# Marriott or Interval Cancelled Our Grande Ocean Exchange



## JIMinNC (Sep 15, 2017)

We just found out that Marriott (or Interval, both are saying the other did it) has cancelled our II exchange to Grande Ocean for this coming week. We were supposed to check-in today, but had been told by GO on Wednesday it was fine for us to check in a day late on Saturday when the resort re-opened after the closure. But today, we get an email from Interval saying our week is cancelled. They are apparently cancelling all Friday interval check-ins for the full week, even though the resort is opening tomorrow.

I'm getting different stories from all parties involved.

I received the email from Interval early this afternoon saying GO could not accept our arrival (even though we received the welcome call and email two days ago, and had even set up a sales presentation for Tuesday AM). I immediately called Interval and they said, no, our exchange was not showing as cancelled in their system and should be good. I then called GO to ask about check-in time, and they told me that "Interval had cancelled all Interval exchanges," so our reservation was indeed cancelled.

I eventually wound up talking to both Interval Customer Service and Marriott Customer Care (including being elevated to a supervisor at Marriott) to no avail. I was then told by someone at GO during a second call to the resort, that because other resorts in HHI are still closed, Marriott is accommodating owners from those resorts at GO and displacing Interval exchanges. Marriott Customer Care denied that was the case and said GO had damaged units and could not accommodate II exchanges. So, I'm not sure what the truth is.

Bottom line, we're apparently screwed and won't be going to HHI. All Interval is offering is a replacement week that can be used either 30 or 59 days out. Not happy...at all.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 15, 2017)

Yikes. I would not be happy either (both with no one accepting responsibility as well as only getting a flex-change replacement week instead of a fully exchangeable one). Sorry to hear this is happening to you.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 15, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> We just found out that Marriott (or Interval, both are saying the other did it) has cancelled our II exchange to Grande Ocean for this coming week. We were supposed to check-in today, but had been told by GO on Wednesday it was fine for us to check in a day late on Saturday when the resort re-opened after the closure. But today, we get an email from Interval saying our week is cancelled. They are apparently cancelling all Friday interval check-ins for the full week, even though the resort is opening tomorrow.
> 
> I'm getting different stories from all parties involved.
> 
> ...


Wow. Now the "priority" issue really comes to a head. I am sure most will assert that owners (or their renters) should always get priority over II guests of owners that traded, but is this "right" set forth anywhere? You had a confirmed Marriott reservation (through II). It certainly matters who and why it was cancelled.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 15, 2017)

davidvel said:


> Wow. Now the "priority" issue really comes to a head. I am sure most will assert that owners (or their renters) should always get priority over II guests of owners that traded, but is this "right" set forth anywhere? You had a confirmed Marriott reservation (through II). It certainly matters who and why it was cancelled.



Their rationale seems to be that our exchange was cancelled because our check-in was supposed to be today, and since the resort is still closed today, Marriott was not able to accommodate us on our scheduled check-in day, so the exchange was cancelled. Marriott says it's an Interval issue; Interval says it's a Marriott issue. I got the impression that if our check-in was tomorrow (Saturday), it would have been honored since GO opens tomorrow. Not 100% sure about that though. Maybe Marriott used that as a loophole to cancel the exchanges and they are indeed using those vacated rooms to accommodate people from Monarch or other resorts that are still closed. Bottom line...we're not going to Hilton Head.


----------



## aka Julie (Sep 15, 2017)

I feel for you, especially with the finger pointing between Marriott and Interval.

We had II exchanges at Barony for September 9 and 16.  Luckily I was able to re-trade both weeks for the beginning of October.

I'm sure the same thing would have happened to us with the Sept. 16 reservation since it was announced that Barony was only partially opening tomorrow.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 15, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Their rationale seems to be that our exchange was cancelled because our check-in was supposed to be today, and since the resort is still closed today, Marriott was not able to accommodate us on our scheduled check-in day, so the exchange was cancelled. Marriott says it's an Interval issue; Interval says it's a Marriott issue. I got the impression that if our check-in was tomorrow (Saturday), it would have been honored since GO opens tomorrow. Not 100% sure about that though. Maybe Marriott used that as a loophole to cancel the exchanges and they are indeed using those vacated rooms to accommodate people from Monarch or other resorts that are still closed. Bottom line...we're not going to Hilton Head.


Jim

My res at Monarch started 9/9.  Now they are saying Monarch may reopen 9/24.  (I am not taking your res at GO.)

Interval says how high when Marriott says jump.

Join the mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed BS.

PM me if you want Steve Weisz's email address.

Windje


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 15, 2017)

You should email the II Tug Mailbox. You still won't be going to Hilton Head, but you should get back a full unrestricted deposit.


----------



## Fairwinds (Sep 15, 2017)

It seems to me the pecking order for available rooms at a resort should be owners, traders, and finally guests of other resorts unable to accommodate them.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 16, 2017)

Fairwinds said:


> It seems to me the pecking order for available rooms at a resort should be owners, traders, and finally guests of other resorts unable to accommodate them.



Agree, but just to be sure that we're clear, I'm not 100% sure that Marriott is assigning people displaced from other resorts to Grande Ocean. The people with Marriott Customer Care said explicitly that they were NOT doing that, and the only people being assigned to the rooms that were assigned to Interval exchanges were displaced GO owners. It was someone at Grand Ocean who answered the phone that told me that the issue was owners from other HHI Marriott resorts that were yet to open. So, I'm not sure if what the person said at GO is the real truth or what Customer Care said. I'm not happy either way, but I don't want to ding Marriott for something if that's not what is really happening. If it really is what Customer Care said, and it's GO owners occupying their week that displaced us, I am more sympathetic to Marriott's dilemma than if they are allowing Monarch or Harbour Point owners to occupy our confirmed GO exchange week.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> So, I'm not sure if what the person said at GO is the real truth or what Customer Care said.


I would have the tendency to believe the person at the resort than someone in the call center hundreds of miles away...


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 16, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I would have the tendency to believe the person at the resort than someone in the call center hundreds of miles away...



Yeah, me too. The person who answered the phone was at the front desk and was probably less likely to spin the corporate line.

In any event, as it turns out, we're still going to Hilton Head, but it's costing us some $$$. We were able to book six nights at the new Hilton Grand Vacations Ocean Oaks for a little over $1700. We have been looking forward to this trip for too long to let this stupid situation keep us at home. We will pursue this further with Marriott and Interval. I hate spending the $$$, but sometimes the money is less important than the experience.

The ironic thing is we had scheduled a sales presentation with Marriott for Tuesday in HHI to discuss buying more Marriott points/weeks to help us go to Maui EOY. After this fiasco, my wife isn't sure she ever wants to deal with Marriott again - and that's from a frequent business traveler with over 1.1 million Marriott Rewards points.

From my perspective, I recognize that Marriott was in a difficult position if they had limited HHI inventory due to the storm. The fact that they place keeping their owners whole with their owned weeks over II exchangers does resonate with me as a positive, even though, in this case, we were screwed by that policy. The next time, we might benefit. What this does for me, however, is reinforce my long-standing opinion that I truly despise timeshare exchanging. I hated it under our previous ownership with an RCI affiliated resort, and this experience has done nothing to improve that impression. When you exchange, you will always be at the bottom of the barrel in priority - for room assignment and, in this case, to get a room at all. In the future, even though exchanging can frequently generate more value per $$ than electing for DC points, I will probably choose points over exchanging. An II exchange will be my absolute last resort, not because of anything II necessarily did wrong that cost us our exchange - I truly believe they were in a no-win position - but because exchangers are the low man on the totem pole in the timeshare world. Also, II's response of offering just a flex change week seems totally inadequate since I am also a Marriott owner, even though I wasn't using my ownership week.


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

If the resort were unavailable for a portion of the stay (even one day), I would expect the exchange to be canceled if it could not be adjusted.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 16, 2017)

We have an ongoing Monarch res.  Asked if any chance of another resort and told emphatically no.  

Number of reservations is not greater than number of units, unless they overbooked, which I don't think is likely.

Only reasons I can think of for more guests than units are 1. an excess of guests (refugees from other resorts) or 2. a reduction in available units owing to storm damage.  

Sounds like someone with a res at another resort (that was closed) who simply showed up in HHI and said "I am here where are you going to accommodate me?" got your unit.  

Enjoy your time on HHI.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 16, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> Only reasons I can think of for more guests than units are 1. an excess of guests (refugees from other resorts) or 2. a reduction in available units owing to storm damage.
> 
> Sounds like someone with a res at another resort (that was closed) who simply showed up in HHI and said "I am here where are you going to accommodate me?" got your unit.
> 
> Enjoy your time on HHI.



#2 was the "official" explanation given; #1 was the "unofficial" explanation given by the Grande Ocean front desk. I don't think it was a one-off situation like you describe in your last sentence because we were told by both II and Marriott that all inbound II exchanges for Sept 15 check-in (at least, not sure about other dates) were cancelled.

In any event, we're off to HHI shortly - going to be $1700 poorer than we thought we would be - but we feel fortunate to have found six nights at HGVC Ocean Oak on hilton.com for only $249/night + taxes. Looking on hilton.com there is only spotty availability for individual nights over the next two months or so, and those are generally $350 - $400/night plus. We must of picked up a last minute cancellation or something.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 16, 2017)

We were supposed to check in to Barony today and have been checking the Marriott Crisis Hotline message for days.  We were using a combination of DC points, an encore package and $$, so we didn't fit into any of the categories detailed on the message.  The first statement on the message was for owners who were using their week to contact their travel insurance company, so I am not sure if the opening resorts are going to be filled with owners.  I think Marriott is trying their best to accommodate as many people as possible, but with at least 24 resorts impacted by Irma (FL, SC and STT), they had to come up with an algorithm for who gets cancelled first.  II exchangers would be the easiest way to electronically eliminate a group of people without evaluating weeks owners vs. Points vs. everyone else with plans, especially when some of the resorts apparently aren't going to be fully reopened.

Our friends who were coming in from Oregon to stay with us have cancelled but we've been able to reschedule the encore package, checking into SurfWatch for 4 days on Monday, reschedule our flight down and we'll stay in Charleston for 1 night.  Its all ok.  We're not unhappy with Marriott, will continue to use II for trades and will definitely look into getting a travel insurance plan for the next unforeseen crisis.


----------



## sb2313 (Sep 16, 2017)

Just spoke with Surfwatch to check on our exchange for next Friday. They indicated as of now we are good to go, but they also did do some cancellations for yesterday's checkin so it was not limited to grande ocean. Perhaps this is why the larger resorts opened Saturday vs Friday in order to absorb guests from the smaller resorts to give them another week to get ready. Certainly an interesting item to monitor going forward.


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

Fredward said:


> We were supposed to check in to Barony today and have been checking the Marriott Crisis Hotline message for days.  We were using a combination of DC points, an encore package and $$, so we didn't fit into any of the categories detailed on the message.  The first statement on the message was for owners who were using their week to contact their travel insurance company, so I am not sure if the opening resorts are going to be filled with owners.  I think Marriott is trying their best to accommodate as many people as possible, but with at least 24 resorts impacted by Irma (FL, SC and STT), they had to come up with an algorithm for who gets cancelled first.  II exchangers would be the easiest way to electronically eliminate a group of people without evaluating weeks owners vs. Points vs. everyone else with plans, especially when some of the resorts apparently aren't going to be fully reopened.
> 
> Our friends who were coming in from Oregon to stay with us have cancelled but we've been able to reschedule the encore package, checking into SurfWatch for 4 days on Monday, reschedule our flight down and we'll stay in Charleston for 1 night.  Its all ok.  We're not unhappy with Marriott, will continue to use II for trades and will definitely look into getting a travel insurance plan for the next unforeseen crisis.


IMO travel insurance is a poor choice for most people but it can be a good choice for certain situations.  I'm not sure that just Hurricane season is enough risk to justify the expense but health and personal situations can alter the playing field significantly.  Sometimes a policy that covers a longer period and multiple trips can be a better value.


----------



## klpca (Sep 16, 2017)

davidvel said:


> Wow. Now the "priority" issue really comes to a head. I am sure most will assert that owners (or their renters) should always get priority over II guests of owners that traded, but is this "right" set forth anywhere? You had a confirmed Marriott reservation (through II). It certainly matters who and why it was cancelled.



As it is, they way that they have done it has given the boot to a loyal Marriott customer who is a week/points owner, not someone who has exchanged in from outside of the Marriott umbrella. Not cool. I wonder if Marriott is making sure that they accommodate people who have cash reservations booked through Marriott.com? Why aren't they using a reservation date stamp as the criteria for cancellations? 

My personal opinion (for whatever that is worth, lol) is that exchangers should always be stepping into the shoes of the owner. I hate it when management companies (Marriott, Starwood, Hyatt, Hilton etc) play games with the units as if *they* owned them. (Everyone has their hot buttons )

At this point, I would try escalating this through Mark DelCampo at Interval to at least get an unrestricted week with Marriott preference. That really doesn't cost them anything and would be the right thing to do. Cancelling the day before arrival, even under these circumstances, is cruel.  Giving you a flex restricted week is adding insult to injury.


