# Can we refuse to change room in the middle of week's stay?



## spottie (Dec 27, 2015)

We just checked in the Grand Residence Tahoe today. Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
I was really upset upon hearing this.  I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.  During those 12 month, could they not have contacted me in advance to let me know this will happen? I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving.   Plus, I paid for 7 nights/days, if they do not make the unit immediately available,  then am I losing half day of what I already paid for?  Can I refuse to move? Who can I contact at Marriott to have this resolved if it can not be done locally here? (General manager won't be in till Monday. )
If anyone has experience dealing with similar situations,  your advice is greatly appreciated!


----------



## bastroum (Dec 27, 2015)

The only way I see that this could have happened is if you have 2 separate reservations totaling 7 nights. If that is not the case I would refuse to move.


----------



## MommaBear (Dec 27, 2015)

I would move ONLY if:
1) They moved all of my belongings. I wouldn't mind packing most of my stuff the day before if I only had another night to go
2) The new unit was available immediately
3) They gave me a generous cash incentive to move

Otherwise, I have a weeklong reservation, I stay in one unit for a week. They are obviously between a rock and a hard place so they are trying to figure out if they inconvenience you or the next people checking in


----------



## OutAndAbout (Dec 27, 2015)

spottie said:


> Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
> 
> I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.
> 
> I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving



Did the hotel give you any reason why they are asking you to move?   Did the hotel ask you to move or tell you that you'd have to move?

Legally I don't think they can make you move just as removing a guest from a hotel or timeshare can be similar to the eviction process (it takes a while)

In the instances when I've moved rooms mid-stay due to a problem with the room the hotel has always offered assistance in moving (packing and moving bags).  I'm not a huge fan of others packing my items but I'm okay with someone storing/moving my luggage (depending on the contents of the luggage).  

If you are open to moving (with or without assistance), then you could negotiate some form of compensation (refund 1/2 your Destination Points for the last night?, complimentary dinner?, better villa?) to help offset your burden/inconvenience.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 27, 2015)

spottie said:


> We just checked in the Grand Residence Tahoe today. Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
> I was really upset upon hearing this.  I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.  During those 12 month, could they not have contacted me in advance to let me know this will happen? I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving.   Plus, I paid for 7 nights/days, if they do not make the unit immediately available,  then am I losing half day of what I already paid for?  Can I refuse to move? Who can I contact at Marriott to have this resolved if it can not be done locally here? (General manager won't be in till Monday. )
> If anyone has experience dealing with similar situations,  your advice is greatly appreciated!



I would speak with and discuss this issue with the Front Desk Mgr. ASAP! Good Luck!

Here are two (2) Toll Free Numbers to Marriott:
Reservation: 1-888-2362427 and to Marriott Customer Support: 1-800-721-7033.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 27, 2015)

It comes down to who has to move. It seems that somehow with inventory control, they have an overlap on a unit. SO either you move for the last night of your stay or the next guest moves after the first night of theirs. Who gets preference here? Is the next guest an owner staying on an owner stay? If not, do they have a higher level status?

This is an issue that we have discussed at great length with regard to points based stays. It could even be more problematic at properties where they have fixed week fixed unit ownership. Sure you can book a 7 night stay, but if it crosses a normal checkin/out day, you might just need to move on that day.

Hotels operate under different eviction rules in most areas. They don't necessarily need to go to the courts to evict you like an owner of a home or apartment needs to. I don't find it likely that they will evict you if you refused to move. They would just force the other person that is to be moving in to instead move.

I, myself wouldn't be one to argue this much. Given that we are probably starting to partially pack things up the day before checkout, I would be the one that is willing to move. Living out of a small overnight bag for the last night of your stay probably wouldn't be much of an issue.


----------



## GregT (Dec 27, 2015)

This happens with some frequency at Maui Ocean Club, when owners are booking 3BR units with points. In many situations, they have to move (and are just as unhappy as you are).   I would suspect that you are overlapping with a home week owner, and that the property is allowing the home week owner to stay in the room.   Candidly, I think that is the right thing for the property to do, and I hope you are able to move with minimal inconvenience.

Marriott really needs to add a disclaimer on certain properties that indicates that a reservation may require a move change if it crosses Saturday.  Wyndham does this, and it fairly alerts the guest of the possible risk.

Enjoy your trip!  You're still on vacation!

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 27, 2015)

bastroum said:


> The only way I see that this could have happened is if you have 2 separate reservations totaling 7 nights. If that is not the case I would refuse to move.



This.

If these 7 nights are a single DC Points reservation with a single confirmation number, this is the only first-person TUG report of someone being required to change units during a single-reservation stay.  Even after Greg's lengthy thread about his having to move during a multi-reservation stay, I still don't understand how/why _a single reservation with a single confirmation number_ can require a move at any time during the stay.

I think of it this way - the reservation IT system is where all underlying inventory controls are differentiated for auditing purposes _as required by mandate_.  They may not make the information transparent to us but if ever they're legally required to disclose it, such as in any of the lawsuits questioning their inventory controls, they have to be able to prove that they're allocating inventory correctly throughout all aspects of their two products.  If the system is merging inventory from separate "buckets" under a single reservation number, then what are they doing otherwise to protect our ownership rights as far as inventory control? 

Spottie, if you are working with a single reservation with a single confirmation number, I'd go beyond the resort and Owner Services all the way up to the MVW Executive Leadership with a letter directed to the President.  I would want a completely transparent explanation of how/why the IT system is allowed to book a single stay that requires a move.


----------



## Ann in CA (Dec 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> This.
> 
> 
> Spottie, if you are working with a single reservation with a single confirmation number, I'd go beyond the resort and Owner Services all the way up to the MVW Executive Leadership with a letter directed to the President.  I would want a completely transparent explanation of how/why the IT system is allowed to book a single stay that requires a move.



Definitely!  Changing villlas, with all the food, extra clothes, etc. scattered throughout multiple rooms on a on a ski vacation is not the same as switching a hotel room in Hawaii with one little suitcase and minimal clothes. Even if the resort moves the actual packed up possessions, they really are losing a day of uninterrupted vacation. Of course we drive to Tahoe, so bring way too much. Neverthelless, i would be more than annoyed to have to do two "departure" mornings in one week! If that is required, generous compensation ought to be offered, especially since they were not informed in advance with the option of not booking under those circumstances.


