# 10 People in a Royal Resort villa??



## Phydeaux (Jul 14, 2010)

There's a current thread on another forum where a renter in a party of 10 has been given the green light by Royal Resorts mgmnt to occupy 1 villa at the Royal Hacienda. Not sure about the other Royal Resort owners out there, but I know I wouldn't want *my* villa occupied by a group this size.  

Yikes!


----------



## timesharejunkie4 (Jul 14, 2010)

I saw that on the TA forums too! Not only would I not want that many people in my villa but I wouldn't want that many people in a villa anywhere near mine if I were there at the same time!


----------



## pjrose (Jul 14, 2010)

Amazing.  I find that hard to believe, (I'm not denying the report, just amazed).

It is unfair when those with one or two extra people are denied, but four extras are allowed.  

I can't figure out where they'd sleep.....two in the king bed, one in each Murphy bed, and two in each full bed still equals 8, not 10.  Then two roll-aways?  Or are some of them infants?

Can you provide a link?


----------



## Blue Skies (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't believe that the Royal Resorts management would ever approve this.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 15, 2010)

*The link*

OK, I found it...

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...Villa-Playa_del_Carmen_Yucatan_Peninsula.html

There are six adults (3 couples) and four little kids.  According to the TA OP (potential renter):

_I finally just decided to call the resort directly to get the occupancy question answered.

With 6 adults and 4 kids (all under 3 yrs. of age) they said it would be no problem for all of us to stay in 1 full villa. The 2 toddlers can sleep on the murphy beds and they will provide cribs for the 2 infants. Hope this helps anyone out there with similar questions._

That means the resort is (supposedly) allowing four adults in the lockoff, which I am surprised at.  I wonder if whoever the TA OP talked to understood, and also if the TA OP has it in writing.

I'd sure hate to be downstairs from all those footsteps, especially with several toddlers!


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 15, 2010)

pjrose said:


> OK, I found it...
> 
> http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopi...Villa-Playa_del_Carmen_Yucatan_Peninsula.html
> 
> ...



I am quite surprised by this.  The Royals management seem to take their concerns about wear and tear on the villa seriously.  The renter/owner of this unit is the one who will be ultimately responsible for any damage to the villa, no?  I certainly would not rent a unit to someone intended to use it as such.  The original post on the TA forum clearly spells out couple #2 in double bed 1 and couple #3 in double bed 2.  I am wondering, do you think they called Haciendas directly or ISCO in Ft. Lauderdale?  Either way, I can't imagine getting the go ahead from either. 

Personally, it wouldn't be much of a vacation for me having 10 people in one villa.  I don't care to share a bathroom with anyone other than my immediate family and *even that* is overrated sometimes.:hysterical:  I went to great lengths to get a lockoff for my Mom to join us this year when I could have put her on a Murphy bed in the living room.  If I were a member of this party of 10, I'd be advocating for at least an additional lockoff for one of the couples.  That would bring their occupancy down to 8 and give them an additional bathroom.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, I guess I'm not alone then in considering this excessive. Even though there are 2 toddlers, and 2 infants, this to me is still excessive. I wouldn't want ten people staying in my home for a week, and it's considerably larger than a RR villa.

Anyone care to guess how that villa looks on check out day??  

Interestingly, I also posted this to the Royal Resorts forum, asking for mgnmnt clarification. The majority of members commenting have no problem at all with 10 people in the villa.


----------



## Nashcar (Jul 15, 2010)

I think that this is way over the top.  The poor maid.  Are they going to give her an extra few hundred bucks for all the extra work??  They are trying to travel on the cheap by cramming all those people into one unit, so I doubt thay'll take care of the maid.  Good grief.  If you can't afford to go on vacation, don't go!


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 15, 2010)

Nashcar said:


> I think that this is way over the top.  The poor maid.  Are they going to give her an extra few hundred bucks for all the extra work??  They are trying to travel on the cheap by cramming all those people into one unit, so I doubt thay'll take care of the maid.  Good grief.  *If you can't afford to go on vacation, don't go*!



My exact thoughts.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 15, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> My exact thoughts.



Where I come from, our expression for this type of group is "tribe". And, yes, I have seen these units with doors open and the villa looks like a hurricane blew through. I'd be willing to bet the tip fo rthe housekeeper is a big fat zero.