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

klpca said:


> As it is, they way that they have done it has given the boot to a loyal Marriott customer who is a week/points owner, not someone who has exchanged in from outside of the Marriott umbrella. Not cool. I wonder if Marriott is making sure that they accommodate people who have cash reservations booked through Marriott.com? Why aren't they using a reservation date stamp as the criteria for cancellations?
> 
> My personal opinion (for whatever that is worth, lol) is that exchangers should always be stepping into the shoes of the owner. I hate it when management companies (Marriott, Starwood, Hyatt, Hilton etc) play games with the units as if *they* owned them. (Everyone has their hot buttons )
> 
> At this point, I would try escalating this through Mark DelCampo at Interval to at least get an unrestricted week with Marriott preference. That really doesn't cost them anything and would be the right thing to do. Cancelling the day before arrival, even under these circumstances, is cruel.  Giving you a flex restricted week is adding insult to injury.


I don't necessarily disagree for most situations but then you have the issue of who is going to be cancelled and someone is.  Marriott clearly does not see a member exchanging in as a true member.  I do think canceling an exchange over an owner using their week is reasonable place to draw a line if that's sufficient to care for the problem.  I'm not sure it's overly applicable for exchanges starting yesterday as the exchange would automatically be canceled as I understand it if the resort isn't operational for the first day of the exchange.  Also, technically under II's rules, any deposits from a resort that was not available would also lose their exchange elsewhere as I understand it.  Has anyone heard of this happening either this time or in the recent past?  Since Marriott treats DC members essentially as exchangers, I wonder if those with DC points reservations were also canceled if they started during the time the resort was not open.


----------



## Carta (Sep 16, 2017)

My situation:::::I had reservations at Marriott Ocean Pointe, Palm Beach Shores as an Exchange through Interval; 9/22 to 29...I was given a Hotline# 1-800-306-9506.....Hotline stated "reservations through 9/22 are cancelled. MOP sent an email confirming Hotline. Now I'm left high and dry cuz they don't tell when resort will be open..Very Pissed


----------



## taterhed (Sep 16, 2017)

Knowing your ownership, I think Marriott would definitely want to make this right for you.

I'd hit them up locally (sales dept) and via the cust care department (Marriott) and tell them how you (or your wife!)  feel about this.  I'd think they would find a 4 nite 5 day for $1 at your choosing to make things right.


----------



## klpca (Sep 16, 2017)

Dean said:


> I don't necessarily disagree for most situations but then you have the issue of who is going to be cancelled and someone is.  Marriott clearly does not see a member exchanging in as a true member.  I do think canceling an exchange over an owner using their week is reasonable place to draw a line if that's sufficient to care for the problem.  I'm not sure it's overly applicable for exchanges starting yesterday as the exchange would automatically be canceled as I understand it if the resort isn't operational for the first day of the exchange.  Also, technically under II's rules, any deposits from a resort that was not available would also lose their exchange elsewhere as I understand it.  Has anyone heard of this happening either this time or in the recent past?  Since Marriott treats DC members essentially as exchangers, I wonder if those with DC points reservations were also canceled if they started during the time the resort was not open.


If you have a week booked at a resort that is closed, I don't see why someone (anyone!) with a confirmed reservation at an open resort should be bumped. Can you imagine if the airlines started bumping non-status people off of flights to accommodate status passengers from other flights?? Yikes! (Who knows, maybe they are already doing that?)

If this is happening because there are damaged rooms that can't be occupied, then I am more understanding.

I feel sorry for Jim. What a way to start your vacation.


----------



## BocaBoy (Sep 16, 2017)

Dean said:


> If the resort were unavailable for a portion of the stay (even one day), I would expect the exchange to be canceled if it could not be adjusted.


Yes, I would expect nothing less.  II could not accommodate the reserved week because the resort was closed the day of check-in so they had little choice.  The simple explanation is usually the right one and I am quite confident that this is the case here.  II could not deliver the reserved week so they cancelled and replaced it.  The issue I see is that the replacement week should not have been restricted to check-in within 60 days. Jim was apparently the innocent victim here but I don't see a "bad guy" behind what happened.  And Jim, I understand how this experience impacts your view of exchanging.  Since DC and especially since the demise of XYZ's, we seldom do an II trade any more.  Getaways yes, exchanges no.


----------



## bazzap (Sep 16, 2017)

There are clearly different views we all hold on this issue.
As an enrolled weeks owner who stays on home weeks, points and Interval exchanges, at times a combination of all three, my personal take on this is:-
If I had a confirmed Interval exchange reservation for a week and the resort I was booked into was open during that week, even if not on the check in day, I would expect to be allowed to stay there on the days it was open.
I just don't understand how anyone with a "home" weeks or points reservation at another resort, even if  closed, could be given preference at a different resort over a confirmed Interval reservation at that resort and I wouldn't expect that if I were the owner losing out as a result.


----------



## Panina (Sep 16, 2017)

bazzap said:


> There are clearly different views we all hold on this issue.
> As an enrolled weeks owner who stays on home weeks, points and Interval exchanges, at times a combination of all three, my personal take on this is:-
> If I had a confirmed Interval exchange reservation for a week and the resort I was booked into was open during that week, even if not on the check in day, I would expect to be allowed to stay there on the days it was open.
> I just don't understand how anyone with a "home" weeks or points reservation at another resort, even if  closed, could be given preference at a different resort over a confirmed Interval reservation at that resort and I wouldn't expect that if I were the owner losing out as a result.


I agree with you.  This just sounds wrong and doesn't make sense.  Someone screwed up big time.  I personally would not let it go.  I would persue with Mark our tug contact at TUG and Marriott, write corporate, if you can't get someone to help interact with interval.  Between the two companies they should figure out how to compensate you to make it right.


----------



## dewdrops (Sep 16, 2017)

Carta said:


> My situation:::::I had reservations at Marriott Ocean Pointe, Palm Beach Shores as an Exchange through Interval; 9/22 to 29...I was given a Hotline# 1-800-306-9506.....Hotline stated "reservations through 9/22 are cancelled. MOP sent an email confirming Hotline. Now I'm left high and dry cuz they don't tell when resort will be open..Very Pissed



On the other Marriott Thread regarding Hurricane Irma - looks like people are getting info from Ocean Pointe manager Julie P.  She says will be open ***maybe*** 9/23, so sounds like you may have missed it by a day and maybe similar situation as OP Jim on this thread!
And not to call resort.  And as pissed as you are, this was a major storm and I think the resorts are doing the best to assess and get ready.  It doesn't sound as simple as it could be, partly because the people who work (staff) have their own problems and maybe can't even get to work! Everyday resort is closed they are losing $$$$$$$ so marriott corp is Pissed too.

Good luck.
The other poster suggested joining the yahoo group to get info.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/OPnewsgroup/info


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

klpca said:


> If you have a week booked at a resort that is closed, I don't see why someone (anyone!) with a confirmed reservation at an open resort should be bumped. Can you imagine if the airlines started bumping non-status people off of flights to accommodate status passengers from other flights?? Yikes! (Who knows, maybe they are already doing that?)
> 
> If this is happening because there are damaged rooms that can't be occupied, then I am more understanding.
> 
> I feel sorry for Jim. What a way to start your vacation.


II's rule as I understand it is that if your deposit is not available due to natural disaster, they are supposed to cancel your exchange.  I was asking whether in reality they do this.


----------



## klpca (Sep 16, 2017)

Dean said:


> II's rule as I understand it is that if your deposit is not available due to natural disaster, they are supposed to cancel your exchange.  I was asking whether in reality they do this.


It sure sounds like they did this to Jim and Carta. Very frustrating if you only miss by 1 day. You would think they would give you a choice in that situation - shorter stay or replacement week. 

And they shouldn't blame Marriott if they are cancelling due to an II policy.


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

klpca said:


> It sure sounds like they did this to Jim and Carta. Very frustrating if you only miss by 1 day. You would think they would give you a choice in that situation - shorter stay or replacement week.
> 
> And they shouldn't blame Marriott if they are cancelling due to an II policy.


Actually that wasn't my question.  As I read II's rules, they say that If YOUR deposit resort is unavailable, your exchange elsewhere is supposed to be canceled since II ended up without a valid deposit.


----------



## klpca (Sep 16, 2017)

Dean said:


> Actually that wasn't my question.  As I read II's rules, they say that If YOUR deposit resort is unavailable, your exchange elsewhere is supposed to be canceled since II ended up without a valid deposit.


Now *that* is interesting. I wonder how that would work? My mind can't wrap itself around that problem.


----------



## Superchief (Sep 16, 2017)

One question these cancellations raise is what would be covered by the travel insurance (especially MVC's). It appears that everyone is encountering expenses regarding the resort closures, so I am curious what would be covered by the insurance. I assume if you had to cancel your trip, those expenses would be covered. However, losing an II exchange that is replaced by a 'restricted' future exchange seems to complicate things.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 16, 2017)

bazzap said:


> There are clearly different views we all hold on this issue.
> As an enrolled weeks owner who stays on home weeks, points and Interval exchanges, at times a combination of all three, my personal take on this is:-
> If I had a confirmed Interval exchange reservation for a week and the resort I was booked into was open during that week, even if not on the check in day, I would expect to be allowed to stay there on the days it was open.



I would share this perspective and it was the perspective that I went into this fiasco with, but as others have noted, it does not appear to be the case in this situation. The complicating factor is if the resort is open, but does not have its full complement of rooms due to some being damaged, then inevitably, someone is going to be displaced. According to the official Marriott position, that was the situation at Grande Ocean. So, if that is indeed the case, even though it cost us our exchange to Grande Ocean, I do believe that Grande Ocean owners occupying their ownership week and Destination Point owners using their points should have been accommodated before us. If this was the situation that existed yesterday when our exchange was cancelled, as angry and disappointed as I was /am, it would be even harder to justify to an owner why he/she was displaced so an exchanger could occupy a unit. While I'm disappointed by not getting to stay at Grande Ocean, my anger is more directed at the inadequate replacement week from II.



> I just don't understand how anyone with a "home" weeks or points reservation at another resort, even if  closed, could be given preference at a different resort over a confirmed Interval reservation at that resort and I wouldn't expect that if I were the owner losing out as a result.



Barry, In order to be fair to Marriott, I want to make sure that everyone clearly understands that the information that Grande Ocean was being used to house displaced guests from other Hilton Head resorts is only rumor/heresay. The source of that information was a front desk person from Grande Ocean that I talked to on the phone. Marriott Customer Care explicitly denied that they were doing this. It is possible that the front desk person was misinformed and was passing on bad information, but I suppose that it is also possible that person was somewhat naively passing on the truth. Who knows?

In the end, I'm less concerned with the "why" than, as I said above, the lack of a reasonable replacement week.

And just a bit of additional info on II's poor response, while they told me I would be getting a replacement week with a rolling 59-day. reservation window good for the next year, what was actually deposited into my account was a rolling 30-day Accommodation Certificate. -- even worse. I tried to call II customer service this AM before leaving to come to Hilton Head to address that situation, but after being on hold for 45 minutes with no answer, I decided we needed to leave for our trip. I took dioxide45's advice and emailed the TUG II contact late last night, but have not heard back yet. The auto reply seemed to indicate replies would be handled Monday through Friday.

We did arrive this afternoon at HGVC Ocean Oak, and it is a nice small resort - I counted 66 units in the one building. Our third floor (out of 6) courtyard view unit is in the farthest part of the building from the ocean, but we still have a peek-a-boo ocean view from our balcony. It sorta has the same decor style feel as the new decor at Barony (even including barn doors to the master bath), but the overall feel is maybe just a little bit cheaper quality furnishings than Barony. But overall, it is a very nice place and we were indeed lucky to apparently have found a bargain-priced last minute cancellation on Hilton.com.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Barry, In order to be fair to Marriott, I want to make sure that everyone clearly understands that the information that Grande Ocean was being used to house displaced guests from other Hilton Head resorts is only rumor/heresay. The source of that information was a front desk person from Grande Ocean that I talked to on the phone. Marriott Customer Care explicitly denied that they were doing this. It is possible that the front desk person was misinformed and was passing on bad information, but I suppose that it is also possible that person was somewhat naively passing on the truth. Who knows?



I would actually put the response from Customer Care, which is in either Orlando or maybe Salt Lake City, as hearsay. Was it a phone level rep at Customer Care that gave you this information or even a supervisor? I can understand them giving you the "official line" regardless of how true it is. However I would put more faith in the front desk person at the resort that is actually checking people in to that resort that have come from other resorts on the island.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 16, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I would actually put the response from Customer Care, which is in either Orlando or maybe Salt Lake City, as hearsay. Was it a phone level rep at Customer Care that gave you this information or even a supervisor? I can understand them giving you the "official line" regardless of how true it is. However I would put more faith in the front desk person at the resort that is actually checking people in to that resort that have come from other resorts on the island.



I did talk to someone who I believe may have been a senior manager, I recall her name was Mary and she was a 407 area code which is in Orlando. When I asked, she explicitly said the exchange was not cancelled to accommodate guests from other HHI resorts. I'm not one to call someone a liar unless I have proof, so I want to take her word for it until I have documentable evidence to the contrary.