----------



## frank808 (Dec 27, 2015)

GregT said:


> This happens with some frequency at Maui Ocean Club, when owners are booking 3BR units with points. In many situations, they have to move (and are just as unhappy as you are).   I would suspect that you are overlapping with a home week owner, and that the property is allowing the home week owner to stay in the room.   Candidly, I think that is the right thing for the property to do, and I hope you are able to move with minimal inconvenience.
> 
> Marriott really needs to add a disclaimer on certain properties that indicates that a reservation may require a move change if it crosses Saturday.  Wyndham does this, and it fairly alerts the guest of the possible risk.
> 
> ...


That might be the reason.  At grand residence, weeks start on fridays and you are deeded the unit you own as the units are not floating.  grand residence was sold as fractional so it could be marriott owns a quarter, owner traded in for dc points or mrp points and marriott put up the unit for use.  Problem is op is crossing the marriott week so the owner of the next quarter is probably checking in on friday and they have to move the op. Hope this helps with the explanation.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 27, 2015)

OKAY .. real world issues which might NOT play during booking ... but has happened at my regular resorts where either I or my guests had unit reassigned last minute:

1) a handicap unit is involved (and all the swapping required to met their needs as the handicap unit was booked by non-disabled person)

2) unit "out of service" due to emergency repairs (like a sprinkler supply pipe breaking taking out an entire "Stack" of units in a 10 floor building)

3) family "stay over" due to hospital stay - stroke, heart attack.

4) weather with airports closed in major portion of US.


----------



## bazzap (Dec 27, 2015)

Whichever of the various scenarios suggested in this thread applies, even if a move is necessary/justifiable, I am sure that the resort should be able to go the extra mile to ensure the new room is immediately available after you move out.
Fortunately, we have only very rarely had to move and only during a long stay and then always been able to complete the move with no time gap between the two rooms.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 27, 2015)

frank808 said:


> That might be the reason.  At grand residence, weeks start on fridays and you are deeded the unit you own as the units are not floating.  grand residence was sold as fractional so it could be marriott owns a quarter, owner traded in for dc points or mrp points and marriott put up the unit for use.  Problem is op is crossing the marriott week so the owner of the next quarter is probably checking in on friday and they have to move the op. Hope this helps with the explanation.



I understand why a move might be necessary for any number of reasons.  What I don't understand, if in fact this is the case here, is how the IT system can book consecutive nights in different units _under the same reservation confirmation number_.

All the DC Points searches I've done for consecutive nights have shown me whether the nights can be booked consecutively or as individual nights, and if I book any part of a stay as individual nights then it's understood that a move may be in order.  That's how it's always worked with Weeks and I expect the same with DC Points because it's an inventory control issue.  If I were in the OP's shoes this is one issue I'd be willing to take up with a qualified attorney if MVW Exec Leadership is unable to explain it satisfactorily.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 27, 2015)

I don't think Spottie ever confirmed that it was in a single reservation/single confirmation, although the 12 month advance/ 7 night reservation indicates that it probably was so.  Without that info, a lot of this is speculation.

Wyndham is very quick with indicating separate inventory primarily because there are several fees related to multiple reservations-housekeeping, transactions, guest fees etc.  Even so they try to keep people in the same room and will refund some of those fees if they aren't applicable but want to make sure they are paid if unable to accommodate.



RCI points inventory doesn't break down by unit inventory.  They do note that various scenarios may lead to one or more changes in room and if that is the case multiple housekeeping fees may apply.  Again the resorts try to mitigate this but in originally fixed week/units it happens when you don't check in/out on the regular check in day.


----------



## GregT (Dec 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> is how the IT system can book consecutive nights in different units _under the same reservation confirmation number_.



Sue, the system does do this, even though TUGgers don't think it should.

Marriott really needs to add a disclaimer to alert the reservation maker that reservations that cross a certain day may require a room change.

Best,

Greg


----------



## jimf41 (Dec 27, 2015)

WOW, I read this thread and I get worried. I have 9 reservation #s for an upcoming 4 week stay. I've never been asked to switch rooms and it's a similar situation each year.


----------



## GregT (Dec 27, 2015)

jimf41 said:


> WOW, I read this thread and I get worried. I have 9 reservation #s for an upcoming 4 week stay. I've never been asked to switch rooms and it's a similar situation each year.



If your stay is at a property that is all floating weeks/units, then you will not have a problem. It's when there are fixed weeks/units involved that it comes into play.

Where are you going for your stay?

Best,

Greg


----------



## jimf41 (Dec 27, 2015)

GregT said:


> If your stay is at a property that is all floating weeks/units, then you will not have a problem. It's when there are fixed weeks/units involved that it comes into play.
> 
> Where are you going for your stay?
> 
> ...



MFC, I have a fixed week 7 surrounded by DC [point ressies.


----------



## spottie (Dec 27, 2015)

This is a single 7-night reservation and we were told an owner would be moving in.  We had booked reservations before at Mountainside when single 7-nights were not available and we had to make do with 2 reservations.  When we checked in we requested to stay in the same room and they were not able to accommodate that. In that case, I did not mind the move as much because at the time of the reservation,  I knew that was a possibility. However,  in the case of Grand Residence Tahoe,  there were no indication that I will be expected to lose access to the room from 10 to 4 for a day at the time of the reservation. 

I agree with Greg that it is the right thing to do for the owner.  However,  what I don't understand is that they have 12 month to potentially work this out.  What makes them to think it is ok to sprang this at the time of checking-in, "or by the way, you have to move and we can not guarantee the next room is immediately available? "  To be fair, we have been Marriott owner for 12 years, and this is the first time I felt disappointed. 

Other than the prospect of spending my New Year's day packing/unpacking and homeless for half a day  the vacation has been great so far.  The property is right next to the Heavenly gondola, the room seems larger than the regular Marriott timeshares. 

I will see what will happen if I manage to talk to the GM tomorrow. 