(Please pardon this duplicate post. I don't see a delete function).


----------



## pjrose (Jul 15, 2010)

I fully agree with everyone.  

I also think this violates the contract, though I don't have a RH contract and the fine print may say that the occupancy can be increased with permission   

If the TA OP only has a verbal ok, s/he may run into a problem at check-in time.


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 15, 2010)

pjrose said:


> I fully agree with everyone.
> 
> I also think this violates the contract, though I don't have a RH contract and the fine print may say that the occupancy can be increased with permission
> 
> *If the TA OP only has a verbal ok, s/he may run into a problem at check-in time.*



:hysterical:  I'm laughing myself silly hoping that the OP gets checked in by my man Abraham on the front desk, you're not getting nothing by him!  I really do like him  but he is a stickler for the rules and the processes used by the Royals for getting anything done!  I have posted about my issues at check in during 2 of the last 3 years.  There is no way the staff won't know there are 10 people in that villa.  There is no sneaking anyone by the bellmen.  They keep very careful count of exactly how many people are arriving and where they are staying.  They will also have further scrutiny as they will be checking in at the non-member desk.  Not sure exactly what goes on over there   since they started that after we purchased.


----------



## BoaterMike (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't get it.   Why travel like that?   Especially when they can probably find a lock off unit close-by.   Where will they put their stuff?  The luggage? The diapers?  The food to feed 6 adults and two youngsters?  Two couples staying in the same bedroom for a week?  
<shrug>

Mike


----------



## maja651 (Jul 16, 2010)

BoaterMike said:


> I don't get it.   Why travel like that?   Especially when they can probably find a lock off unit close-by.   Where will they put their stuff?  The luggage? The diapers?  The food to feed 6 adults and two youngsters?  Two couples staying in the same bedroom for a week?
> <shrug>
> 
> Mike



AMEN!  Funny thing, we feel like it is crowded with more than 4 people!:hysterical:   I guess we are spoiled.  Anyone in the middle is just down right annoying to us, and I would NEVER want to share that lockoff with my husband AND another couple.  I guess they are not planning on a "romantic" vacation.  Also, consider the bathrooms!  ARGH!  10 people for 2 bathrooms?  That is my personal nightmare! 

Oh, and from a member's point of view, if they DO allow this, I will be very upset.  I always though the rule was 6 to a villa max, with the option of a 7th person if you paid $25 a day more. If everyone chose to bring 10 people to each villa, imagine the chair hogging situation then!  I love that you can easily find a chair anywhere (beach or pool) at the Haciendas without any problems.  I would hate the resort to become overcrowded.  It would ruin one of the things that is special about the Royals.

Michelle


----------



## pjrose (Jul 16, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> Well, I guess I'm not alone then in considering this excessive. Even though there are 2 toddlers, and 2 infants, this to me is still excessive. I wouldn't want ten people staying in my home for a week, and it's considerably larger than a RR villa.
> 
> Anyone care to guess how that villa looks on check out day??
> 
> Interestingly, *I also posted this to the Royal Resorts forum, asking for mgnmnt clarification. *The majority of members commenting have no problem at all with 10 people in the villa.



Did you get a response from management?  Can you provide a link?


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 16, 2010)

pjrose said:


> Did you get a response from management?  Can you provide a link?



No response from mgmnt. The Forum page on Royal Resorts web site must be down at the moment. 

If you feel 10 in a villa is excessive, as I do, I'd encourage you to make yourself heard on the RR forum after the site is back up. This is too close to slum management for comfort, imho.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 16, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> No response from mgmnt. The Forum page on Royal Resorts web site must be down at the moment.
> 
> If you feel 10 in a villa is excessive, as I do, I'd encourage you to make yourself heard on the RR forum after the site is back up. This is too close to slum management for comfort, imho.



I agree, although I suspect the logic is that the 4 toddlers/infants don't count.


----------



## BoaterMike (Jul 16, 2010)

Anyone else comment on the TA forum thread?   

I don't know that it does not solve the issue on a grander scale, but other travelers considering such a arrangement might be better informed.   