I believe there are at least a couple TUGgers who were supposed to check-in to GO today, so if they read this, maybe they can do a little detective work around the pool and see what they can find out!


----------



## Dean (Sep 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I did talk to someone who I believe may have been a senior manager, I recall her name was Mary and she was a 407 area code which is in Orlando. When I asked, she explicitly said the exchange was not cancelled to accommodate guests from other HHI resorts.
> 
> I believe there are at least a couple TUGgers who were supposed to check-in to GO today, so if they read this, maybe they can do a little detective work around the pool and see what they can find out!


Jim you're next door, in this situation I think I'd walk over and talk to someone directly at a middle management level minimum.  Eric Robbins is still the front desk manager I believe, he should be able to give you a straight answer as to what happened and why.


----------



## bazzap (Sep 17, 2017)

I have looked at Interval Ts & Cs, the only potentially relevant clauses I can find (but not readily translate into simple English) are

II Exchange Cancellation Policy

(a) The only circumstances under which a Club Program Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use of his or her Points, or in the case of a Club Program Exchange Member retaining his or her Vacation Interest as a Week, and in the case of all Individual Members, the use and occupancy of his or her Week, without being provided Host Accommodations, are if such Club Program Member or Individual Member: (i) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute exchange accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (ii) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (iii) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (iv) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations which was previously issued to the Club Program Member or Individual Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (v) where the use of the MVCI Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control. 

and

Individual Member has canceled or has lost the use of a Confirmation as a result of the Host Resort accommodations being damaged or destroyed. II reserves the right to deny a Club Program Member or Individual Member substitute exchange accommodations under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy where such Club Program Member or Individual Member has received compensation for his or her canceled exchange accommodations pursuant to travel insurance or otherwise.


----------



## Superchief (Sep 17, 2017)

If this is their policy, would you be able to reject their replacement week so you can file an insurance claim to cover the MF's of the deposited week? IMO, II replacement weeks with 60 day window are virtually worthless. I would prefer to get my money  back for my MF's. 


bazzap said:


> I have looked at Interval Ts & Cs, the only potentially relevant clauses I can find (but not readily translate into simple English) are
> 
> II Exchange Cancellation Policy
> 
> Individual Member has canceled or has lost the use of a Confirmation as a result of the Host Resort accommodations being damaged or destroyed. II reserves the right to deny a Club Program Member or Individual Member substitute exchange accommodations under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy where such Club Program Member or Individual Member has received compensation for his or her canceled exchange accommodations pursuant to travel insurance or otherwise.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 17, 2017)

Superchief said:


> If this is their policy, would you be able to reject their replacement week so you can file an insurance claim to cover the MF's of the deposited week? IMO, II replacement weeks with 60 day window are virtually worthless. I would prefer to get my money  back for my MF's.


That would be if you had insurance to cover the MFs. A 60 day replacement week is of course better than nothing. Though I hope Mark can help out here with an unrestricted deposit for Jim.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Sep 17, 2017)

Not Exchange related, but back when hurricane Odile hit Cabo, we booked a getaway to Cabo. The getaway was 6 months after the hurricane. The resort had published a date to be open 60 days prior. II said we'd have no problem. However, the resort did not open. They pushed their date 90 days and our getaway was lost. II simply said it was our problem. They were just the "broker". It was a cheap getaway. Ultimately, they got us another one for the same week without charge. But I was stunned by II's position. It was my first experience at the true difference with a hotel reservation vs an II/MVCI reservation. Now, we get insurance!


----------



## NboroGirl (Sep 17, 2017)

klpca said:


> If you have a week booked at a resort that is closed, I don't see why someone (anyone!) with a confirmed reservation at an open resort should be bumped. Can you imagine if the airlines started bumping non-status people off of flights to accommodate status passengers from other flights?? Yikes! (Who knows, maybe they are already doing that?)



My DH used to be Global Services (the top tier) at United, and I know for a fact they will bump lesser-status flyers to accommodate a Global Services passenger.  Something a little like that happened to us when we were lowly Gold status.  We got 1st class upgrades the day before our flights.  They were "Confirmed".  After we were seated in our 1st class seats, we were told we had to give them up and were escorted to coach, I assume so someone with a higher status (or someone with a big check) got our seats.  A bit off-topic...


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 17, 2017)

Jim.... we checked into GO yesterday.   I asked the front desk staff today about GO villa damage and was told they did have some water intrusion into 15 villas that were pulled out of service.  I also asked if they were servicing owners from other resorts like Monarch that are still closed this week and they indicated that indeed MVC corporate made the tough decision to cancel all Friday check in II exchanges to make room to accommodate owners staying on their owned week at other resorts.  So that seems to be consistent with what you were previously told by GO front desk staff.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 17, 2017)

If that is true . . .  (and I believe it is) well, as George Orwell once said, some pigs are more equal than others.

As an executive level owner with a 3 week stay on owned weeks at Monarch starting September 9, I wonder how they determined which owners were the lucky pigs.

Wasn't me.  I was told there was no possibility of getting a unit at another resort.  End of discussion.

Interestingly, our account (as of 9/17) shows our reservation from 9/16-9/23 is "cancelled" on the Rewards account, and as "completed" on the MVCI owners website.  Never got a cancellation email as is customary. 

I wonder why they feel it is an important priority to devote manpower to gaming in some way the reservations system under these circumstances.  

Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 17, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> Jim.... we checked into GO yesterday.   I asked the front desk staff today about GO villa damage and was told they did have some water intrusion into 15 villas that were pulled out of service.  I also asked if they were servicing owners from other resorts like Monarch that are still closed this week and they indicated that indeed MVC corporate made the tough decision to cancel all Friday check in II exchanges to make room to accommodate owners staying on their owned week at other resorts.  So that seems to be consistent with what you were previously told by GO front desk staff.



Fasttr,

Thanks very much for your information.

As I've reflected on this situation over the last couple days, it's definitely a mixed bag of thoughts for me. While I'm hacked off that our trip to GO was cancelled and we had to go out of pocket to preserve our trip, at the same time, as a MVC owner, I do not have ill feelings toward Marriott for putting owners first. That actually might make me feel better about our ownership than worse. Bumping me to accommodate displaced owners from other resorts is a less clear cut issue than bumping me to accommodate GO owners or DC points owners, but I do still think it represents an "Owners First" philosophy, so I still feel positive about our decision to hitch our wagon to the Marriott horse.

Where I have the greatest issue with how this was handled is, while I was traveling on an II exchange this time, I am still a Marriott owner too - a week and points. But the response from II seems the same as if I would have been a non-Marriott owner trading in to GO. My ownership seems to have been ignored by both Marriott and II in deciding how to deal with the concept of a "replacement" week, only offering a crappy Accommodation Certificate. That will be the focus of my comments to Marriott and II after our vacation is over.

We're right next door at Hilton Ocean Oak, maybe we'll see you on the beach. PM me, maybe we can meet sometime while we're here.


----------



## Dean (Sep 17, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> If that is true . . .  (and I believe it is) well, as George Orwell once said, some pigs are more equal than others.
> 
> As an executive level owner with a 3 week stay on owned weeks at Monarch starting September 9, I wonder how they determined which owners were the lucky pigs.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I'd call it gaming.  They had to cancel a certain number of reservations in part or in total, there really wasn't any choice in that.  And to try to do partial weeks would have been an administrative nightmare so no way to argue they should have tried.  They had to decide who to canceled and who they could still handle.  We can all argue as to what the pecking order should have been but to accommodate owners using their weeks first at any HH Marriott and putting exchanges at the bottom is clearly a reasonable approach with DC reservations next in line canceling from bottom to top tier.  It's not likely how I would have approached it, I likely would have gone resort by resort but with a similar pecking order.  Regardless it stinks for those affected.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 17, 2017)

Dean said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it gaming.  They had to cancel a certain number of reservations in part or in total, there really wasn't any choice in that.  And to try to do partial weeks would have been an administrative nightmare so no way to argue they should have tried.  They had to decide who to canceled and who they could still handle.  We can all argue as to what the pecking order should have been but to accommodate owners using their weeks first at any HH Marriott and putting exchanges at the bottom is clearly a reasonable approach with DC reservations next in line canceling from bottom to top tier.  It's not likely how I would have approached it, I likely would have gone resort by resort but with a similar pecking order.  Regardless it stinks for those affected.



Wasn't talking about JiminNC.  Was talking about my own experience regarding the reservation system and why my two accounts showed different attributes.  They cancelled a week that ain't over.  There is a reason.  I can't figure out why.

That said, I guess my view is that a reservation is a reservation.  

Suppose I owned the week that Jim traded for and had simply traded with him directly (or rented him that week for cash.)  That reservation would have been honored. 

Why does the fact that interval was the intermediary change the fact that exactly the same bundle of ownership rights were traded between parties?

Interval sourced reservations are considered in Marriott World to be second-class reservations.  

I guess I just don't agree with that.  

My opinion. YMMV.

I also continue to wonder which pigs were more equal.  Perhaps trust people?  

Things that make you go hmmm.


----------



## bazzap (Sep 17, 2017)

Dean said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it gaming.  They had to cancel a certain number of reservations in part or in total, there really wasn't any choice in that.  And to try to do partial weeks would have been an administrative nightmare so no way to argue they should have tried.  They had to decide who to canceled and who they could still handle.  We can all argue as to what the pecking order should have been but to accommodate owners using their weeks first at any HH Marriott and putting exchanges at the bottom is clearly a reasonable approach with DC reservations next in line canceling from bottom to top tier.  It's not likely how I would have approached it, I likely would have gone resort by resort but with a similar pecking order.  Regardless it stinks for those affected.


Maybe I missed something in this whole thread, but I don't recall reading anything here that explained why "They had to cancel a certain number of reservations" at Grande Ocean that week?
(they were just unable to accept reservations there on the original check in day)
I did read that they had to cancel reservations at other resorts, but that seems to me to be a different matter entirely and such matters should be addressed on a resort by resort basis.
What next - as an HHI "home week" owner of a resort which is closed should I be given priority over an Interval exchange reservation confirmed elsewhere in the US/Caribbean, in Europe, in Asia....?


----------



## Superchief (Sep 17, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Fasttr,
> 
> 
> Where I have the greatest issue with how this was handled is, while I was traveling on an II exchange this time, I am still a Marriott owner too - a week and points. But the response from II seems the same as if I would have been a non-Marriott owner trading in to GO. My ownership seems to have been ignored by both Marriott and II in deciding how to deal with the concept of a "replacement" week, only offering a crappy Accommodation Certificate. That will be the focus of my comments to Marriott and II after our vacation is over.


Jim,
Your experience has further reinforced my decision to no longer exchange through II. I have an upcoming exchange stay at Ocean Pointe on 10/28 combined with a 1 night DC point stay. I had to use an expiring deposit (my last). I am an owner at OP and Chairman level, but I know I will be lower in the pecking order due to this being a II exchange. I'm glad that at least part of my stay is on points. I now know that Ocean Pointe experience some damage and the Cobia pool refurbishment completion will likely not be complete when I stay there. Had I used DC points, I could cancel and stay at another resort rather than try to deal with II.

 I assume you didn't have insurance since you are driving, but I have to fly to most of my destinations so I always buy the insurance. II's action for your situation may have prohibited you from being reimbursed for your MF's since you received a replacement week (even though it had little to no value). I hope Marriott is able to provide you better compensation for your disappointing experience.


----------



## klpca (Sep 17, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> Wasn't talking about JiminNC.  Was talking about my own experience regarding the reservation system and why my two accounts showed different attributes.  They cancelled a week that ain't over.  There is a reason.  I can't figure out why.
> 
> That said, I guess my view is that a reservation is a reservation.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree.  I suppose that somewhere there are terms that spell it out, but i still don't see why Marriott can pick and choose those weeks that they wish to give to others. Each resort should be stand alone, imho. Marriott is the manager, we are the owners. We bear the costs of repairs, not Marriott. I guess I just don't see it.


----------



## Dean (Sep 17, 2017)

windje2000 said:


> Wasn't talking about JiminNC.  Was talking about my own experience regarding the reservation system and why my two accounts showed different attributes.  They cancelled a week that ain't over.  There is a reason.  I can't figure out why.
> 
> That said, I guess my view is that a reservation is a reservation.
> 
> ...


I was addressing the general issue but to your post because it appeared you were using DC points at Executive level.  Clearly there were/are weeks at HHI Marriott's that had to be canceled, there isn't any disagreement on that that I can see or at last not any reasonable one.  And I don't think anyone can argue that partial weeks were reasonable if not mandatory to cancel.  Thus the only issue is the pecking order.  While I personally would have gone resort by resort but using the same hierarchy, I think looking at HHI as a unit is a reasonable approach.  And I think an order of members using their weeks, cash reservations, DC points from top to bottom in the VIP system then exchanges is a reasonable hierarchy.  I don't think anyone can argue with those points even if they would have done it a little differently.  The reality it that exchangers are consistently considered a lower class than owners at a large % of resorts, many far more egregious than this issue in terms of the blatancy.