GregT said:


> This happens with some frequency at Maui Ocean Club, when owners are booking 3BR units with points. In many situations, they have to move (and are just as unhappy as you are).   I would suspect that you are overlapping with a home week owner, and that the property is allowing the home week owner to stay in the room.   Candidly, I think that is the right thing for the property to do, and I hope you are able to move with minimal inconvenience.
> 
> Marriott really needs to add a disclaimer on certain properties that indicates that a reservation may require a move change if it crosses Saturday.  Wyndham does this, and it fairly alerts the guest of the possible risk.
> 
> ...


----------



## GreenTea (Dec 27, 2015)

If it's a 7 night reservation, one confirmation, NO WAY would I move.   This is their problem.  Don't let them make it your problem.   It's not.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue, the system does do this, even though TUGgers don't think it should.
> 
> Marriott really needs to add a disclaimer to alert the reservation maker that reservations that cross a certain day may require a room change.
> 
> ...



Greg, it isn't a matter of what I think the system should or shouldn't allow; it's that I don't understand how the system can allow it _and, at the same time,  account for inventory controls that are mandated._  In the same way that Trust Members sometimes see that certain nights are only available using Trust Points, all DC Members sometimes see that a multi-night stay must be booked in pieces because it can't be booked as a single stay.  It's always made sense to me that that's because the same unit may not be available for all nights of the stay.

It doesn't make any sense to me that a stay requiring a unit change can be booked under a single reservation number, and I'd argue that all the way to the exec level with support from a qualified attorney if I found myself facing that situation.  Floating and fixed Weeks breakage has always been available for cash rentals through marriott.com and this has never been an issue - it shouldn't be an issue with MVW either.  Of all the questions and calls for class actions based on a lack of transparency in the inventory control process since the DC was introduced, this one issue is the only one that to me clearly shows the possibility of MVW improperly allocating inventory.  Whether it originates in the IT system or is a result of onsite personnel incorrectly placing guests in the available units (in a mistaken effort to always satisfy owner requests for the "best" units?) it's a major concern.


----------



## artringwald (Dec 28, 2015)

We had a similar situation at a DRI resort. We booked two weeks. At the end of the first week they asked us if we could move because they accidentally put us into a unit that was fixed unit/fixed week. They offered to move all our stuff, and offered a $100 coupon for a local restaurant. We accepted and everybody was happy. The view wasn't quite as good because it was one floor down from the first unit, but it was worth getting a nice meal for free.

If it's their mistake, you shouldn't have to move without some kind of compensation.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 28, 2015)

spottie said:


> This is a single 7-night reservation and we were told an owner would be moving in.
> ...
> However,  what I don't understand is that they have 12 month to potentially work this out.


And the cracks in the foundation of the false points program (aka, Marriott exchange program with some trust ownership), that promises no hassles, "just reserve your days, 1, 2 or a week," grow larger. 

Expanding on the false premise of the weeks program that made TS owners believe they were buying deeded interests in Marriott properties (as opposed to HOAs managed by Marriott), the DC Club fails to notify owners that they are just buying into an overlay of interests in underlying timeshare weeks, or the chance to trade a la II.

I can't recall this little hiccup being mentioned in my last sales presentation.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 28, 2015)

spottie said:


> We just checked in the Grand Residence Tahoe today. Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
> I was really upset upon hearing this.  I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.  During those 12 month, could they not have contacted me in advance to let me know this will happen? I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving.   Plus, I paid for 7 nights/days, if they do not make the unit immediately available,  then am I losing half day of what I already paid for?  Can I refuse to move? Who can I contact at Marriott to have this resolved if it can not be done locally here? (General manager won't be in till Monday. )
> If anyone has experience dealing with similar situations,  your advice is greatly appreciated!



To the OP: What was the final outcome of your thread?


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 28, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> To the OP: What was the final outcome of your thread?



There is no outcome yet, it was just started yesterday and the move isn't until New Year's Day.


----------



## Fairwinds (Dec 28, 2015)

I've had to move once in Marbella between week stays and without my asking they scheduled the move after the new room was ready so I had uninterrupted access to a room.  I remember thinking it was nice of them to be so concerned for somthing I knew was possible anyway. They also told me that if I packed my things they would move them for me if I was away. Regardless of whether it's ok to move you or not it's not ok for them to deny a days access to a room during your stay. It's just to easy to fix.

May I suggest a lottery to select a bag carrier for jimf41.


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 28, 2015)

I'm a path of least resistance guy.  Thus my approach would be to talk to the Manager and see if he/she could explain the situation to me.  If he/she could give me a reasonable explanation, I would tell him/her that I would move when the new room was ready for me to occupy and negotiate a reasonable time to do so.  Just me.

George


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:
			
		

> it's that I don't understand how the system can allow it _and, at the same time,  account for inventory controls that are mandated._.



It would appear that inventory is controlled at the room category level, not the room unit level.  

I think Marriott can solve this issue - as other timeshares have - by simply disclosing the certain reservations may require a room change.   And far easier than reprogramming the system to try to match at the unit level, which would also reduce the chance of successful reservations. 

I suspect (but do not know) that many people would prefer the 7 night reservation with the possibility of a room change, versus simply not getting the reservation at all.  At least they would have been warned about the risk so that they are not surprised at check in. 

Best,

Greg


----------



## bastroum (Dec 28, 2015)

HGVC will force you to make separate reservations when this occurs. You can make a 7 day consecutive reservation, however, there will be separate reservation numbers.


----------



## n777lt (Dec 28, 2015)

Agree that if it's a single rez MVC should find a way to make this NOT happen, but if you stay at this resort regularly, or plan to go back, I don't recommend digging in heels and making life more complicated and unpleasant for yourself and others. Even when I have legitimately been required to move (2 rez) I have found room assignment team, housekeeping and bell staffs made genuine efforts to be accommodating - getting us into the studio side of a 2 bedroom by 11 a.m., for example.

I've never had to wait until regular check-in time, and hopefully that'll be your experience as well.

BUT for a single rez, I agree MVC needs to improve on this. Either sell as a solid (i.e. Immovable) week, or change notice to members.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

bastroum said:


> HGVC will force you to make separate reservations when this occurs. You can make a 7 day consecutive reservation, however, there will be separate reservation numbers.