Mike


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 16, 2010)

You should visit a timeshare in Mexico during Easter week ( la Semana Santa ) if you want to see overcrowding. That is the big week for the Mexicans to use their timeshares. We were at the Grand Mayan - Nuevo Vallarta for the Easter week and the week after in 2006. There were as many as 10-12 persons in a 1BR unit. We have had 7-8 people in our unit in Mazatlan where we have family living in the area. It is all part of the Mexican culture to invite your family members. Management just looks the other way because it is a cultural thing. Service definitely suffers during the Easter week with the resort probably at 150% occupancy but that is the way it is and it won't change. My advice is don't go during this period if that is a problem for you.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 16, 2010)

Personally, my concern isn't that I will be inconvenienced during my visit, but that this is an over extension of the occupancy limits of villas that I have invested in, along with the other concerns previously mentioned. Cultural or not, rules should be rules. Otherwise, why even have them?


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 16, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> Personally, my concern isn't that I will be inconvenienced during my visit, but that this is an over extension of the occupancy limits of villas that I have invested in, along with the other concerns previously mentioned. Cultural or not, rules should be rules. Otherwise, why even have them?



I guess you aren't very familiar with life in Mexico. Family is far more important than rules. When we lived in Mexico, many times we would have 7 or 8 people in our 2 DR coupe. I am not saying it is right or wrong but just the way things are. You aren't going to change it.


----------



## am1 (Jul 17, 2010)

If that is how people choose to vacation then why judge them?  If they can only afford one room for 10 people then be happy for them that they can still go on vacation.  Something that I am sure you love doing.  

If it violates the resorts policy then that is wrong and is unnacceptable.  Having more then the maximum allowed in each unit costs all owners more and takes away from others vacationing.  The advertised maximum may not actually be the maximum though.  In the US it would most likely be a fire code violation if it was infact too many which would cost the resort a lot if there was a problem.  I am sure this is a very common thing all over the world and rarely is enforced as why would someone working the front desk care.   

You can always complain to the resort but I doubt that would do much.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 17, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> I guess you aren't very familiar with life in Mexico. Family is far more important than rules. When we lived in Mexico, many times we would have 7 or 8 people in our 2 DR coupe. I am not saying it is right or wrong but just the way things are. You aren't going to change it.



This suggests you are assuming that the party of 10 is Mexican. I have not made any assumptions of their nationality.


----------



## BoaterMike (Jul 17, 2010)

My random thoughts of the morning:

Does Royal consider the addition of 2 cribs excessive to the 8 person capacity of the unit?  I expect that answer varies based on who you talk to at RH on any given day, and do they totally understand the question.   

A lot of us don't get the two couples occupying two double beds in the lock off.  A number of us know from experience that there's only so much storage and open space in those units and wonder what happens with all the stuff when you have the murphy beds open plus two cribs.  They are probably blocking fire exits with their gear, but that's another story.   

However,  none of what we think matters.   Does RH count the infants (cribs) in the equation? 

And, by the way, the TA original poster is from Nebraska.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 17, 2010)

BoaterMike said:


> . . .
> Does Royal consider the addition of 2 cribs excessive to the 8 person capacity of the unit?  I expect that answer varies based on who you talk to at RH on any given day, and do they totally understand the question.
> 
> . . .
> ...



What does the RH Membership Agreement actually say about occupancy?  The RI Membership Agreement (section seven) says 
_"The maximum number of occupants allowed to utilize a villa is six; four in the master suite and two in the adjoining lock-off bedroom and bath.  However, *two additional occupants may be permitted in the Villa if authorized by Club Rules and Regulations, subject to the following conditions: (i) advance notice is required and (ii) a special daily use fee for each additional occupant above twelve years of age must be paid in advance*_.​
So the usual maximum is six, and two more can be ok IF...   

Where are "Club Rules and Regulations" found?

As far as the importance of family over rules in Mexican culture goes, I think the relevancy here is not the culture of the occupants, but of the location of the resort and its employees.  Over-occupancy by any large family in a US resort may not be tolerated, while in Mexico it would be ok.


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 17, 2010)

pjrose said:


> *What does the RH Membership Agreement actually say about occupancy? * The RI Membership Agreement (section seven) says
> _"The maximum number of occupants allowed to utilize a villa is six; four in the master suite and two in the adjoining lock-off bedroom and bath.  However, *two additional occupants may be permitted in the Villa if authorized by Club Rules and Regulations, subject to the following conditions: (i) advance notice is required and (ii) a special daily use fee for each additional occupant above twelve years of age must be paid in advance*_.​
> So the usual maximum is six, and two more can be ok IF...
> 
> ...