----------



## Dean (Sep 17, 2017)

bazzap said:


> Maybe I missed something in this whole thread, but I don't recall reading anything here that explained why "They had to cancel a certain number of reservations" at Grande Ocean that week?
> (they were just unable to accept reservations there on the original check in day)
> I did read that they had to cancel reservations at other resorts, but that seems to me to be a different matter entirely and such matters should be addressed on a resort by resort basis.
> What next - as an HHI "home week" owner of a resort which is closed should I be given priority over an Interval exchange reservation confirmed elsewhere in the US/Caribbean, in Europe, in Asia....?


See above, it really isn't an entirely different matter or at last Marriott upper management didn't think so.  That you or I disagree really isn't especially important philosophically.  IMO anything that can't be honored for the entire time either has to be canceled or they have to go through each one individually and contact the owners.  In this situation and given all the other things going on, I don't see that as a reasonable expectation in this situation.  This isn't a slippery slope issue, it's really just confirmation of what we know already and is c/w the principles of villa assignment in general where I do disagree somewhat between DC and owned weeks but there we're talking location/view and here we're talking being displaced or not.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 17, 2017)

My only take on this is that it seems that owners at other "lesser"/non beach HHI resorts are being given priority at "higher level"/beach resorts as to who gets what. It seems plausible that an owner at Sunset Pointe is being given a unit at Grand Ocean over an exchanger that had their exchange cancelled at Grand Ocean. Regardless of how one booked, that just doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 17, 2017)

bazzap said:


> Maybe I missed something in this whole thread, but I don't recall reading anything here that explained why "They had to cancel a certain number of reservations" at Grande Ocean that week?



See post #44 from Fasttr, quoted below:



Fasttr said:


> Jim.... we checked into GO yesterday.   I asked the front desk staff today about GO villa damage and was told they did have some water intrusion into 15 villas that were pulled out of service.  I also asked if they were servicing owners from other resorts like Monarch that are still closed this week and they indicated that indeed MVC corporate made the tough decision to cancel all Friday check in II exchanges to make room to accommodate owners staying on their owned week at other resorts.  So that seems to be consistent with what you were previously told by GO front desk staff.



So, 15 villas were pulled out of service at GO due to water intrusion, so that was at least part of the explanation. Secondarily, MVC management made the decision to try to accommodate owners displaced from Monarch and/or Sunset Point in resorts where they could cancel the II exchanges and accommodate those owners. There was another post that said there were some exchange cancellations at Surfwatch as well.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 17, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> My only take on this is that it seems that owners at other "lesser"/non beach HHI resorts are being given priority at "higher level"/beach resorts as to who gets what. It seems plausible that an owner at Sunset Pointe is being given a unit at Grand Ocean over an exchanger that had their exchange cancelled at Grand Ocean. Regardless of how one booked, that just doesn't sit right with me.



I don't think we can say that they are for sure shifting people from the non-beach resorts to Grande Ocean. Right now Monarch, Harbour Club, and Harbour Point are still closed. For all we know, they may be moving Monarch folks to GO and/or Surfwatch and shifting the Harbour Club and Harbour Pointe guests to Sunset Point and Heritage Club (presumably by cancelling II exchanges there as well). There's also the Barony issue where I believe someone posted they lost 60 units there in the Oceanside villas. Not sure if they might be moving Barony folks around too and not just to the Garden units there.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 17, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I don't think we can say that they are for sure shifting people from the non-beach resorts to Grande Ocean. Right now Monarch, Harbour Club, and Harbour Point are still closed. For all we know, they may be moving Monarch folks to GO and/or Surfwatch and shifting the Harbour Club and Harbour Pointe guests to Sunset Point and Heritage Club (presumably by cancelling II exchanges there as well). There's also the Barony issue where I believe someone posted they lost 60 units there in the Oceanside villas. Not sure if they might be moving Barony folks around too and not just to the Garden units there.


True. Still I am not sure that this sits right. If the resort you own and are confirmed to is unavailable, they shouldn't be displacing other confirmed reservations at a different property in preference to yours, regardless of how someone booked their reservation. Each resort is a standalone entity. If you are confirmed in to Sunset Pointe but are switched to Heritage Club, you now get free golf where at your owned resort you don't. Regardless of the circumstances, this isn't a good precedent to set. Also it seems, based on your conversation with Customer Care, it seems like this may be a local management decision and not one that MVCI corporate made?


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 17, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> True. Still I am not sure that this sits right. If the resort you own and are confirmed to is unavailable, they shouldn't be displacing other confirmed reservations at a different property in preference to yours, regardless of how someone booked their reservation. Each resort is a standalone entity. If you are confirmed in to Sunset Pointe but are switched to Heritage Club, you now get free golf where at your owned resort you don't. Regardless of the circumstances, this isn't a good precedent to set. Also it seems, based on your conversation with Customer Care, it seems like this may be a local management decision and not one that MVCI corporate made?



Yeah, displacing exchangers at one resort to accommodate guests from another the resort does seem less defensible than keeping the cancellations/accommodation within the confines of a single resort. I can see the other argument also, and it does have some rationale in that all the resorts on HHI are in the same small community, but it does seem like a somewhat slippery slope.

Fasttr's post above would seem to imply that the decision was made somewhere up the chain of command at MVC Corporate. Despite what Customer Care told me, I can't imagine a decision like that would have been made without approval from fairly high up in Marriott Vacations Worldwide.


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 17, 2017)

^^^^ The folks at the GO front desk I spoke to did clearly indicate it was "corporate" who made the decision and even went on to say they were happy it was not a decision they had to make.


----------



## davidvel (Sep 18, 2017)

Dean said:


> See above, it really isn't an entirely different matter or at last Marriott upper management didn't think so.  That you or I disagree really isn't especially important philosophically. * IMO anything that can't be honored for the entire time either has to be canceled or they have to go through each one individually and contact the owners.  *In this situation and given all the other things going on, I don't see that as a reasonable expectation in this situation.  This isn't a slippery slope issue, it's really just confirmation of what we know already and is c/w the principles of villa assignment in general where I do disagree somewhat between DC and owned weeks but there we're talking location/view and here we're talking being displaced or not.


Well apparently they had no problem contacting the owners of other resorts and tell them they could squat at this one, with absolutely no rights to do so.

Why couldn't they send an email to exchangers and say, "You will be required to check in a day late and only get 6 nights, unless you click here, in which case you will get a restricted II week."


----------



## bazzap (Sep 18, 2017)

davidvel said:


> Well apparently they had no problem contacting the owners of other resorts and tell them they could squat at this one, with absolutely no rights to do so.
> 
> Why couldn't they send an email to exchangers and say, "You will be required to check in a day late and only get 6 nights, unless you click here, in which case you will get a restricted II week."


This would be my view too.
And thanks JIMinNC for your earlier response confirming that there were indeed some 15 villas in GO unavailable, I missed that on my first read through.
In that case, I do understand priority being given to "home" weeks owners with reservations there then points reservations there before Interval exchange reservations there.
(I still don't agree with weeks and points reservations at other HHI resorts being given priority at GO)
This cancellation/curtailment issue will hopefully be a very rare one, it does make me wonder though what might happen if it had been one of the bookings we sometimes make where we combine "home" weeks, points and Interval exchanges for long stays at resorts.
Would they potentially cancel some and leave others active? If so, we could end up with a series of non contiguous weeks and a logistical nightmare.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 18, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> True. Still I am not sure that this sits right. If the resort you own and are confirmed to is unavailable, they shouldn't be displacing other confirmed reservations at a different property in preference to yours, regardless of how someone booked their reservation. Each resort is a standalone entity. If you are confirmed in to Sunset Pointe but are switched to Heritage Club, you now get free golf where at your owned resort you don't. Regardless of the circumstances, this isn't a good precedent to set. Also it seems, based on your conversation with Customer Care, it seems like this may be a local management decision and not one that MVCI corporate made?



I've been sitting on this since it's been posted because I've been speechless.  Completely flabbergasted.  And ANGRY like not too many things over the years on TUG have made me angry!  I think MVW is completely in the wrong here, and I think it's reprehensible that when asked for a complete explanation they both failed in that task AND were wrong to push the blame onto II.

First and foremost, I agree with Dioxide.  Each resort is a stand-alone and confirmed guests at one should NEVER be forced out to accommodate displaced guests from another!

Second, if you have to do last-minute cancellations because of an unforeseen event that makes units uninhabitable, you either put them up at nearby locations that have availability, at no cost to them, or you prioritize cancellations as fairly as possible which can only be according to the dates that the actual guests' names were confirmed to reservations - last in/first out regardless of owner/exchanger/whatever status.

Next, you make sure that each and every MVW and II employee involved in these processes is prepared to answer the questions that you know will be coming, consistently and with the truth.  None of this MVW-blaming-II or II-blaming-MVW crap that only serves to infuriate already-inconvenienced guests/owners.

I want to give MVW the benefit of the doubt but the absolute best I can come up with is that following on the heels of closures due to Hurricane Matthew last year, they didn't want to assume the risk of losing any more of their revenue from Irma's effects than the bare minimum.  So instead of keeping the impacted resorts closed for another week to get all units up and running, someone came up with the stupid idea of shuffling arbitrarily-chosen VIP's all over the island but gave no thought to the public relations nightmare that would cause.  Then on top of that, they added insult to injury by doing the same thing they did following Matthew which was to tell displaced/cancelled guests that all normal cancelation policies would apply so no credits or refunds unless they'd ponied up for travel insurance.  (I didn't disagree as strongly following Matthew but MVW didn't bungle those re-openings, and, MVW's competitors are currently relaxing cancellation/refund rules for Irma-impacted guests.)

What a freakin mess.  JIMinNC, I think MVW should be reimbursing the cost of your cash stay at their competitor.  Not because they're legally obligated, which of course they're not, but because they owe it to you to make up for the way they've totally mishandled this event.  Don't give up, don't give in.  Go straight to the top and let him know that you are as important as any other guest/owner, certainly as important as any guest who may have been given your accommodations.  GRRRR.


----------



## Dean (Sep 18, 2017)

davidvel said:


> Well apparently they had no problem contacting the owners of other resorts and tell them they could squat at this one, with absolutely no rights to do so.
> 
> Why couldn't they send an email to exchangers and say, "You will be required to check in a day late and only get 6 nights, unless you click here, in which case you will get a restricted II week."


Do we know HOW they handled this issue for notification?  I doubt they're set up to do an automatic process as you suggest and that they had more important things to do than try to do the IT process on the fly.  I suspect the agreement with II is all or nothing.  As for the right to do so, I'd disagree and apparently so would Marriott, I think they clearly had that right and had to make tough decisions.  Although I personally would have done it resort by resort, it still would have displaced exchangers first and apparently 15 at MGO.  Regardless it's a mess and I feel for those affected.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 18, 2017)

But for the miniscule chance that a Tugger would be among the displaced, this action would never have seen the light of day.  

JiminNC. Hoping the weather is grand.  I would appreciate hearing anything about Monarch from anyone on the island.


----------



## InsiderOK (Sep 18, 2017)

We had a very similar experience after the wildfires in Gatlinburg. Our two reservations were cancelled since the resort we were exchanging into literally (mostly) burned down (Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort and Spa). We were not offered any refund on any money paid and were offered worthless weeks. I fought tooth and nail with Interval and was able to get replacement weeks that were good for any exchange through the original expiration date of my weeks used. I also protested the charges with Chase (Marriott CC) and won. Chase was very harsh with Interval saying I purchased a product and did not get it. I was refunded all of my money back.


----------



## aka Julie (Sep 18, 2017)

Jim,
What is the general condition of the island?  Are most establishments open and operating?

We were able to re-trade our weeks for 2 weeks beginning September 30.  Our first week is at Harbour Point, so I'm worried that they're still not open.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Sep 18, 2017)

NboroGirl said:


> My DH used to be Global Services (the top tier) at United, and I know for a fact they will bump lesser-status flyers to accommodate a Global Services passenger.  Something a little like that happened to us when we were lowly Gold status.  We got 1st class upgrades the day before our flights.  They were "Confirmed".  After we were seated in our 1st class seats, we were told we had to give them up and were escorted to coach, I assume so someone with a higher status (or someone with a big check) got our seats.  A bit off-topic...



Your seats were almost certainly given to FAM's (Federal Air Marshals). That's the only circumstance when you can be bumped down a class with a confirmed seat. They cannot simply sell a sold seat or upgrade someone else without offer compensation. as you were simply moved, the FAM scenario is most likely. The airlines have to seat them in first class. They cannot explain it and someone has to move. These stories are all over FT.


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 18, 2017)

aka Julie said:


> Jim,
> What is the general condition of the island?  Are most establishments open and operating?
> 
> We were able to re-trade our weeks for 2 weeks beginning September 30.  Our first week is at Harbour Point, so I'm worried that they're still not open.


The island looks unaffected for the most part.  Except for a few resorts like Monarch, everything is open and operating as near as I can tell.  We've biked to South Beach, Harbor Town, Coligny, walked the beach to the north, and have had dinner at Frankie Bones so far and no issues/closures at all that we have come across.  I think the protective dunes on the beach took a hit and mostly washed away, but that's about the only changes I have seen.