There are many cases of consecutive-night stays for which Marriott's DC system will force you to make separate reservations with separate confirmation numbers, and the onsite rooms controller will do what they can to place you into the same unit for the duration.  If you go by TUG reports most times they can, sometimes they can't, but at least you know changing units is a possibility if you're holding separate confirmations.

It doesn't make sense that just because fixed weeks/units are in play at a resort, that inventory control metric goes flying out the window.  Somewhere in the process something isn't being done correctly, and MVW should probably figure it out before they're made to pay for it.  (Greg, I hear what you're saying but just like in your thread about it, we will never agree with each other about this. )


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> It doesn't make sense that just because fixed weeks/units are in play at a resort, that inventory control metric goes flying out the window.  Somewhere in the process something isn't being done correctly, and MVW should probably figure it out before they're made to pay for it.  (Greg, I hear what you're saying but just like in your thread about it, we will never agree with each other about this. )



Sue,

I know we will agree to disagree -- no harm done and I still think you rock!

However, I think what Marriott is doing now is fine -- except that they need the disclosure.   *I think we need to factor in how (and when) inventory becomes available to Marriott for the purpose of booking reservations.*

Some weeks are redeemed for points, some come from the Trust, some are sourced from II -- all at very different times from the exact date and time that OP is making their reservation.  The continuous Grande Residence Tahoe week could have been redeemed after OP's reservation, thus eliminating need for a room change (and totally behind the scenes).  This may happen more than we realize because it is invisible, but the difference was whether or not the original reservation was available.

Just because a continuous unit isn't available 13 months out, doesn't mean a continuous unit won't be available at check-in, and by managing inventory at the room category level versus the room unit level, Marriott makes many more reservations than they otherwise would, and hopes that the property will have continuous rooms available.   The flaw (IMO) is the lack of disclosure about the possibility of needing to change rooms.   

I still think owners would rather have the reservation, but know there is risk of a room change, then not get the reservation at all.    For those owners that aren't Presidential/Chairman's/Executive, they would really be impacted because they don't have the option to book a 6 night plus a 1 night reservation.

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue,
> 
> I know we will agree to disagree -- no harm done and I still think you rock!
> 
> ...



Marriott's no stranger to allowing reservations to be confirmed based on anticipated inventory - they've been doing it with hotels and timeshares forever and now, since the timeshares were spun off, MVW is continuing to do it.  They're absolutely transparent about this; it's detailed in the Weeks governing docs.  Fixed intervals didn't interfere with this process before the DC and there's no reason why they should now.  I actually think that's why it happens so often that DC Members holding multiple confirmations for a single stay can be placed into the same unit for the duration, because the IT system automatically requires anticipated inventory to be booked as individual nights.

I think what's happening here is very simple.  Somebody else with multiple confirmations for a stay that encompasses at least the same Fixed Week changeover night as the OP was placed into the unit that should have been given to the OP, thus leaving only the breakage units that were reserve-able by the other person available for the OP.  Whether that person put up a stink about having to change units during his/her stay, or, was prioritized over the OP in the placement hierarchy, the rooms controller at the resort chose to override the OP's single reservation in favor of placating another guest.  That's wrong.

MVW doesn't and shouldn't need to put disclaimers on their confirmation notices that a DC stay might require a move.  MVW does need to force their rooms controllers to comply with the directive that members/guests holding single confirmations for multiple-night reservations must be placed into a single unit for the duration before any members/guests holding multiple confirmations are placed.  The only exceptions should be when units become unavailable due to maintenance issues, the same as has always been the case with cash and Weeks stays.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 28, 2015)

My understanding from the post is the OP booked Sat-Sat using points in a resort that was originally sold fixed week/fixed unit Fri-Fri.  A fair number of fractional owners deposit for points.  It is week 52, so I would imagine it is a sold out resort for these weeks.  Marriott lets the reservations happen and then closer to check in time tries to work out as many so that exchangers won't have to move.  If any inventory was placed in II for that week it would have been Fri-Fri so no problems there.  Marriott hoped to prevent anyone from having to move but couldn't work it out so the OP and perhaps some others that booked something other than at Fri check in or check out will have to move.


Very few Marriott resorts were sold as fixed week/fixed unit.  Even those that were, when the resort isn't at capacity it probably won't be so much of a problem.  

I agree with Greg just disclosing that it is a possibility would be better than to overhaul the system for a very small percentage of reservation.


----------



## bastroum (Dec 28, 2015)

I think it's unreasonable to ask a guest to vacate his villa for 6 hours in the middle of a reservation. The least they can do is have a villa ready at 10:00 am for the move.


----------



## vail (Dec 28, 2015)

When someone books a room for a week or two or three nights whatever...it is assumed they are staying in the same room...end of story.
If Marriott was to start implementing a clause that said you may have to move, all hell would break loose and of course it would affect the future sales.

There is no way that when someone makes a single reservation that they would think they might have to move.
Marriott is getting cheap by trying to overbook in this case and not wanting to pay the consequences.
Either they should not have booked the OP's original reservation, or the one after, but clearly they tried to over book.

Even if the points were put back in the OP account for that night, it would not be enough compensation in my opinion.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

tschwa2 said:


> My understanding from the post is the OP booked Sat-Sat using points in a resort that was originally sold fixed week/fixed unit Fri-Fri.  A fair number of fractional owners deposit for points.  It is week 52, so I would imagine it is a sold out resort for these weeks.  Marriott lets the reservations happen and then closer to check in time tries to work out as many so that exchangers won't have to move.  If any inventory was placed in II for that week it would have been Fri-Fri so no problems there.  Marriott hoped to prevent anyone from having to move but couldn't work it out so the OP and perhaps some others that booked something other than at Fri check in or check out will have to move.
> 
> 
> Very few Marriott resorts were sold as fixed week/fixed unit.  Even those that were, when the resort isn't at capacity it probably won't be so much of a problem.
> ...



In Greg's other thread he was the guest who requested that he be placed into the same unit for the duration of a multiple-confirmation stay that encompassed his owned Fixed Week and a consecutive DC Points confirmation for additional days.  The reason his request couldn't be fulfilled was because another guest was holding a single confirmation for a DC Points stay that overlapped with Greg's, and the only unit which was available for the duration of that guest's stay was the one Greg was checking out of at the end of his Fixed Week.  I thought the rooms controller there was entirely correct to require Greg to move because not requiring it would have resulted in the other guest being moved during his single-confirmation stay.