Ok... the continuation of this discussion has prompted me to go dig out my membership agreement.  _The maximum number of occupants allowed to occupy a Villa is six; four in the Suite and two in the Room.  However, one additional occupant may be permitted if the Villa is being occupied subject to the following conditions: (i) advanced notice is required; and (ii) a special daily use fee for each additional occupant above sixteen years of age must be paid in advance. _

That should clear up any confusion about what the rules permit.  However, it seems curious to me that the contract states the daily fee has to be paid for *each occupant* above 16 years of age (meaning possibly more than one) when it should state that the additional occupant (meaning only one person) may have to pay the daily fee if over the age of 16.  Semantics...


----------



## pjrose (Jul 17, 2010)

johnsontrio said:


> . . .  it seems curious to me that the contract states the daily fee has to be paid for *each occupant* above 16 years of age (meaning possibly more than one) when it should state that the additional occupant (meaning only one person) may have to pay the daily fee if over the age of 16.  Semantics...



What's the Spanish clause say?  Maybe the English "each" is a poor translation?


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 17, 2010)

pjrose said:


> What's the Spanish clause say?  Maybe the English "each" is a poor translation?



Good point!  I have written here what it says in Spanish and I will use Google translator to see what it translates to in English, but I am aware that there are difficulties with Google translator.

*se requiere pagar una cuota especial diaria por anticipado por el ocupante adicional mayor de 16 anos/I]*_


Google translator: *required to pay a special fee in advance for the daily additional occupant over 16 years* 


The Royals have always been steadfast in their belief that the occupancy of the lockoff is 2 persons, despite the fact that the lockoffs have 2 double beds.  In thinking about this, I believe the only way the Royals would approve this would be the thought that 10 persons equals:

2 adults in the Master
one adult on each of the Murphy beds
one adult and one toddler in each of the double beds in the lockoff 
2 infants in cribs.  

This would still maintain the 4 persons in the Suite, and 2 persons in the lockoff and the children don't count.

It's very interesting that several posters have commented on the cultural differences.  This year we had several staff members tell us in great detail how they don't make any money the weeks that are primarily owned by the Mexican Nationals.  I think it was a topic of discussion for them because we were there weeks 24 and 25 and week 26 begins the Mexican summer vacation period.  They told us that, in general, they don't come to the pools until late in the day, well after 12 noon or 1pm, and that they don't spend any money.  One gal told us that they have the driver come ahead with a carload of food, drinks and the household help and the family flies in on the check-in day.  She told us that the maid/cook will prepare elaborate dinners in the condo, for example, huge whole fish.  One staff member said that it is common for them to complain about service, preparation of food and beverage, and ask to not be charged.  The impression that I got is that, in general, the Mexican members are wealthier and have greater expectations and demands than the typical American member.  During the weeks we go there are many Mexican families there, although not the majority.  I have never noticed much of a difference and I am a people watcher and talk to everyone.  I have noticed, however, that there are never any Mexicans in the yoga class at 8am, the water stretching at 9am or aerobics at 11am.

Now I wonder why I get so excited worrying about how much space I need when all I have is one extra person.   The last two years I have rented a unit and traded in order to have additional space.  Different strokes for different folks._


----------



## pjrose (Jul 17, 2010)

johnsontrio - yes, I agree with everything above.  "el ocupante" clearly translates to "the" not each.  Your head count - or bed count - makes sense.

Regarding your comments about the Mexican Nationals, staff, spending money, and tips.....we often go for various weeks between 24 and 27, and there are clear differences.

I've heard the same types of comments from staff at the Sands and Tris about "Mexican weeks."  Many of the Mexicans who can afford the resorts are wealthy, and it's not unusual to come with their own maids etc.  The waiters have said that the restaurants are empty, and the tips are low.  We have noticed 20 adults sitting together for an extended brunch, while a dozen little kids race around the restaurant unchecked.  When we've complained to the staff they've said they can't do anything - they aren't going to go against the other guests and risk complaints and tips.