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 18, 2017)

I suppose it is possible that MVC cancelled the Friday II ressie's purely due to the 15 rooms taken out of service, and that after that, if they had extra rooms from that and/or additional folks cancelling weeks due to not wanting to be here post hurricane, are merely accommodating guests from other resorts where possible and the communication spin from the front desk is just not 100% spot on thus causing the eyebrow raising we are all experiencing.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 18, 2017)

You all may find the most recent development humorous...

Last Wednesday, when we thought we were still going to be able to go to Grande Ocean, we had signed up for a Tuesday AM owners update/sales presentation after we received the pre-arrival invitation telephone call. Today, we received a reminder call from the sales department saying they hoped we were having a great vacation and to call back to reconfirm our sales appointment Tuesday AM! So Sales wasn't even aware we were bumped from our reservation!

I called the person back and explained what happened to us, and that we were most certainly not very receptive to a sales discussion after what happened last Friday. She was very apologetic (and surprised they were not informed). She spoke with her manager and said someone would probably get back to us. To be continued...


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 18, 2017)

aka Julie said:


> Jim,
> What is the general condition of the island?  Are most establishments open and operating?
> 
> We were able to re-trade our weeks for 2 weeks beginning September 30.  Our first week is at Harbour Point, so I'm worried that they're still not open.



As Fasttr said, the island looks normal. A few places there are crews doing some minor tree pruning/maintenance, but everything appears open and normal. I think the only restaurant still closed may be Hudson's, and the concierge here at the HGVC said that was to open on Wednesday, I think.

So far restaurant crowds on Saturday and Sunday nights were very light and street traffic was light Saturday/Sunday. Traffic appears more normal today. We have a call-ahead spot at Skull Creek Boathouse for tomorrow night, so that will be good yardstick on how full the island is. This is the first time we've traveled here after Labor Day, other than a short October 2013 weekend trip, so I don't have a good yardstick on how the crowds compare to normal for this time of year.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 18, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> I suppose it is possible that MVC cancelled the Friday II ressie's purely due to the 15 rooms taken out of service, and that after that, if they had extra rooms from that and/or additional folks cancelling weeks due to not wanting to be here post hurricane, are merely accommodating guests from other resorts where possible and the communication spin from the front desk is just not 100% spot on thus causing the eyebrow raising we are all experiencing.


Shouldn't they have accommodated the bumped GO guests in those extra rooms?


----------



## amycurl (Sep 18, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> JIMinNC, I think MVW should be reimbursing the cost of your cash stay at their competitor.  Not because they're legally obligated, which of course they're not, but because they owe it to you to make up for the way they've totally mishandled this event.  Don't give up, don't give in.  Go straight to the top and let him know that you are as important as any other guest/owner, certainly as important as any guest who may have been given your accommodations.  GRRRR.



I'd also pick up a copy of The Island Packet, and send a link to this thread to their News Editor. And then I'd send the link to the Editor of the Savannah Business Journal (which is owned by a nationwide chain of widely-read biz journals, and covers HHI biz news.) And I'd CC the top Marriott people in on those e-mails, to make it easier for the journalists to follow-up. Because it's what citizens do in a democracy.


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 21, 2017)

A couple in the GO pool right now that lost their week at GO last week due to hurricane (they stayed in hotel off island for the evacuation time) and this week they were supposed to be at Monarch on a 4 night Encore package, and were accommodated here at GO for the 4 nights of the Encore.   If I'm JIMinNC, that really pisses me off.


----------



## windje2000 (Sep 21, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> A couple in the GO pool right now that lost their week at GO last week due to hurricane (they stayed in hotel off island for the evacuation time) and this week they were supposed to be at Monarch on a 4 night Encore package, and were accommodated here at GO for the 4 nights of the Encore.   If I'm JIMinNC, that really pissed me off.



As someone who lost a three-week stay at Monarch, I'll join JiminNC at the pissoir.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 21, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I've been sitting on this since it's been posted because I've been speechless.  Completely flabbergasted.  And ANGRY like not too many things over the years on TUG have made me angry!  I think MVW is completely in the wrong here, and I think it's reprehensible that when asked for a complete explanation they both failed in that task AND were wrong to push the blame onto II.
> 
> First and foremost, I agree with Dioxide.  Each resort is a stand-alone and confirmed guests at one should NEVER be forced out to accommodate displaced guests from another!
> 
> ...



I think Sue hit it on the head at the outset of her post - Each resort is a stand-alone, but that is not how MVCI reacted. They applied a Marriott Hotels mentality (and as they would for a similar situation at their hotels - they would displace/shuffle guests among their owned brands as needed, and even draw on competitor brands if all else fails). The problem is MVCI is not Marriott Hotels, but that is how they have acted (either directly from corporate or indirectly by suffering/permitting what local management on HHI has done).

MVCI deserves an earful (because this is a dangerous precedent to establish). I also think the local media could be an asset to draw attention to this (especially if this action was devised by local 'corporate' management after all).


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 21, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> A couple in the GO pool right now that lost their week at GO last week due to hurricane (they stayed in hotel off island for the evacuation time) and this week they were supposed to be at Monarch on a 4 night Encore package, and were accommodated here at GO for the 4 nights of the Encore.   If I'm JIMinNC, that really pisses me off.



Fasttr,

Thanks for the additional intel. Will help me with the emails/letters after we get home tomorrow. I've chosen to not be pissed off this week so we can enjoy our stay next door at HGVC Ocean Oak. But this isn't over yet. I'm going to use every channel I can to express my displeasure up the ranks at MVCI/MVW. They were clearly in a difficult position, but some of the decisions that were made - especially allowing Encore trips to trump exchanges by Marriott owners - don't sit well with me.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 21, 2017)

[QUOTE="kds4, post: 2054079, member: 49247"

 I also think the local media could be an asset to draw attention to this (especially if this action was devised by local 'corporate' management after all).[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure about the local media angle - this whole question of who gets the first rights to a diminished supply of units comes down to the nuances of timeshare ownership that most people in the public at large, and certainly the local media, have little understanding of. In fact, Marriott's approach to relocate people to different resorts to accommodate as many as possible, might find a more sympathetic ear in the general populace than it might here on TUG since most people will use the hotel analogy to say Marriott did the right thing.


----------



## Superchief (Sep 21, 2017)

I have read several posts regarding II cancellations due to resort hurricane issues. I would be interested to learn whether insurance claims are successful for these circumstances, even if II offers their 'restricted' replacement weeks. The insurance may consider this to be an excuse not to reimbursing your MF's for the exchanged week.

I totally agree with others that it isn't right to allow those displaced from other resorts to use the available space rather than someone with a confirmed reservation (even II). That totally contradicts the idea of 'ownership' at a resort. II exchangers are actually using an 'owned' week that has been deposited. I support owners having priority over non-owners if capacity is restricted due to damage at some units. However, Encore weeks at other resorts having priority really pisses me off.


----------



## sb2313 (Sep 21, 2017)

Interesting article from island packet, specifically mentions moving timeshare owners to another property when possible as a positive. http://www.islandpacket.com/news/weather/hurricane/article174646106.html


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 21, 2017)

Superchief said:


> I have read several posts regarding II cancellations due to resort hurricane issues. I would be interested to learn whether insurance claims are successful for these circumstances, even if II offers their 'restricted' replacement weeks. The insurance may consider this to be an excuse not to reimbursing your MF's for the exchanged week.
> 
> I totally agree with others that it isn't right to allow those displaced from other resorts to use the available space rather than someone with a confirmed reservation (even II). That totally contradicts the idea of 'ownership' at a resort. II exchangers are actually using an 'owned' week that has been deposited. I support owners having priority over non-owners if capacity is restricted due to damage at some units. However, Encore weeks at other resorts having priority really pisses me off.


My understanding with II is that if you have an event where insurance may be applicable and purchased insurance through II, you can not take advantage of any retrade (including eplus or marriott to Marriott free retrades) or accept any kind of AC or replacement week from II.  Problem with that is if you go through insurance and it is determined that the insurance doesn't apply it would be too late for a retrade or to request a replacement week.  It may work otherwise with insurance bought from a third party or they may also check with interval and automatically deny the insurance if any type of replacement or retrade is accepted.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 21, 2017)

sb2313 said:


> Interesting article from island packet, specifically mentions moving timeshare owners to another property when possible as a positive. http://www.islandpacket.com/news/weather/hurricane/article174646106.html


This is exactly what Jim was referring to. Turning to the local media won't help. This is actually portrayed as a positive, where for impacted owners, it isn't.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 22, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> This is exactly what Jim was referring to. Turning to the local media won't help. This is actually portrayed as a positive, where for impacted owners, it isn't.


Agreed. It appears 'they' got to the media ... (cue dark conspiratorial music).


----------



## tiel (Sep 22, 2017)

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and am dumbfounded at this point.  The MVC decision that effectively treated the HHI resorts as one is outrageous, and a terrible precedent.  Having a hierarchical cancellation procedure within a single resort is sensible and desirable for such situations, but applying such a procedure across all the resorts on the island is totally unacceptable, and I would guess inherently uneven and unfair, at a minimum.  And to give precedence to Encore reservations over exchangers or any other group is...well, I just don't know what to say.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 22, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> A couple in the GO pool right now that lost their week at GO last week due to hurricane (they stayed in hotel off island for the evacuation time) and this week they were supposed to be at Monarch on a 4 night Encore package, and were accommodated here at GO for the 4 nights of the Encore.   If I'm JIMinNC, that really pisses me off.


It seems that MVC is prioritizing inventory that they own/control above II exchangers. Encore packages come from inventory that Marriott controls or owns. I can see their thinking on this, they don't want to piss off someone that is potentially going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, but what about the owners that already own that already spent the tens of thousands of dollars. There is also an owner behind most exchanges, on either side, so again someone that potentially spent tens of thousands of dollars. I doubt they are looking at how much someone is spending, but it seems that their owned inventory is more important that what we own or have usage rights to. Rather disappointing.


----------



## Dean (Sep 22, 2017)

tiel said:


> I've been following this thread since the beginning, and am dumbfounded at this point.  The MVC decision that effectively treated the HHI resorts as one is outrageous, and a terrible precedent.  Having a hierarchical cancellation procedure within a single resort is sensible and desirable for such situations, but applying such a procedure across all the resorts on the island is totally unacceptable, and I would guess inherently uneven and unfair, at a minimum.  And to give precedence to Encore reservations over exchangers or any other group is...well, I just don't know what to say.


I think they made that decision long ago.  Two precedents come to mind.  One is allowing one to stay in a resort until the room is ready no matter the same or a neighboring resort.  The other, and I believe it started with the HHI resorts as a sales tactic, the 13 month reservation window for multiple resorts.  For a few years there were those that tried to argue that it was only for weeks owned at a given resort.  Personally I think by resort would have been best but I can see how they could treat them more as a package.  As for prioritizing over exchangers, they do that routinely and daily for villa assignments.  Granted all of those issues are on a smaller scale but it does give a glimpse as to how they could approach it this way.  I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dean said:


> I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.


I would agree, if it is all within the same resort, not across resorts. One they move an owner from one resort to another, that person is no longer an owner at the resort they moved them to.It also seems though that they are prioritizing Encore package stays over II exchanges. I don't think that is reasonable at all.


----------



## Dean (Sep 22, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I would agree, if it is all within the same resort, not across resorts. One they move an owner from one resort to another, that person is no longer an owner at the resort they moved them to.It also seems though that they are prioritizing Encore package stays over II exchanges. I don't think that is reasonable at all.


I'm not sure it's obviously right one way and obviously wrong the other.  In a sense it's micromanaging vs micromanaging.  This was a difficult and special situation and it required difficult choices.  I don't think it reasonable to vilify Marriott with the choices they made even if we might have made different choices.  There is also other info we don't have they they did such as the number of each category within each resort.  That info potentially allows you to maximize the results with the least aggravation.  But to favor owners in general over exchangers even across resorts is reasonable, esp when you consider that the DC basically does this anyway.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dean said:


> But to favor owners in general over exchangers even across resorts is reasonable,


Guess we will have to agree to disagree..


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 22, 2017)

Dean said:


> I think they made that decision long ago.  Two precedents come to mind.  One is allowing one to stay in a resort until the room is ready no matter the same or a neighboring resort.  The other, and I believe it started with the HHI resorts as a sales tactic, the 13 month reservation window for multiple resorts.  For a few years there were those that tried to argue that it was only for weeks owned at a given resort.  Personally I think by resort would have been best but I can see how they could treat them more as a package.  As for prioritizing over exchangers, they do that routinely and daily for villa assignments.  Granted all of those issues are on a smaller scale but it does give a glimpse as to how they could approach it this way.  I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.



I don't see any comparison between the (IMO needlessly controversial) way they've partially reopened resorts and either of the two "precedents" you've mentioned.

The first, allowing guests with consecutive stays at nearby resorts to remain in the first unit until the second is ready, doesn't inconvenience existing or incoming guests in any way and it doesn't place the moving guests any higher or lower than they'd be in the hierarchy for placement in the next unit.  All it does is give those guests a little bit more convenience on moving day.  We've done this umpteen times over the years on HHI - during none of those stays were we still in a unit as outgoing guests past 1pm at the latest, which left plenty of time for housecleaning to be done before the 4pm check-in time for the incoming guests.