In this case it appears the rooms controller did the opposite, satisfying one guest's request despite him/her holding multiple confirmations, at the expense of this OP who is holding a single confirmation.

I do understand all of the viewpoints in this thread, especially as to the room controllers' difficulties and the different ways that the room controller can make this an easier process for the OP.  Generally I agree with the futility of rocking the boat needlessly except that, correct inventory allocation and control is a BIG DEAL that could potentially harm MVW legally if it's not handled correctly.  On this forum where calls to challenge Marriott/MVW happen like clockwork for any number of reasons, to me this is one of the few things that should and can be challenged successfully.


----------



## klpca (Dec 28, 2015)

bastroum said:


> I think it's unreasonable to ask a guest to vacate his villa for 6 hours in the middle of a reservation. The least they can do is have a villa ready at 10:00 am for the move.



We had to move at Waiohai last year to accommodate the start of their refurbishment. We were moved from building 5 to building 2. I was told in advance and was fine with the change because stuff happens. But it was more of a hassle than I anticipated. I was told that our new room would be available as soon as possible, "hopefully by 2:00pm". Nope, it was nearly 5:00pm. So the morning of the move I had to wake up, clean up the dishes, pack everything and be at the room at 10:00 when they picked up our things (which were then not available to me without a lot of hassle), and couldn't get into the new room until 5:00. Couldn't have a snack, change clothes etc for almost a full day. Of course since I had anticipated getting the new room by 2:00 I planned my day accordingly and hung out at the resort instead of doing something else. Nothing was offered to me for the inconvenience other than a sincere apology which was fine for me, but in retrospect Marriott could have at least comped some food for the time that I had to kitchen access. (Westin did an equally poor job at WPORV when they had no power on site for a full day while they did maintenance, so it's not just a Marriott thing). 

It seem that the resorts underestimate the inconvenience of a mid week move. I would ask for the points for the last full day to be returned to you as you didn't have use of your villa on that day. There should be some recognition by Marriott of the extent of the disruption that the move caused.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Marriott's no stranger to allowing reservations to be confirmed based on anticipated inventory - they've been doing it with hotels and timeshares forever and now, since the timeshares were spun off, MVW is continuing to do it.  They're absolutely transparent about this; it's detailed in the Weeks governing docs.  Fixed intervals didn't interfere with this process before the DC and there's no reason why they should now.



But Sue, how can you anticipate inventory while at the same time preventing fixed internals from interfering?

By definition, fixed weeks must interfere unless Marriott chooses to anticipate that they will NEVER be available and only uses what has been redeemed at that point in time to make reservations -- in which case, the desired reservation simply won't be available.   And the OP wouldn't have their 7 night reservation (which they might prefer?).

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> But Sue, how can you anticipate inventory while at the same time preventing fixed internals from interfering?
> 
> By definition, fixed weeks must interfere unless Marriott chooses to anticipate that they will NEVER be available and only uses what has been redeemed at that point in time to make reservations -- in which case, the desired reservation simply won't be available.   And the OP wouldn't have their 7 night reservation (which they might prefer?).
> 
> ...



Easy.  You require the multiple nights to be booked as multiple confirmations, which I believe is what does happen now.  Honestly, I would be VERY surprised to learn that there's not another guest holding multiple confirmations impacting this OP.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 28, 2015)

If the OP could have booked less than 7 nights at 12 months, he might have elected to stay 6 instead of 6+1 with the inconvenience.  If he was unable to book less than 7 nights at 12 months he probably would not have been able to get the reservation at all.




There really does have to be some kind of written priority for the cases like this and not just the person who makes the biggest fuss gets their way. 
I wouldn't necessarily call for the overhaul of the reservation system.  I can see it happening and all of those pesky fees that almost every other points system has (guest fees and in some cases multiple guest fees, housekeeping fees, transaction fees, cancellation fees, etc) might creep into the DC.  Once the doors are open and they start with something quite small and nominal, they can build up or like Diamond they could start increasing the annual fee at alarming rates while still passing on quite a bit of the additional management fees to the individual HOA's.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

klpca said:


> We had to move at Waiohai last year to accommodate the start of their refurbishment. We were moved from building 5 to building 2. I was told in advance and was fine with the change because stuff happens. But it was more of a hassle than I anticipated. I was told that our new room would be available as soon as possible, "hopefully by 2:00pm". Nope, it was nearly 5:00pm. So the morning of the move I had to wake up, clean up the dishes, pack everything and be at the room at 10:00 when they picked up our things (which were then not available to me without a lot of hassle), and couldn't get into the new room until 5:00. Couldn't have a snack, change clothes etc for almost a full day. Of course since I had anticipated getting the new room by 2:00 I planned my day accordingly and hung out at the resort instead of doing something else. Nothing was offered to me for the inconvenience other than a sincere apology which was fine for me, but in retrospect Marriott could have at least comped some food for the time that I had to kitchen access. (Westin did an equally poor job at WPORV when they had no power on site for a full day while they did maintenance, so it's not just a Marriott thing).
> 
> It seem that the resorts underestimate the inconvenience of a mid week move. I would ask for the points for the last full day to be returned to you as you didn't have use of your villa on that day. There should be some recognition by Marriott of the extent of the disruption that the move caused.



We routinely change units during multi-Weeks stays at our Hilton Head resorts because we own different view types at a single resort and Weeks at different resorts.  They make it very easy - we're allowed to stay in the one unit past the usual check-out time until we get a phone call that the next is ready for occupancy.  We plan that day as a stay-at-resort day, pack up everything leaving bags in the fridge/freezer and the rest on a luggage rack, then we're out of there in ten minutes when the call comes.  The other resorts can easily adopt this process within a single resort or among multiple resorts in a single area; all eight Hilton Head resorts do it routinely.

