6am PST the following week to try to add to their reservation.

6) This isn't about me wanting multiple reservations at Xmas / New years at specific resorts - while that would be nice, I can use RCI and II for those trips. It's about equity for all Worldmark members, not just those in the know. (At this point, if the rules don't change, I could easily get those prime reservations for multiple units by working the system for Xmas/ New Years 2020 by gaming the system.)

7) When is the next board meeting, and is it possible to be present at the meeting via internet without being physically present?

 

[geist1223]

and what Geoff wants Geoff gets

What Wyndham wants Wyndham gets.

 

[geist1223]

We have never rented in or out Points. We have never transferred points in or out. We have never charged anyone for a Reservation other than than the TOT. Yet we oppose almost all of the recent changes (last 2 or 3 years).

End all Transfer of Credits/Points. If they are not your Credits/Points you should not be able to use them to stay at a Worldmark Resort. This is no different from us using our Credits/Points for my kids. By limiting your number of Credits/Points you have limited your ownership and should not be allowed to stay for more time. For that time period you are a non-owners staying on someone else's Ownership.

Cancel Monday Madness, FAX Time, and Inventory Specials. Rather than have these cash options make them reduced Point Times. For Monday Madness and Inventory Specials offer them at 1/2 the normal Point Rate.

 

[tschwa2]

and that is my point. And that will be the effect of any rule changes in WorldMark.

The key is to affect as few owners as possible with any rule change, while affecting as many megarenter reservations as possible, which is what the Guest Certificate fee is all about. (And what the auto-upgrade, cancel/rebook change in Club Wyndham was all about).

Another way would be to let all owners have the first 10 extra guest certificates be at something fairly nominal like $30 each. The second extra 10 guest certificates could be $99 each and then the third and subsequent extra guest certificates could be $300 each or simply limit the additional guest certificates to 20 beyond the included "free" ones with each account.

 

[rickandcindy23]

My question is why would anyone even want to stay at WorldMark in Kihei? It's not oceanfront. There are many nicer resorts in Kihei, beach and oceanfront. I don't get it.

I read this entire thread and don't really get WHO is doing this? Are you saying Wyndham owners are taking WorldMark inventory at 13 months because they bought Wyndham with the 13 month window for Hawaii?

 

[tschwa2]

Having inventory go into a black hole to defeat cancel/rebook is the new rule targeting mega-renters.... but it applies to everyone.

Which I think is fine. The cancel/rebook was a strategy used widely by a lot of VIP members who where just regular 500,000-2 million points type owners who might have rented out a couple of reservations a year or not, but all together they added to millions and millions of points of the inventory manipulation. It doesn't matter if you were renting for profit or using it yourself. With Wyndam the discount and upgrade window was never meant for vip's to get a 3 br for half the points of a studio in prime time by holding and cancelling multiple units. It was meant to give vip's a discount on inventory that wasn't popular enough to get booked at full points.

 

[chemteach]

My question is why would anyone even want to stay at WorldMark in Kihei? It's not oceanfront. There are many nicer resorts in Kihei, beach and oceanfront. I don't get it.

I read this entire thread and don't really get WHO is doing this? Are you saying Wyndham owners are taking WorldMark inventory at 13 months because they bought Wyndham with the 13 month window for Hawaii?

It appears megarenters are reserving most of the Kihei units and renting them out. These are Worldmark TC owners doing it, not Wyndham owners (at least I think that is the case - do Wyndham owners have access to all the Worldmark TC inventory?? I have never heard that).

 

[ronparise]

My question is why would anyone even want to stay at WorldMark in Kihei? It's not oceanfront. There are many nicer resorts in Kihei, beach and oceanfront. I don't get it.

I read this entire thread and don't really get WHO is doing this? Are you saying Wyndham owners are taking WorldMark inventory at 13 months because they bought Wyndham with the 13 month window for Hawaii?

I dont know why anyone would want to go to Hawaii at all, but thats me... Im sure that there are lots of folks that disagree. And Im sure there are lots of folks that want to visit Hawaii that dont have or dont want to spend the big bucks for ocean front property. Mf for a week at this resort is less than $1000 The resort my not be on the beach, but its across the road from a public beach Take a walk

as to who is reserving this place Im guessing that almost any week here can be rented for $1500 a So thats a $500 profit each rental, (Do it 200 times for $100000)... I would think anyone that owns enough credits to rent would be reserving this property and any worldmark owner would want to reserve here