The second, allowing the 13-mos Reservation Window to be used for consecutive stays at different resorts, came about because of a change in the governing docs of newer resorts in which the language expressly allowed it for different resorts.  Following that MVC chose to exercise their right to uniformly manage all resorts by allowing it for all multi-Weeks Owners.  In that situation I think that was the correct choice, effectively giving something more than what's in the governing docs to some Owners instead of taking away from others what is expressly in theirs.  It may well be that the same-resort/different-resorts change was conceived as a way to drive sales, I guess, but once it was integrated into the governing docs it became something much more than just a sales tactic.  I have no idea which was the first new resort to come online without the same-report restriction, if it was a HHI resort or not, but I know Barony Beach docs specify same-resort and SurfWatch's don't.

One final point, the only group of MVC resorts legally-designated as a "cluster" with reciprocal reservation rights is the Florida Club.  Although the eight HHI resorts are within close proximity, they're not in any way legally-designated collectively as a single group.  The guests displaced at Monarch or wherever had as much legal right to a unit confirmed to someone else at Newport Coast Villas or Maui Ocean Club or any other MVC unit as they did to one in Grande Ocean.  (Which should be terrifying to all of us, because MVW has now shown us that apparently they have a right to move/cancel confirmed guests willy-nilly when it suits their purpose.)

We're, too, going to have to agree to disagree about MVW's reopening practices following Hurricane Irma, especially with the new report that Encore guests were prioritized higher than II exchangers.  In all the Priority Placement variations that we've seen quoted on TUG over the years, none have ever stated that!  I still think that the only fair way to have done it, if reopening at less than capacity was unavoidable, was to cancel guests at only the affected resorts prioritizing them according to the dates that actual guests' names were added to confirmed reservations.  What we're hearing is nowhere near fair or smart, IMO.

GRRRR.


----------



## dewdrops (Sep 23, 2017)

delete


----------



## Dean (Sep 23, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Guess we will have to agree to disagree..


That's fine, I understand both sides but frankly, not the inability for others to see both sides.  To be honest, the up in arms concerns me more about the membership than the decision does about Marriott's management, I guess it's a sign of the times.  I think we can assume this was handled at the top with input from several top level people and a consensus decision.  Regardless there is no slippery slope here.  It's also very likely that a legal representative was involved as well as II to some degree before a final decision were made.  I suspect they have a disaster plan in place that at least gives some predefined guidance.  I find myself wondering about the wording & specifics of the Marriott-II contract and how it would apply here.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 23, 2017)

Dean said:


> That's fine, I understand both sides but frankly, not the inability for others to see both sides.


I never said I didn't see both sides, I just don't agree with it. That is all...

Even if there is a legal person or persons behind the scenes assisting, it doesn't necessarily make their decisions correct or even legal. Sometimes it comes down to risk vs reward. Not a legal right to do something or not. Companies lose lawsuits all the time where their legal team made the initial decision that was found to not be legal.


----------



## Dean (Sep 23, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I never said I didn't see both sides, I just don't agree with it. That is all...
> 
> Even if there is a legal person or persons behind the scenes assisting, it doesn't necessarily make their decisions correct or even legal. Sometimes it comes down to risk vs reward. Not a legal right to do something or not. Companies lose lawsuits all the time where their legal team made the initial decision that was found to not be legal.


I haven't seen any post suggesting they didn't have the legal right under the POS for the resorts involved though I haven't reviewed my POS from MGO or Surfwatch in this regard.  Maybe I should have said that I don't see the reasonableness of the "How Dare They" opinion.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 23, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I want to give MVW the benefit of the doubt but the absolute best I can come up with is that following on the heels of closures due to Hurricane Matthew last year, they didn't want to assume the risk of losing any more of their revenue from Irma's effects than the bare minimum.  So instead of keeping the impacted resorts closed for another week to get all units up and running, someone came up with the stupid idea of shuffling arbitrarily-chosen VIP's all over the island but gave no thought to the public relations nightmare that would cause.  Then on top of that, they added insult to injury by doing the same thing they did following Matthew which was to tell displaced/cancelled guests that all normal cancelation policies would apply so no credits or refunds unless they'd ponied up for travel insurance.  (I didn't disagree as strongly following Matthew but MVW didn't bungle those re-openings, and, MVW's competitors are currently relaxing cancellation/refund rules for Irma-impacted guests.)
> 
> What a freakin mess.  JIMinNC, I think MVW should be reimbursing the cost of your cash stay at their competitor.  Not because they're legally obligated, which of course they're not, but because they owe it to you to make up for the way they've totally mishandled this event.  Don't give up, don't give in.  Go straight to the top and let him know that you are as important as any other guest/owner, certainly as important as any guest who may have been given your accommodations.  GRRRR.



I get the idea of trying to minimize the displacement of owners as much as possible (without getting further into the merits of shuffling owners among MVCI properties like they were Marriott Hotels guests). I am bothered by the reference in red above. I understand and accept the risk (unless I buy insurance) that a storm could shut down a resort I have an upcoming reservation at. My reservation is for 'x' resort. 'x' resort is closed due to damage. I'm out my reservation unless I bought insurance. If this was an II exchange, I could try for some type of replacement reservation/week. If this was an ownership (weeks or points) reservation, maybe MVCI can offer me an alternate internal exchange/reservation or I can at least get my points back.

Without insurance, if II gives me a replacement week of any kind because I cannot occupy my reserved resort due to it being closed - that's great on II's part. Similarly, without insurance, if MVCI can provide me an alternate internal exchange of my week *using unassigned inventory* (either to HHI for the same dates using this discussion as the example, or elsewhere at another time) or I get my DC points back (albeit in a holding account), great.

Here's my rub.

I'm not the owner being accommodated, I'm the II exchanger or the week/points owner that is being bumped from a resort that is open with a reserved unit that is ready for me to occupy. Having my reservation cancelled to give it to someone else whose resort is closed was not an act of nature, it was an act of corporate.

If MVCI wants to accommodate displaced owners from other MVCI resorts using any unassigned inventory, so be it. Their efforts to salvage vacations for their owners and exchangers is praiseworthy.

What is not praiseworthy is taking assigned inventory away from others at other resorts and then trying to put the responsibility for those owners/exchangers losing their vacations on them. "Well, I guess you should have bought insurance." Really? Is there coverage for a corporate hatchet job?

The folks who should have bought insurance are those with the reservations at the resorts that are closed due to damage. To take away my valid/available reservation and give it to them instead, is transferring their assumption of risk to me. That is not right. I assumed my own risk when I chose whether to buy insurance for my own reservation (as did they). To make me liable for their risk as well as my own is wrong.

MVCI is now saying there are 2 travel risks to buy insurance for (because if the storm doesn't take out your reservation, corporate still may and give it away).

If MVCI's own actions are the reason I cannot occupy a reserved unit (and not Hurricane whomever), then a points reservations should be restored without the holding account restriction, the opportunity to still use my week should be made available to me (even if that means opening up unassigned inventory in a season or possibly at a resort I don't own - they moved owners among properties on HHI, so it must be a viable option), and MVCI should provide an unrestricted replacement week with Marriott preference through II for exchanges made by owners.

Every coin has 2 sides and while MVCI may be trying hard on its face to help some owners there are others who are getting the tail end. My suggestions immediately above would make it less one-sided, and perhaps cause MVCI to think a little longer before doing this again (if it meant they would be offering up my suggestions as compensation to those they were taking reservations from).


----------



## Superchief (Sep 23, 2017)

I think this illustrates where corporate priorities have evolved. The Bill Marriott family recognized that treating customers and employees right would result in long term profits and customer loyalty. This is the primary reason I became a long-term loyal Marriott customer and multiple week timeshare owner. I trusted the company to keep their word and keep my ownership interest as a priority. 

MVC, Marriott, and most large corporations today are driven by Wall Street and short term profits. I'm sure they used 'opportunity for future sale' as a key criteria in prioritizing an Encore customer at another resort over an II exchanger (including MVC owners exchanging into home resort). As a result, the value of an II exchange option has been greatly diminished since MVC can arbitrarily prioritize guests at other resorts over a confirmed exchange. This will likely hurt II in the long term because many (including myself) will stop using II for exchanges. I have also lost my trust that MVC will make future decisions with my interests in mind.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 23, 2017)

Dean said:


> I haven't seen any post suggesting they didn't have the legal right under the POS for the resorts involved though I haven't reviewed my POS from MGO or Surfwatch in this regard.  Maybe I should have said that I don't see the reasonableness of the "How Dare They" opinion.



I guess that'd be me but my reaction isn't so much, "how dare they!" as "couldn't they have found a better way?"

They dare because they can, apparently.  But even if what they did would survive a legal challenge (which I tend to think like you do that it would, especially in the cases similar to Jim's where the resort was closed on the actual check-in day) it's IMO simply not a good look for them, not at all.  At the very least they should have been consistently on message about what they were doing, but they also could have given replacement Weeks with actual value to those affected.  They do that routinely for new owners of external resales out of the goodness of their hearts, don't they?  In Jim's case specifically, he'd been in touch with them so they already knew he'd be arriving a day late anyway, which lined up with the resort opening, so why couldn't they have allowed him his stay?

Honestly, I understand the need for them to not set a precedent whereby they'd be giving away the store in direct conflict to stated rules and procedures.  But this is the second year in a row that these resorts have been impacted by storms that the region hasn't seen for decades.  Some of the people affected by MVW's merry-go-round of guest moves and cancellations are going to have to pony up again for a Special Assessment to cover the catastrophic insurance deductible for damages that resulted in these units being closed.

All over the news coverage we're being bombarded with exhortations to reach deep into ourselves for empathy and our pocketbooks for hard cash in order to help those affected, which is entirely correct.  As a hospitality company of a sort it should have come naturally for Marriott Vacations Worldwide to limit disruptions to owners/guests, and where it was unavoidable to compensate them in some fashion.  They didn't do that, and all I'm saying is that this is one of the rare times when MVW has disappointed me.

I'll take back every bad word I've thought and said about them IF we learn that they sheltered displaced local residents in the units that they indiscriminately took from owners/guests.  THAT would be understandable.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 23, 2017)

kds4 said:


> Agreed. It appears 'they' got to the media ... (cue dark conspiratorial music).



I don't know it for certain but have no doubt that MVW contacted a trusted local writer and asked for the space and the specifically-slanted story.  So somewhere in all the confusion and their being so busy that they couldn't take the time to fully explain their machinations to affected owners/guests, they prioritized their need to publicly get ahead of what they knew would be perceived as a bad response to a worse situation.  <sigh>


----------



## Dean (Sep 23, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I guess that'd be me but my reaction isn't so much, "how dare they!" as "couldn't they have found a better way?"
> 
> They dare because they can, apparently.  But even if what they did would survive a legal challenge (which I tend to think like you do that it would, especially in the cases similar to Jim's where the resort was closed on the actual check-in day) it's IMO simply not a good look for them, not at all.  At the very least they should have been consistently on message about what they were doing, but they also could have given replacement Weeks with actual value to those affected.  They do that routinely for new owners of external resales out of the goodness of their hearts, don't they?  In Jim's case specifically, he'd been in touch with them so they already knew he'd be arriving a day late anyway, which lined up with the resort opening, so why couldn't they have allowed him his stay?
> 
> ...


That's the question, WHAT is the better way.  I'd say doing it resort by resort is best all else equal but second choice, looking at the resorts as a group and owners first at maybe 60/40.  And we really don't know the rest of the information they have including the mix of owners, exchangers, cash, etc compared to the resorts in question.    Apparently they felt this was the better way.  They had tough choices to make and I'm a concerned at the lack of realization of that issue even if we disagree with their end choice.  IMO, the only way to hold they they truly SHOULD not have done it this way would be to hold the opinion that they did not have the legal right to do so based on the POS and timeshare laws applicable.  Otherwise it's just make a choice and go forward.  They could have simply closed the resorts longer rather than fighting to keep some of them open and accommodate as many as possible.  Then everyone would have been out of luck.  While I don't get trip insurance as a rule, this is the reason it's available.  It's a chance we all take.


----------



## dewdrops (Sep 23, 2017)

Was GO checking other squatting guests/owners from other HHI resorts and ENCORE guests in on the FRIDAY they told the OP that the resort was closed?

Just trying to clarify what the facts are.

If II rules say cancel when first day of checkin not available (and not call every exchanger to see if acceptable), then that means the week was freed up, NO?

Did GO also cancel the DC checkin's on that Friday?  Because the points allow day by day so that seems they could have called the guest. 

Did GO cancel owners using their own week that had a checkin on that Friday?

And II/Marriott also canceled the checkin's on the Thursday before too.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 23, 2017)

Superchief said:


> I'm sure they used 'opportunity for future sale' as a key criteria in prioritizing an Encore customer at another resort over an II exchanger (including MVC owners exchanging into home resort).