So definitely, this rooms controller can do a number of things to make the OP's move easier than it's been presented.  But again, for me this is a much bigger issue than just a matter of losing a few hours during a stay.  I am usually a room controller's best customer, will take whatever placement they give us and I don't complain if they have to move us on check-in days of separate reservations (even when they're all in the same unit configuration.)  But this isn't simply an issue of preferring one unit over another or of being inconvenienced by an expected unit change; it's improper inventory control that's incorrectly impacting a single reservation.  In the OP's shoes I'd be challenging it and making compensation demands through MVW execs.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Easy.  You require the multiple nights to be booked as multiple confirmations, which I believe is what does happen now.  Honestly, I would be VERY surprised to learn that there's not another guest holding multiple confirmations impacting this OP.



Doesn't that unfairly treat the owners who can only book 7 day reservations?  I'm not trying to be difficult, i just do not think it is easy to treat all owners equally.  

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Doesn't that unfairly treat the owners who can only book 7 day reservations?  I'm not trying to be difficult, i just do not think it is easy to treat all owners equally.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg



No, I don't think it's unfair that different membership status tiers are allowed to book single/multiple nights on a varying basis.  If seven consecutive days in a single unit aren't available at the time of booking a single confirmation, then the IT system shouldn't (and I believe doesn't) allow the booking by someone who isn't eligible for less-than-seven-nights at the time of booking.

But like I said, I don't think that what's happening with this OP is a result of the IT system or anticipated inventory.  I think the consecutive nights were available as a single reservation/single unit when the OP booked the stay, and the rooms controller onsite overrode the system in an incorrect effort to placate a guest who was able to book the breakage as multiple confirmations.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> No, I don't think it's unfair that different membership status tiers are allowed to book single/multiple nights on a varying basis.  If seven consecutive days in a single unit aren't available at the time of booking a single confirmation, then the IT system shouldn't (and I believe doesn't) allow the booking by someone who isn't eligible for less-than-seven-nights at the time of booking.
> 
> But like I said, I don't think that what's happening with this OP is a result of the IT system or anticipated inventory.  I think the consecutive nights were available as a single reservation/single unit when the OP booked the stay, and the rooms controller onsite overrode the system in an incorrect effort to placate a guest who was able to book the breakage as multiple confirmations.



But Sue, it does!  I don't know why you don't believe it but Maui Ocean Club confirmed that it does and it happens with some frequency.  I really think the discussion should flow from how the system really operates, and now how we think it should operate.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> But Sue, it does!  I don't know why you don't believe it but Maui Ocean Club confirmed that it does and it happens with some frequency.  I really think the discussion should flow from how the system really operates, and now how we think it should operate.



I don't know what to tell you, Greg!  To me it just doesn't make any sense that MVW could allow there to be this much rope from which they can be hung, what with inventory allocation and control being the bedrock of a successful timeshare company, and, with improper inventory allocation and control being very high on the list of things for which a timeshare company can be legally challenged to the point where their licenses can be revoked.

Does it happen at MOC because the rooms controller overrides the IT system in order to placate demanding guests, or because the IT system has a defect in it which needs tweaking?  I don't and won't believe that the way you understand things are meant to work is actually the way they're meant to work until the process that allows it is made completely transparent by someone in the exec offices who has the knowledge and authority to speak about it for the company.  You looked into it with trusted MOC personnel because you were the guest who was required to move when holding multiple confirmations for consecutive Fixed Week/Unit and DC Points stays.  You have to admit that you want the system to work as it's been explained to you because if it actually is supposed to work that way and you find yourself in the exact same circumstances again, you'll have at least a chance of being the guest whose requests are met despite it having a much more detrimental (and I believe, incorrect) effect on another guest. 

How do you know that you weren't fed a line in an effort to pacify you?  It's possible, just as it's possible that what I'm thinking is incorrect.  But in my mind what I'm thinking appears to be more protected from legal challenges than what you are thinking (hopefully that makes sense ) - and MVW is nothing if not concerned with at least the appearance of not engaging in improper business practices, if not actually engaging.  I want them to do the right things to protect all Weeks Owners and DC Members even if it means that sometimes I'll be negatively impacted, and I don't believe that moving an owner/guest at any point during a single reservation with a single confirmation number is ever the right thing.  Their IT and unit assignment systems at all levels in the process should be in sync such that the possibility isn't ever on the table, because the legal challenge is wide open if it is.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> How do you know that you weren't fed a line in an effort to pacify you?



Three people gave me the same answer, two of which didn't know why I was asking.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> But Sue, it does!  I don't know why you don't believe it but Maui Ocean Club confirmed that it does and it happens with some frequency.  I really think the discussion should flow from how the system really operates, and now how we think it should operate.



I know, now I'm obsessing.    But how do you explain those instances where we DC Members can see that individual consecutive nights in the exact same unit configuration at a single resort are available to book individually or in segments with different confirmation numbers, but not as a single reservation with a single confirmation number?  I'm not talking about some nights available using only Trust Points and others Trust or Exchange Points; as an Enrolled Owner I can only see available Exchange Points inventory and I've seen these segmented reservation intervals.  How else can it be explained other than, the IT system is designed and is working such that stays which may require a unit change are known in advance by MVW as the manager, us as the users and the onsite personnel who are supposed to place guests accordingly?


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 28, 2015)

By now the OP should have spoken with someone in management  and rec'd an answer.


----------



## Ron98GT (Dec 28, 2015)

spottie said:


> This is a single 7-night reservation and we were told an owner would be moving in.  We had booked reservations before at Mountainside when single 7-nights were not available and we had to make do with 2 reservations.  When we checked in we requested to stay in the same room and they were not able to accommodate that. In that case, I did not mind the move as much because at the time of the reservation,  I knew that was a possibility. However,  in the case of Grand Residence Tahoe,  there were no indication that I will be expected to lose access to the room from 10 to 4 for a day at the time of the reservation.
> 
> I agree with Greg that it is the right thing to do for the owner.  However,  what I don't understand is that they have 12 month to potentially work this out.  What makes them to think it is ok to sprang this at the time of checking-in, "or by the way, you have to move and we can not guarantee the next room is immediately available? "  To be fair, we have been Marriott owner for 12 years, and this is the first time I felt disappointed.
> 
> ...