We have noticed large extended families cooking really yummy smelling stuff on the beach (no criticism there - it smells great and everyone's having a good time - but that does lead to a loss of potential income for the staff).  We have seen more of the Mexican than American kids leaving trash around, I guess expecting that the staff is there to clean up after them.  I have pointed more than one kid toward the trash can - after a few blank looks they generally do cooperate and toss their stuff  

We've also been told by Security and Front Desk personnel that they have more trouble with the Mexican guests, for example in not taking flash pictures of turtles or not checking out on time.  Again, I don't think it's a cultural thing, but that the wealthier guests are more used to having staff defer to them, and in turn the staff are more likely to defer to them.

I'm not sure about this, but I think the wealthier are more likely to be of Spanish or Aztec background as are the white collar staff, while the cleaning/maintenance/waiters etc are more likely Mayan.....The economic and other differences are similar to the racial/ethnic differences here.


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 17, 2010)

We were floored by the comments we heard this past visit primarily because we can't imagine complaining about the staff, food, accommodations or anything else, en mass.  *It is, by far, the best vacation we take anywhere.*  Even cruising, with the personal attention you get from your cabin steward, main waiter, etc. does not compare to the kind, gracious service that the employees deliver every day with smiles on their faces.  This past visit my daughter tripped on the edge of the pool decking hitting just below her knee while walking back from the hammocks.  3 of the pool bartenders came running to her with a bag of ice and were joking with her "We're doctors, you're going to be OK".  Not only that, but within a minute or two, one of the staff came to our chairs and told me that she had fallen and what the extent of her injury was.

Contrast that to our Easter visit to Panama City Beach (never again  ).  We made plans at the last minute to join other family members there and had to take what was left of the condos in that building.  Having never been there before I didn't want to rent somewhere else and be too far away.  We paid 2K for a 3 BR 2 BA unit.  It was deplorable.  Prepared food left in the oven, every dish in the kitchen covered with grease, fridge filthy, 2 inches of dust and filth on the cold air exchange vents, no filter in the AC unit, and almost all of the towel bars ripped off the wall.  The renting agent would not even come to see this unit even after I called him over 10 times, although he did send maintenance.  To add to that, the people that we rented our pontoon boats and water crafts from treated us like crap.  We felt like they treat everyone like they are 21 year old drunk Spring Breakers.  Absolutely no respect for people that are spending their hard earned money in their town.:annoyed:  Never again!

In short, I guess I have a little pride in ownership at the Royal Haciendas and it upsets me to think that members are not treating the employees with the gratitude and respect they deserve for a job well done.  My husband and I joke that we aren't at the Royals anymore when we get home and are faced with the reality of rude, inconsiderate people.  We should be so lucky to have people like the Royals staff in our lives 52 weeks a year.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 17, 2010)

johnsontrio said:


> . . .  We should be so lucky to have people like the Royals staff in our lives 52 weeks a year.



     

It may seem like we've sort of hijacked the thread.....but this is related when we think of the staff, especially the maids, dealing with 10 people in one villa!


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 18, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> This suggests you are assuming that the party of 10 is Mexican. I have not made any assumptions of their nationality.



I am not assuming anything about that particular party. I am simply stating a fact that it is very common for Mexicans to pack a lot of folks into 1 unit. My wife is Mexican and I lived in Mexico so I am very familiar with it.


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 18, 2010)

It is NOT the wealthy Mexicans that are the problem. They are usually very respective and non abusive. It is the "wannabees" that are the problem. They are the ones that don't tip, crowd many people into the units, complain, and let their children run wild.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 18, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> It is NOT the wealthy Mexicans that are the problem. They are usually very respective and non abusive. It is the "wannabees" that are the problem. They are the ones that don't tip, crowd many people into the units, complain, and let their children run wild.



Ah...more of the nouveau riche, or pseudo riche?

I guess the wealthiest are going to St. Barts etc instead of Cancun.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 18, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> They are the ones that don't tip, crowd many people into the units, complain, and let their children run wild.



This sounds like another group of people - *Renters*! Oops, don't mean to open a can of worms, or generalize. I'm sure there are respectful renters out there.


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 18, 2010)

pjrose said:


> Ah...more of the nouveau riche, or pseudo riche?
> 
> I guess the wealthiest are going to St. Barts etc instead of Cancun.



Not at all. Many of the wealthy Mexicans vacation in Mexico.


----------



## John Cummings (Jul 18, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> This sounds like another group of people - *Renters*! Oops, don't mean to open a can of worms, or generalize. I'm sure there are respectful renters out there.