Except that they missed the boat because this bumped II exchanger was also an "opportunity for a future sale". When we received the standard call from Sales a few days prior to our scheduled Grande Ocean check-in, we had booked an "owner update" for last Tuesday to discuss our options for adding to our ownership. Then, two days after we scheduled the presentation, our exchange was cancelled. Sales apparently didn't even know that we were cancelled because, on Monday, we received a call from Sales reconfirming our presentation, thinking we were at Grande Ocean as planned. They seemed surprised we had been cancelled and tried to get us to come to the presentation anyway since we were on the island. We obviously told them we were in no frame of mind right now to talk about spending more money with MVC. The "Sales Concierge" took my phone number and said a manager would be in touch, but no call ever came.


----------



## dewdrops (Sep 23, 2017)

Hope all works out for OP and all the others affected.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 23, 2017)

Dean said:


> That's the question, WHAT is the better way.  I'd say doing it resort by resort is best all else equal but second choice, looking at the resorts as a group and owners first at maybe 60/40.  And we really don't know the rest of the information they have including the mix of owners, exchangers, cash, etc compared to the resorts in question.    Apparently they felt this was the better way.  They had tough choices to make and I'm a concerned at the lack of realization of that issue even if we disagree with their end choice.  IMO, the only way to hold they they truly SHOULD not have done it this way would be to hold the opinion that they did not have the legal right to do so based on the POS and timeshare laws applicable.  Otherwise it's just make a choice and go forward.  They could have simply closed the resorts longer rather than fighting to keep some of them open and accommodate as many as possible.  Then everyone would have been out of luck.  While I don't get trip insurance as a rule, this is the reason it's available.  It's a chance we all take.



I'm not comfortable with simply accepting the choice they made.  I want them to explain their actions and the justification for them, if for no other reason than they'll consider next time the reaction they're getting now.

Please don't assume that those of us who disagree with MVW's actions here don't realize or understand the difficult position that MVW faced as a result of this storm.  I get it.  I just don't get their machinations.  The eight HHI resorts do not legally constitute a single cluster with reciprocal reservation rights, so the fact that MVW apparently thinks they do needs explaining.

Consider that the Encore guests placed into the unit that conceivably could have been the one for which Jim had a confirmed reservation, would have gotten a telephone call explaining the situation and asking if they'd accept a placement in GO because Monarch was unavailable.  If MVW could make those phone calls, why couldn't they have made similar ones first to the guests like Jim who were holding rightful confirmed reservations for those units?


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 23, 2017)

From a legal standpoint, we do need to consider that MVC setup an exchange company, on the fly, that contained in it component resorts of which only HHI properties were part of. They cancelled certain reservations in order to make them available through this perceived exchange company to other owners from other resorts. When looking at it that way, I am not sure they are legally immune with what they did here. They may say that it was extenuating circumstances that required their actions, but I don't think extenuating circumstances still gives them that right. Do we know if they cancelled a single DC or owner reservation that was set to check in while the resorts were closed but checkout was after they reopened?

I have no issues with them needing to cancel reservations within a resort because the property is closed or there are units that are unavailable due to damage. I also have no necessary issue with them cancelling certain reservations where part of the reservation overlapped the period of time where the resort was closed, like in Jim's situation. I also understand that there has to be some kind of hierarchical pecking order to determine whose reservations are cancelled, and I agree that external exchanges are usually at the bottom of that list. However, I will still never agree that someone with a confirmed reservation at one resort should have their reservation cancelled in favor of someone from another resort, regardless of what method they used to make the exchange. Unless of course Marriott wants to setup an exchange company for that purpose and disclose which resorts and how many units are in it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 23, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I want them to explain their actions and the justification for them, if for no other reason that they'll consider next time the reaction they're getting now.


Trust me, we will never see any kind of explanation from MVW on this.


----------



## Dean (Sep 23, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not comfortable with simply accepting the choice they made.  I want them to explain their actions and the justification for them, if for no other reason than they'll consider next time the reaction they're getting now.
> 
> Please don't assume that those of us who disagree with MVW's actions here don't realize or understand the difficult position that MVW faced as a result of this storm.  I get it.  I just don't get their machinations.  The eight HHI resorts do not legally constitute a single cluster with reciprocal reservation rights, so the fact that MVW apparently thinks they do needs explaining.
> 
> Consider that the Encore guests placed into the unit that conceivably could have been the one for which Jim had a confirmed reservation, would have gotten a telephone call explaining the situation and asking if they'd accept a placement in GO because Monarch was unavailable.  If MVW could make those phone calls, why couldn't they have made similar ones first to the guests like Jim who were holding rightful confirmed reservations for those units?


That is a question for Marriott corporate, I suspect they'll give a formal explanation though it might sound like Equifax's statement and then everyone will complain about that.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 23, 2017)

Just an update...when we returned home last night from Hilton Head we had a voice message on our home phone from Mark DelCampo at Interval. I had emailed the TUG mailbox as dioxide45 had suggested early in this thread. I'll be returning that call when he gets into the office on Monday morning. I also have email addresses for people at MVC, but want to hear what Interval has to say first.

Despite the rocky start, we wound up having a great six nights at the HGVC Ocean Oak. It's a very nice property although much smaller and more low-key than the bigger Marriott resorts. We had a courtyard view room but still had a partial ocean view from the third floor. We could also see Grande Ocean next door which kept reminding us of the whole fiasco. Weather was perfect all week. Got to try several great restaurants from Marty's Restaurant Guide that we haven't tried before - British Open Pub (a nice locals type of spot), One Hot Mama's (great ribs), The Jazz Corner (a GREAT evening), and the FishCamp on Broad Creek (excellent seafood). We also had to make our obligatory visit to Skull Creek Boathouse, and our regular stop at Barnacle Bill's seafood stand for some fresh seafood to prepare in the condo. Found out that HGVC also has call-ahead privileges at Skull Creek Boathouse, just like MVC. Played a round of golf at the Robert Trent Jones course in Palmetto Dunes, spent part of a day with a real estate agent looking at homes/villas, and spent a lot of time just chillin' on the beach.

One reason why the HGVC apparently fared better through the winds and rain than did the Marriotts may be their patio doors. Those doors were the thickest, heaviest sliding doors I've ever tried to operate - much more robust than those at Barony that we are most familiar with. That might explain why Barony lost 60 rooms but HGVC gave the impression of being in full operation. Since HGVC is very new, perhaps building codes have evolved since the Marriott properties were constructed.


----------



## Dean (Sep 23, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Please don't assume that those of us who disagree with MVW's actions here don't realize or understand the difficult position that MVW faced as a result of this storm.  I get it.  I just don't get their machinations.  The eight HHI resorts do not legally constitute a single cluster with reciprocal reservation rights, so the fact that MVW apparently thinks they do needs explaining.


There sure seems to be a lack of sympathy for the unusual and difficult situation they were faced with.  As for the legalities of the consolidations and priority of usage, I've already addressed the issues but to reiterate.  A partial week for an exchange is essentially impossible as I understand the II exchange setup, my understanding is it's all or none technically.  The rest comes down to the legalities and nature of the contract on such matters, esp the II contract and the POS.  I haven't seen a single reference to info in the POS that would contradict their ability to do this and that would be the standard to which their right to do so should be measured.  Hopefully they'll give a formal explanation that eases the tensions but given this thread, I doubt they can win no matter what they say or why.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 23, 2017)

Dean said:


> There sure seems to be a lack of sympathy for the unusual and difficult situation they were faced with.  As for the legalities of the consolidations and priority of usage, I've already addressed the issues but to reiterate.  A partial week for an exchange is essentially impossible as I understand the II exchange setup, my understanding is it's all or none technically.  The rest comes down to the legalities and nature of the contract on such matters, esp the II contract and the POS.  I haven't seen a single reference to info in the POS that would contradict their ability to do this and that would be the standard to which their right to do so should be measured.  Hopefully they'll give a formal explanation that eases the tensions but given this thread, I doubt they can win no matter what they say or why.



Here is what II discloses as its exchange cancellation terms with II members:

II Exchange Cancellation Policy — Other than Club Interval Points–Based Exchange Confirmations (a) The only circumstances under which a Member using the Exchange Program may lose the use and occupancy of the Home Resort accommodations or relinquished points (including Preferred Points) without being provided Host Accommodations are if a Member: (i) using the Deposit First method of exchange fails to submit a valid exchange request within the time periods specified; (ii) using the Deposit First method of exchange requests accommodations that are not available and fails to accept any alternate locations and/or time periods offered; (iii) cancels a Confirmation seven days or more prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled and fails to request substitute accommodations in accordance with II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; (iv) cancels a Confirmation less than seven days prior to the first date of occupancy of the Host Accommodations being canceled; (v) cancels or loses the use of a Confirmation, at any time, due to the threatened or actual damage or destruction of the Host Accommodations; (vi) cancels a Confirmation for substitute Host Accommodations that was previously issued to the Member under II’s Exchange Cancellation Policy; or (vii) where the use of the Home Resort accommodations by II is lost or impaired due to circumstances beyond II’s control.

Also, II members acknowledge that:

 If II should fail, or be delayed or impaired in the performance of any obligation hereunder, including, but not limited to, providing exchange accommodations, due to causes beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of II, then II shall be excused from further 3 n II performance. Such causes may include, but are not limited to, acts of God or public enemy, fire, strikes, lockout or other labor unrest, riot, explosion, civil disobedience, declared or undeclared war, revolution, insurrection, boycotts, acts of piracy, acts of terrorism, acts of public authorities, blockade, embargo, accident, epidemic or quarantine, labor shortages based on pandemics or widespread illness within a given servicing location, delays or defaults caused by public or common carriers, and/or other circumstances materially impacting travel to a particular geographic region or in general.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 25, 2017)

Update from today...I connected with Mark DelCampo at Interval as several of you suggested, and Mark was very apologetic for the way the situation was handled with our week at Grande Ocean. He explained they were reacting to an unprecedented loss of units in the Caribbean, Florida, and South Carolina in a period when even they were impacted at their Miami-based operation with limited staffing due to the impact of Irma. Mark indicated that decisions were being made in real-time between MVC and II management that week as the recovery was beginning, and as a result, communication to the resorts and call centers suffered, resulting in my situation where I was first told my exchange was fine and then told it was cancelled, resulting in our week being cancelled at the 11th hour with no option to retrade the week.

Mark was able to provide us with a Marriott-preference replacement week/certificate that can be used for both online searches and for placing a request for travel through 2018. I feel much better about this resolution now than I did a week ago. Mark seems to be a class act and spent a long time on the phone with me discussing the situation.

I did find out from Mark that it was not just September 15 (Friday) check-ins in HHI that were impacted by the cancellation of II exchanges that weekend, but some or all of the other check-in days were also impacted. He said at least some exchange cancellations were still ongoing in HHI through October 6, as I recall. I'm not 100% sure from our conversation whether all II exchanges at all HHI resorts are still being cancelled, or just some subset that are still impacted through October 6. He said that exchanges are not automatically cancelled just because the resort is unavailable on check-in day, but that Marriott and Interval made the decisions to cancel the incoming Interval exchanges because of the number of timeshare units on Hilton Head that were unavailable due to damage. My interpretation was that once Marriott and Interval made the decision to cancel the exchanges, Marriott then used their sole discretion in deciding who would occupy the units vacated by the II exchanges.

I'm still thinking through whether I still want to write something to management at Marriott Vacations Worldwide, given how poorly I think this whole thing was handled. Interval's actions have now made me about as whole as I can reasonably expect to be given the situation, but part of me still wants to let Marriott management know how the way this whole situation was handled (mishandled) has impacted our view of their company and their brand. And when I read on the TUG HGVC board that HGVC is providing detailed owner updates and is reimbursing at least some owners at affected Marco Island resorts for their maintenance fees, I do wonder why MVC has come across as so much less accommodating and transparent.


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 25, 2017)

^^^ Glad that II stepped up for you.  Kudo's to them as they were as much a victim of MVC's shenanigans as you were.  

As for MVC cancelling all II check ins that entire weekend, even when a resort was fully opened (think GO as a Saturday check in) so MVC could use availability as they saw fit just doesn't sit right.  If I were you, I would for sure be drafting a letter to MVC so they could feel my displeasure, in hopes that they will handle things differently next time.


----------



## sb2313 (Sep 25, 2017)

For what it’s worth, we are at Surfwatch via II with a check in of the 22nd and my inlaws checked in at grande ocean the same day also via II.


----------



## Panina (Sep 25, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Update from today...I connected with Mark DelCampo at Interval as several of you suggested, and Mark was very apologetic for the way the situation was handled with our week at Grande Ocean. He explained they were reacting to an unprecedented loss of units in the Caribbean, Florida, and South Carolina in a period when even they were impacted at their Miami-based operation with limited staffing due to the impact of Irma. Mark indicated that decisions were being made in real-time between MVC and II management that week as the recovery was beginning, and as a result, communication to the resorts and call centers suffered, resulting in my situation where I was first told my exchange was fine and then told it was cancelled, resulting in our week being cancelled at the 11th hour with no option to retrade the week.
> 
> Mark was able to provide us with a Marriott-preference replacement week/certificate that can be used for both online searches and for placing a request for travel through 2018. I feel much better about this resolution now than I did a week ago. Mark seems to be a class act and spent a long time on the phone with me discussing the situation.
> 
> ...