Several years ago we stayed at the HGVC Eagles Nest on Marco Island.  Before our arrival, EN emailed our room assignment.  Upon arrival, we were notified that the owner contacted EN and wanted to stay in their legally recorded and owned room.  Nobody had a choice. I'm glad they had extra rooms available and it also worked out because we got an end unit that was bigger, had a better view, and only had somebody on one side.  Also, the good thing is that we did not have to move during our stay, which could have happened.

In your case, I don't think that there is anything that you or Marriott can do. The owner owns that unit and wants to stay in his unit.  The best you can hope for, and ask for, is maybe an upgraded unit for your last nite or see if you can get comp'd for dinner.


----------



## Ron98GT (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> But Sue, it does!  I don't know why you don't believe it but Maui Ocean Club confirmed that it does and it happens with some frequency.  I really think the discussion should flow from how the system really operates, and now how we think it should operate.



Greg, I believe you.  After just returning from a 2 week stay at MOC and meeting so many MOC owners (most of the people that we talked with) that stay in the their units, no trading, the same units year-after-year, I totally believe you.  I'm just lucky that we got stay in the same units, 6210 & 6209, for the 2 weeks.  

I also agree with your last statement, in red. And it's not just a Marriott thing, other TS companies do the same thing.

Boy I miss Maui & MOC


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

Digging into the legalities, this is how a reservation is defined on Page 22 in the Exchange Procedures document:

_"Use Period means the time period(s) during which each Program Member has reserved the use and occupancy of an Accommodation in accordance with the provisions of these Exchange Procedures. All Use Periods shall be subject to the minimum and maximum number of evenings identified in these Exchange Procedures."_

Throughout the docs there are numerous references to availability being the overriding metric, that there's no guarantee that any and all desired intervals will be available.  But when a desired interval is available and the system allows it to be booked, it's classified as a "Use Period."  This definition states that a single Use Period consists of (bolding mine), "occupancy of *an Accommodation*."  "An" meaning a single, not multiples, for each interval with a specified check-in and check-out day.  

I've read through the docs a number of times now and haven't found anything that says a single reservation with a single confirmation number may require a unit change, other than when maintenance or other issues prevent occupancy of a unit by anyone.

To me the "Use Period" definition combined with the lack of any language that gives them leeway to split up a single reservation into multiple accommodations isn't ambiguous at all.   It would be the basis for the argument I'd take up with MVW exec level representatives, and I'd expect to prevail if represented by a qualified attorney.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> But how do you explain those instances where we DC Members can see that individual consecutive nights in the exact same unit configuration at a single resort are available to book individually or in segments with different confirmation numbers, but not as a single reservation with a single confirmation number?



Sue, 

I can only speak for Maui Ocean Club because that's the property I've studied the most.  As already noted, I can search online for a 1BR MV in the original tower and see nothing, and then when I search for individual nights they appear.

But when I book those individual nights, some are Dedicated 1BR MVs and others are the Master Suite of a 2BR MV Lock-off.  Both appear in the search as 1BR MV's, and I can't tell which is which until a reservation is confirmed.

Same with 2BR OF in new towers.  It can be either a 2BR OF (that locks-off) or the Master Suite of a 3BR OF.   Or 2BR OV's/MV's can be either a Dedicated 2BR, or a 2BR L/O.  

So, I think the system is managing inventory based on the Room Category (like the II Unit Code), more granular than a simple view category but less granular than the actual underlying units.

Best,

Greg

Edited to add:  I have no idea if Marriott intended the system to run in this manner, but it does and they may feel that no one is harmed enough by it to warrant making the software changes required.   I will bet that we will begin to see the language online and in confirmations about potential for a room change.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue,
> 
> I can only speak for Maui Ocean Club because that's the property I've studied the most.  As already noted, I can search online for a 1BR MV in the original tower and see nothing, and then when I search for individual nights they appear.
> 
> ...



But that's just it - when I come across the same thing with individual nights available but not the sum total of them as a multi-night stay, I'm not able to book the sum total as a single reservation.  The system forces me to book them individually with separate confirmation numbers, which leads me to expect that I may be required to change units during the stay.  The same happens when calling in to Owner Services - the rep advises that the stay must be booked in segments with separate confirmation numbers.  When you come across this, are you able to book the multi-nights as a single reservation with a single confirmation number?



GregT said:


> Edited to add:  I have no idea if Marriott intended the system to run in this manner, but it does and they may feel that no one is harmed enough by it to warrant making the software changes required.   *I will bet that we will begin to see the language online and in confirmations about potential for a room change.  *



I would prefer that they do whatever is necessary to make their practices conform to the language in the docs, either by fixing their IT system to not allow single reservations when a change is required (if that's what the system allows and again, I'm not convinced it does) or, by issuing a system-wide directive to all of their room controllers that single reservations with single confirmation notices must be accommodated in a single unit (which is I think the reason why this OP is being forced to move, because they are incorrectly accommodating in a single unit another guest with multiple reservations.)  But whatever they do to fix this mess is okay by me because I don't want them to be left vulnerable to legal challenges that they can lose, which is what appears to be happening now.

It's funny but not in a ha-ha way.  I just never thought I'd see the day when any TUGgers would be able to justify MVW being given carte blanche to move a guest from one unit to another despite the guest having a single reservation confirmation for a multi-night stay.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 28, 2015)

If it wasn't the case of a fixed unit/fixed week resort with an overlay of points and the reservation in question not conforming to a regular check in/out day, I would be more concerned. Throw in a prime time holiday week that Marriott was unable to manage inventory to avoid the problem. System wide it isn't going to have any affect on most reservations.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> When you come across this, are you able to book the multi-nights as a single reservation with a single confirmation number?



In the example above, I did have to book the 1BR MV's as different reservations, because they have different unit codes (using the II unit code) for the Dedicated 1BR and the 1BR L/O.  This did not surprise me because there were different unit codes for the Dedicated versus the L/O.

I've also been able to book 3BR OF at MOC in a single reservation where it crossed a Saturday.  This also did not surprise me because both underlying weeks have the same II unit code, even though (I believe) they were different units, and thus require a room change for my single reservation. 

Again, I have no idea if this is how Marriott intended the system to operate, but it is how it functions.    

