Purchase protection

If i proceed with the posting that is not "verified and protected" - what are the risks?

irinan15 wrote:

If i proceed with the posting that is not "verified and protected" - what are the risks?

Are you referring to a timeshare sale posting or a timeshare rental posting? It's not at all clear from your question.

If it's an actual purchase, I suggest using a transfer company of your choice (i.e., not the seller's choice) and have that closing company hold all purchase funds in escrow until the transfer is fully completed and a new deed is recorded. I have (several times) used and strongly recommend LT Transfers, located in Georgia. With a transfer company of your choosing, you are fully protected if it's a scammer, or even if it's a completely legitimate owner who is perhaps behind on their maintenance fees, an issue which is not your responsibility (and a problem which the closing entity would promptly discover by obtaining an estoppel from the resort on your behalf).

If it's a rental you are asking about, I suggest having the "unverified" advertiser prove to your satisfaction that they actually own the week being advertised (as opposed to trying to rent out a week obtained by "exchange" (both RCI and II clearly prohibit the rental of weeks obtained by "exchange"). Also, ask to see the rental contract the advertiser intends to use; it should include their identifying information before even being presented to you. A legitimate owner might also be willing to show you a copy of a current maintenance fee bill, (although they may choose to redact the dollar amount, a detail which is really none of your business and is completely irrelevant info to any rental anyhow). A phone conversation with the advertiser might also help to alleviate your concerns, but many advertisers do not want to deal with phone calls at all hours of the day and night from possible renters, so that option may not be available to you.

Not being "verified and protected" is not necessarily a show stopper or a red flag in and of itself. It merely indicates that the advertiser was unwilling to pay the additional $14.99 ad cost to get "RedWeek Verified". That does not necessarily mean that the advertiser is dishonest or of ill intent, it just indicates that they were unwilling to pony up the additional $14.99 required to get "verified" for their ad. Personally, when I rent out a week I own but cannot use in any given year for some reason, I always choose to get "RedWeek Verified" so that I never have to spend any of my time "proving" my ownership of the advertised week to potential renters. To me, it's $14.99 well spent to save my time, but some advertisers simply don't opt to pay it --- a choice which is certainly their prerogative but one which may leave some people reluctant to proceed. To each their own.

In the final analysis, it is extremely rare and highly unlikely to ever find any scammers operating on either side of any transaction on RedWeek. There is a very simple reason for that. Advertisers must pay for their RedWeek ads and in doing so they can be very easily identified and / or traced through their credit card, if ever necessary. Likewise for anyone replying to an ad; they must first become a paid member of RedWeek in order to even be able to respond to any ad and they too can be easily identified and traced through their credit card, if necessary. Scammers NEVER want ANY possibility of EVER being identified or traced, so RedWeek is definitely not the place for them to try to operate. A much better place for scammers is Craigslist, where it is free to advertise and which has no means whatsoever to identify or trace advertisers (or those who respond to them). With that protective shield of anonymity so readily available, scammers are drawn to Craigslist like a magnet and, as a result, Craigslist (in addition to having many honest people) unfortunately also has numerous assorted scammers using that platform to "work their game".

Hope this helps you. Others may offer additional or different input and perspective.