No, most of them are owners or guests of owners ( not renters ). We have met many of them. When my wife and I vacation in Mexico, we only associate with the Mexican people including locals, resort employees, and timeshare guests. We have stayed 10 weeks at the Grand Mayans, and several weeks at other Mexican timeshares including the Royal Mayan.


----------



## Blue Skies (Jul 18, 2010)

johnsontrio said:


> Contrast that to our Easter visit to Panama City Beach (never again  ).  We made plans at the last minute to join other family members there and had to take what was left of the condos in that building.  Having never been there before I didn't want to rent somewhere else and be too far away.  We paid 2K for a 3 BR 2 BA unit.  It was deplorable.  Prepared food left in the oven, every dish in the kitchen covered with grease, fridge filthy, 2 inches of dust and filth on the cold air exchange vents, no filter in the AC unit, and almost all of the towel bars ripped off the wall.  The renting agent would not even come to see this unit even after I called him over 10 times, although he did send maintenance.  To add to that, the people that we rented our pontoon boats and water crafts from treated us like crap.  We felt like they treat everyone like they are 21 year old drunk Spring Breakers.  Absolutely no respect for people that are spending their hard earned money in their town.:annoyed:  Never again!



Did you post a review on www.tripadvisor.com?


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 18, 2010)

Blue Skies said:


> Did you post a review on www.tripadvisor.com?



I found this rental through VRBO.  The gentleman    I rented from runs one rental agency and his brother runs another.  The building itself has many nice units, each unit is updated and decorated by the individual owner.  I tried to figure out how to post a review of this disgusting unit (owned by a real estate agent, no less) but couldn't figure out how to do so.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.  While I grew up near, love the Gulf Coast and my heart goes out to the people of the Gulf,  my sarcastic side can't help but think the oil spill couldn't be happening to nicer people  , at least in this case.   I figure he has bigger problems then the blistering review I would love to give his company and this piece of garbage unit he rents for megabucks.


----------



## ilene13 (Jul 18, 2010)

*Royal Resorts occupancy*



John Cummings said:


> You should visit a timeshare in Mexico during Easter week ( la Semana Santa ) if you want to see overcrowding. That is the big week for the Mexicans to use their timeshares. We were at the Grand Mayan - Nuevo Vallarta for the Easter week and the week after in 2006. There were as many as 10-12 persons in a 1BR unit. We have had 7-8 people in our unit in Mazatlan where we have family living in the area. It is all part of the Mexican culture to invite your family members. Management just looks the other way because it is a cultural thing. Service definitely suffers during the Easter week with the resort probably at 150% occupancy but that is the way it is and it won't change. My advice is don't go during this period if that is a problem for you.



First of all I own at the Sands and at the Haciendas.  I go to the Sands annually during Semana de Santos(which is the week before Easter Sunday)and the following week,  as I am a high school assistant principal and that is always my spring break.  The Royal Sands does not allow that many people in their units.  I have rented out my lock-off portion and one year a renter and her friend had their 2 teenagers with them (unbeknownst to me).  The maids turned them in and they were charged $50 a day more.  
  Whoever is renting a unit at the Haciendas and bringing 10 people are going to be charged an extra daily fee.  They may as well rent another lock-off as it won't be much more.  
   For everyone who says that they are not happy---I TOTALLY AGREE.  I do not want it to be my unit they wreck!!!


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 21, 2010)

Update: Royal Resorts web site forum is back up, and a number of posts & threads were deleted. Included was mine asking for commentary from Royal Reosrts management on this 10 to a villa occupancy. 

The censorship at that site is a bit out of control.


----------



## kathyth12 (Jul 22, 2010)

Phydeaux said:


> Update: Royal Resorts web site forum is back up, and a number of posts & threads were deleted. Included was mine asking for commentary from Royal Reosrts management on this 10 to a villa occupancy.
> 
> The censorship at that site is a bit out of control.



Apparently Royal Resorts had a server problem and when they fixed it an earlier archived version of the message board was restored, losing all recent posts back to early June.  RR claims they are not censoring any posts.

I also want to know RR's explanation for their alleged approval of 10 people in one villa, and have asked for it both on the RR members message board and in the "Ask Joanna" section of the news site.  If I get a response I will post it here.