I am glad you got a replacement week of value. Mark is a valuable asset to II and us. The HGVC resorts on Marco Island are affiliates so they decide on what insurances to take for their owners so maybe that is the difference in compensation.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 25, 2017)

sb2313 said:


> For what it’s worth, we are at Surfwatch via II with a check in of the 22nd and my inlaws checked in at grande ocean the same day also via II.



Good info. That means when Mark said there were still HHI cancellations ongoing through Oct 6, he was probably referring just to the resorts that were still closed or otherwise more substantially impacted by water intrusion (maybe Barony?).


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 25, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> As for MVC cancelling all II check ins that entire weekend, even when a resort was fully opened (think GO as a Saturday check in) so MVC could use availability as they saw fit just doesn't sit right.  If I were you, I would for sure be drafting a letter to MVC so they could feel my displeasure, in hopes that they will handle things differently next time.



Just to clarify and make sure I'm not implying something that isn't necessarily true, I probably shouldn't have said "all check-in days" in my post above. Mark said that cancellations that weekend were not limited to just the Sept 15 check-ins when the resort was still closed, but other check-in days were also impacted due to the rooms being out of service. So the word "all" was mine, and it may or may not be true that *all* II check-ins that weekend were cancelled. I probably should have said "some or all" and have edited the post above to reflect that clarification.


----------



## Dean (Sep 25, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> ^^^ Glad that II stepped up for you.  Kudo's to them as they were as much a victim of MVC's shenanigans as you were.
> 
> As for MVC cancelling all II check ins that entire weekend, even when a resort was fully opened (think GO as a Saturday check in) so MVC could use availability as they saw fit just doesn't sit right.  If I were you, I would for sure be drafting a letter to MVC so they could feel my displeasure, in hopes that they will handle things differently next time.


I read Jim's note quite differently, maybe you're interjecting your opinion.  My reading on Jim's post was that II and Marriott conferred early and often and that decisions were made jointly as to cancellations.  

Jim, I would compose a letter to corporate on this issue.  A well worded and fair letter can do nothing but help for the future.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 25, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> ^^^ Glad that II stepped up for you.  Kudo's to them as they were as much a victim of MVC's shenanigans as you were.
> 
> As for MVC cancelling all II check ins that entire weekend, even when a resort was fully opened (think GO as a Saturday check in) so MVC could use availability as they saw fit just doesn't sit right.  If I were you, I would for sure be drafting a letter to MVC so they could feel my displeasure, in hopes that they will handle things differently next time.





Dean said:


> I read Jim's note quite differently, maybe you're interjecting your opinion.  My reading on Jim's post was that II and Marriott conferred early and often and that decisions were made jointly as to cancellations.
> 
> Jim, I would compose a letter to corporate on this issue.  A well worded and fair letter can do nothing but help for the future.



I think both of you are right...the implication I received from Mark was that II and Marriott did confer at the corporate level on the cancellations and the decision was a joint decision, but he did say something to the effect that when Marriott says they need to cancel the incoming II reservations due to lost unit inventory because of the storm, there's not a lot II can do about it as it's beyond their control. But once the decision to cancel was made, how those freed up rooms were then allocated appears to be at Marriott's discretion.


----------



## klpca (Sep 25, 2017)

Glad that you made contact with Mark. He is awesome and is part of the reason that I am loyal to II. Us Tuggers are lucky to have him as a contact.

And I still think that Marriott handled this poorly. I'll give them a slight benefit of the doubt under the unprecedented circumstances,  but the way that they shuffled rooms will never sit right with me. They used cancelled Interval exchanges - owner deposits - then turned around and used them at their discretion to accommodate other owners from other resorts. It is as if they don't recognize who actually owns the units.


----------



## Dean (Sep 25, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I think both of you are right...the implication I received from Mark was that II and Marriott did confer at the corporate level on the cancellations and the decision was a joint decision, but he did say something to the effect that when Marriott says they need to cancel the incoming II reservations due to lost unit inventory because of the storm, there's not a lot II can do about it as it's beyond their control. But once the decision to cancel was made, how those freed up rooms were then allocated appears to be at Marriott's discretion.


Thanks Jim, did he reference the II Marriott contract, IMO that would a core piece of info to me for final interpretation of this issue.  Obviously we're not going to have access to the contract itself.


----------



## JIMinNC (Sep 25, 2017)

Dean said:


> Thanks Jim, did he reference the II Marriott contract, IMO that would a core piece of info to me for final interpretation of this issue.  Obviously we're not going to have access to the contract itself.



No. We didn't really get into those kinds of details. We didn't talk about what Marriott or II are contractually allowed to do or prohibited from doing.


----------



## kds4 (Sep 25, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Update from today...I connected with Mark DelCampo at Interval as several of you suggested, and Mark was very apologetic for the way the situation was handled with our week at Grande Ocean. He explained they were reacting to an unprecedented loss of units in the Caribbean, Florida, and South Carolina in a period when even they were impacted at their Miami-based operation with limited staffing due to the impact of Irma. Mark indicated that decisions were being made in real-time between MVC and II management that week as the recovery was beginning, and as a result, communication to the resorts and call centers suffered, resulting in my situation where I was first told my exchange was fine and then told it was cancelled, resulting in our week being cancelled at the 11th hour with no option to retrade the week.
> 
> Mark was able to provide us with a Marriott-preference replacement week/certificate that can be used for both online searches and for placing a request for travel through 2018. I feel much better about this resolution now than I did a week ago. Mark seems to be a class act and spent a long time on the phone with me discussing the situation.
> 
> ...



_"If MVCI's own actions are the reason I cannot occupy a reserved unit (and not Hurricane whomever), then a points reservations should be restored without the holding account restriction, the opportunity to still use my week should be made available to me (even if that means opening up unassigned inventory in a season or possibly at a resort I don't own - they moved owners among properties on HHI, so it must be a viable option), *and MVCI should provide an unrestricted replacement week with Marriott preference through II for exchanges made by owners."*_

I'm glad you were made as whole as II could provide. I hope you do write a letter to MVCI, so they can see the other side of this coin.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 3, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> U
> 
> I'm still thinking through whether I still want to write something to management at Marriott Vacations Worldwide, given how poorly I think this whole thing was handled. Interval's actions have now made me about as whole as I can reasonably expect to be given the situation, but part of me still wants to let Marriott management know how the way this whole situation was handled (mishandled) has impacted our view of their company and their brand. And when I read on the TUG HGVC board that HGVC is providing detailed owner updates and is reimbursing at least some owners at affected Marco Island resorts for their maintenance fees, I do wonder why MVC has come across as so much less accommodating and transparent.


Jim, 
Did you ever contact MVC regarding this situation, especially after learning that Encore customers from Monarch were accommodated during your planned stay? MVC has been terrible during this whole situation and are doing nothing to communicate with owners regarding upcoming reservations/ exchanges or conditions of the resorts.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 3, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Jim,
> Did you ever contact MVC regarding this situation, especially after learning that Encore customers from Monarch were accommodated during your planned stay? MVC has been terrible during this whole situation and are doing nothing to communicate with owners regarding upcoming reservations/ exchanges or conditions of the resorts.



I sent a letter/email yesterday, in fact. Focused my comments on our displeasure about exchanging owners with confirmed reservations being displaced to accommodate people from other resorts, including Encore prospects. Who knows whether I will get a reply.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 5, 2017)

The more I learn about how MVC corporate is handling the resort reservations with limited space, the more concerned I get. From what I've seen, they are basically canceling all II exchanges at impacted resorts, but it appears they are honoring all MVC points reservations. If you think about it, this policy is providing priority to the trust at the expense of legacy weeks owners. Ocean Pointe and Beach Place Towers have high legacy weeks ownership. Only some legacy weeks owner are enrolled in the points program while the remaining owners have to exchange through II. All II exchanges require a deposit of an owners week. A cancelled II exchange therefore cancels a legacy week reservation.

Reservations at limited capacity resorts should be proportioned based on weeks ownership and trust. if all II reservations are being cancelled while points reservations (and Encore) are accommodated, the trust is getting more than their fair share of the available units. Allocation decisions are being made at the corporate level rather than by the resort management. I think owners have to start letting MVC management know that this isn't acceptable.


----------



## Dean (Oct 5, 2017)

Superchief said:


> The more I learn about how MVC corporate is handling the resort reservations with limited space, the more concerned I get. From what I've seen, they are basically canceling all II exchanges at impacted resorts, but it appears they are honoring all MVC points reservations. If you think about it, this policy is providing priority to the trust at the expense of legacy weeks owners. Ocean Pointe and Beach Place Towers have high legacy weeks ownership. Only some legacy weeks owner are enrolled in the points program while the remaining owners have to exchange through II. All II exchanges require a deposit of an owners week. A cancelled II exchange therefore cancels a legacy week reservation.
> 
> Reservations at limited capacity resorts should be proportioned based on weeks ownership and trust. if all II reservations are being cancelled while points reservations (and Encore) are accommodated, the trust is getting more than their fair share of the available units. Allocation decisions are being made at the corporate level rather than by the resort management. I think owners have to start letting MVC management know that this isn't acceptable.


While a handful of resorts give owners exchanging in an advantage, Marriott as a company has routinely treated owners exchanging back as exchangers rather than owners.  I'm glad they are prioritizing for points reservation as I feel those should be treated as owners and not exchangers even though the official line on unit assignment is to treat them as exchangers.  Obviously this hasn't been a perfect situation but it was a very trying time.


----------



## klpca (Oct 5, 2017)

Superchief said:


> The more I learn about how MVC corporate is handling the resort reservations with limited space, the more concerned I get. From what I've seen, they are basically canceling all II exchanges at impacted resorts, but it appears they are honoring all MVC points reservations. If you think about it, this policy is providing priority to the trust at the expense of legacy weeks owners. Ocean Pointe and Beach Place Towers have high legacy weeks ownership. Only some legacy weeks owner are enrolled in the points program while the remaining owners have to exchange through II. All II exchanges require a deposit of an owners week. A cancelled II exchange therefore cancels a legacy week reservation.
> 
> Reservations at limited capacity resorts should be proportioned based on weeks ownership and trust. if all II reservations are being cancelled while points reservations (and Encore) are accommodated, *the trust is getting more than their fair share of the available units*. Allocation decisions are being made at the corporate level rather than by the resort management. I think owners have to start letting MVC management know that this isn't acceptable.



Exactly. This (bolded) is the part that bothers me.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 5, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Reservations at limited capacity resorts should be proportioned based on weeks ownership and trust. if all II reservations are being cancelled while points reservations (and Encore) are accommodated,* the trust is getting more than their fair share of the available units*. Allocation decisions are being made at the corporate level rather than by the resort management. I think owners have to start letting MVC management know that this isn't acceptable.





klpca said:


> Exactly. This (bolded) is the part that bothers me.


Technically its likely Trust and Enrolled points usage, not purely Trust usage as well as owned weeks usage that appears to be getting preferential treatment.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 5, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> Technically its likely Trust and Enrolled points usage, not purely Trust usage as well as owned weeks usage that appears to be getting preferential treatment.


I thought this at first, but considering that no II exchanges are being honored and they are all from weeks owners, the allocation can't be balanced. I have enrolled points and use them regularly so I agree that owners and points users should have priority overall. However, large portions of occupancy this time of year are II exchanges. On my check-in date 10/29, there are 52 II exchanges. If all of these are cancelled and no DC points are cancelled, this takes villas away from owners utilizing the weeks they paid for. MVC is accomplishing what the sales people are telling non-enrolled owners: if you don't have points you won't be able to stay at MVC resorts. 

I would not be as concerned if they were allocating some of the available villas to MVC owners, especially those exchanging into home resorts. However, II hasn't even been asked to provide this information, so it is all or nothing based on MVC corporate's decisions. This is the first time I have encountered corporate having total control over resort occupancy decisions. I would like to express my opinion to 'corporate', but there is not any contact information available to send my concerns.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 5, 2017)

Superchief said:


> I would like to express my opinion to 'corporate', but there is not any contact information available to send my concerns.



I sent you a PM.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 11, 2017)

About 10 days ago, I sent an email to Steve Weisz and the head of Marriott Customer Care about this experience. For the last week or so, I've been in an email dialogue with a person from Marriott Customer Advocacy who responded on behalf of Mr. Weisz, trying to understand what happened and why. I've learned a few things, but thanks to a general lack of transparency, the questions that remain are more numerous than those that were answered. I don't want to post the letters or the exact replies since the Marriott employees have a reasonable expectation that their emails aren't going to be posted on the internet in their entirety, but I do think the TUG community will find some of the things I learned informative. Given that this thread is already up to six pages, I think it's best to start a new thread focusing on what I learned and what I didn't learn. I hope that is OK with the Moderators.

Here is a link to that new thread:

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...lled-exchange-how-they-view-exchanges.263521/

_[Moderator Note: This thread being closed to prevent duplicate posts; discussion continues in Jim's linked thread.]_


----------