----------



## johnsontrio (Jul 30, 2010)

*This response was posted on the Royal Resorts Member Message Board on July 30, 2010.*

We would like to respond
to the many comments and queries about the occupancy limits at Royal Resorts.
The maximum number of people allowed in the villa is six, four to the suite and
two for the lock-off room. A seventh person in the party would incur an
additional person charge. In the case of families traveling with babies or
toddlers, cribs are available on request (the request must be sent prior to
travel and cribs are subject to availability). 


    Larger
families or parties of seven people or more are asked to rent an additional
room, suite or villa. 



We would like to stress that Reservations Center staff also review the villa occupancy
rules when contacting rental guests and the confirmation letter they receive
clearly states the occupancy limits. In the event that the number of guests
exceeds that which is permitted they will be required to rent an additional
room.



We continue to investigate this particular case.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 30, 2010)

Well that sounds pretty clear.  Since babies fall under "people" one assumes they count, but a specific statement to that effect would remove any inferred ambiguity.


----------



## kathyth12 (Aug 5, 2010)

Received a reply from Joanna Green ("Ask Joanna" column of Royal Resorts News) regarding my question about whether the occupancy limit of 6 was adults only, or occupants of any age:

"Thank you for writing to Royal Resorts News. I have received further clarification about the occupancy limits. The maximum number of people allowed in the villa is six, four to the suite and two for the lock-off room. A seventh person (child/adult) in the party incurs an additional daily occupancy fee (known as the special use fee) in effect at the time of occupancy. The only exception to this rule is if the seventh person is a baby or toddler, in this case the additional person charge is not applied. However, if there is another baby or toddler in the party, making a total of eight occupants for the villa, the additional person charge will be levied.
Members who may be bringing an additional (seventh person) should notify Royal Resorts prior to travel. In the case of families traveling with babies or toddlers, cribs are available on request (the request must be sent prior to travel and cribs are subject to availability).
I hope this answers your question and helps clear up the confusion. Please let me know if I can help with anything else."


----------



## johnsontrio (Aug 5, 2010)

kathyth12 said:


> Received a reply from Joanna Green ("Ask Joanna" column of Royal Resorts News) regarding my question about whether the occupancy limit of 6 was adults only, or occupants of any age:
> 
> "Thank you for writing to Royal Resorts News. I have received further clarification about the occupancy limits. The maximum number of people allowed in the villa is six, four to the suite and two for the lock-off room. A seventh person (child/adult) in the party incurs an additional daily occupancy fee (known as the special use fee) in effect at the time of occupancy. The only exception to this rule is if the seventh person is a baby or toddler, in this case the additional person charge is not applied. However, if there is another baby or toddler in the party, making a total of eight occupants for the villa, the additional person charge will be levied.
> Members who may be bringing an additional (seventh person) should notify Royal Resorts prior to travel. In the case of families traveling with babies or toddlers, cribs are available on request (the request must be sent prior to travel and cribs are subject to availability).
> I hope this answers your question and helps clear up the confusion. Please let me know if I can help with anything else."



     

Well, that is clear as mud!  So Joanne is saying that you can go to an occupancy of 8 if both the 7th and 8th persons are children.  However, she is not addressing if they ever allow a 9th or 10th person regardless of their age.  How difficult can it be to clearly state what is and what is not allowed?


----------



## KarenLK (Aug 5, 2010)

I agree -- it is a no-answer.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 5, 2010)

I think it's a bit better than before....now all she needs to add is whether or not number 8 is the final answer!


----------



## kathyth12 (Aug 6, 2010)

I agree that's it's still not clear whether the limit stops at 8 (providing occupants 7 and 8 are babies/toddlers) or if additional babies/toddlers are permitted with additional fees.  Or if more than 7 occupants of any age are permitted as long as the "special use fee" is paid.  I still don't know what the final limit is.

But would someone else please ask about this?  I have asked more than three times on two Royals message boards and this was the furthest clarification I could get.  I am sure they are sick of me asking, and may respond better to a query from an additional person.  The website is www.royalresortsnews.com, in the "Ask Joanna" tab.


----------



## gcole (Mar 6, 2011)

So they are allowing two infants to be added to an 8 person villa making a total of ten. I guess I don't see the infants destroying anything that the toddlers would not. I guess I don't understand the issue. One poster said they wouldn't want 10 in their home, I don't suppose I would want 8 either.


----------