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> In the example above, I did have to book the 1BR MV's as different reservations, because they have different unit codes (using the II unit code) for the Dedicated 1BR and the 1BR L/O.  This did not surprise me because there were different unit codes for the Dedicated versus the L/O.
> 
> *I've also been able to book 3BR OF at MOC in a single reservation where it crossed a Saturday.  This also did not surprise me because both underlying weeks have the same II unit code, even though (I believe) they were different units, and thus require a room change for my single reservation.*
> 
> ...



I'm trying to be clear here, not trying to nitpick you to death.    About what I bolded - were you actually required to change units during that stay for which you had a single confirmation?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

Another interesting angle ... for those who rent out reservations with a single confirmation number that were booked with your DC Points.  Have you or are you prepared to advise your clients that they may be required to change units during the stay that you rent to them?  And what's the reaction?


----------



## PamMo (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Another interesting angle ... for those who rent out reservations with a single confirmation number that were booked with your DC Points.  Have you or are you prepared to advise your clients that they may be required to change units during the stay that you rent to them?  And what's the reaction?



Wow. I would be very unhappy if I were the OP, or a renter who was told _*while checking in*_ that I'd have to move into a new room for my last night, because an owner needed their villa. Give me a little respect and a heads up, please. Surely they knew the owner was coming in well ahead of check in.

I don't think I would even consider renting a week if I thought my family would have to change units during our stay. Especially for a holiday ski week. With two travel days bookending a week vacation, I wouldn't want to lose part of a third day to pack, move, and unpack all that winter gear! Not to mention baby/toddler/teen stuff! Ugh. We stay in timeshares because of the convenience of having a home base. We know we may have to change rooms for a multiple week timeshare vacation, but if resorts move you around during a single week reservation and that is considered normal, I'll go back to vacation home rentals.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

PamMo said:


> Wow. I would be very unhappy if I were the OP, or a renter who was told _*while checking in*_ that I'd have to move into a new room for my last night, because an owner needed their villa. Give me a little respect and a heads up, please. Surely they knew the owner was coming in well ahead of check in.
> 
> I don't think I would even consider renting a week if I thought my family would have to change units during our stay. Especially for a holiday ski week. With two travel days bookending a week vacation, I wouldn't want to lose part of a third day to pack, move, and unpack all that winter gear! Not to mention baby/toddler/teen stuff! Ugh. We stay in timeshares because of the convenience of having a home base. We know we may have to change rooms for a multiple week timeshare vacation, but if resorts move you around during a single week reservation and that is considered normal, I'll go back to vacation home rentals.



I've only put guests into two DC reservations, one earlier this year and one about a month ago, but I don't intend to make a habit of it the way some TUGgers do.  It never occurred to me that the possibility was on the table so I didn't advise my guests - but it'll be in the back of my mind from now on and I'm as willing to take up the fight for them as I am for myself.  I just don't see this making sense by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm saying that as someone who can usually understand MVW's position when questionable situations come up.  It simply boggles my mind (and obviously, I'm finding it difficult to let go for which I apologize.  )


----------



## davidvel (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I've only put guests into two DC reservations, one earlier this year and one about a month ago, but I don't intend to make a habit of it the way some TUGgers do.  It never occurred to me that the possibility was on the table so I didn't advise my guests - but it'll be in the back of my mind from now on and I'm as willing to take up the fight for them as I am for myself.  I just don't see this making sense by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm saying that as someone who can usually understand MVW's position when questionable situations come up.  It simply boggles my mind (and obviously, I'm finding it difficult to let go for which I apologize.  )


I wholeheartedly agree. The expectation of just about anyone (I thought EVERYONE until reading this thread) that makes a reservation over a span of time with a single confirmation number, is that they will have the same room for that time. 

Imagine showing up for your rental car you reserved for a week and being told, "You'll have to bring this back in 6 days to swap out your car for a different one." Just as absurd.


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 28, 2015)

The only reason I don't always have the expectation of a single unit for a single resort confirmation is that I have seen the same thing happen (moves required) when a points system is overlayed on a fixed unit/fixed week resort and the single reservation did not have a check in/out on the traditional check in day.

The only difference is in the other system (RCI points) the possibility is clearly stated on the page before confirming.


----------



## GregT (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm trying to be clear here, not trying to nitpick you to death.    About what I bolded - were you actually required to change units during that stay for which you had a single confirmation?



Sue, 

These were experimental reservations that I made for May 2016, where I booked reservations with a Friday check-in that crossed Saturday.  I did not use the reservations so I can not confirm the room change.

However, there were three weekends in May that all showed that availability pattern (Friday check-in, across a Saturday) and yet the Trust only has 5 3BR weeks in it for May, none of which connect Week 1 to Week 2.

What is the probability that all three of those reservations were for connecting units?  The odds of any particular unit being redeemed is 1/22nd -- so the odds of the same unit being redeemed for both Week 1 and Week 2 for a reservation are 1/484th?  And the odds of this happening three times in a month?  1 out of 114 Million?

Here is where I referenced it.  I do think you should consider the possibility that the availability is based on Room Category and not specific units.

And I think Marriott needs to add a disclaimer.  

Best,

Greg


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 28, 2015)

I think that we need to remember that the reservation system that MVCI is using is still the Marriott International infrastructure. There is a reason that your reservation shows up instantly on Marriott.com when you make a reservation on the phone or online and why you don't see that same unit show back up instantly when you cancel a Vacation Club Reservation. The system of record is still Marriott International's reservation system, and it likely always be while MVCI is licensing the Marriott name for its properties.

Marriott hotels are all floating unit properties. YOu are never guaranteed a certain unit when making a Marriott.com reservation unless there is only one unit of that type at the property. It would make sense that Marriott International wouldn't program anything in to their reservation system to account for fixed weeks at MVCI properties. MVCI only accounted for 5% of the companies overall valuation at spin-off and this wasn't an issue until DC came along and then the spin-off wasn't far behind. Marriott International isn't going to pour a lot of money in to this when MVCI reservations probably make up less than 1% of all reservations in their system.

What we all call the "Marriott II Unit Code" is more important than we all think. It is the one of the key inventory details that drives the reservation system for Marriott.com. That is essentially the unit category that Greg is referring to. If there are adjacent dates with different unit codes, the system won't allow you to book a consecutive reservation. This makes sense on the hotel side too because they wouldn't want cross over where someone needs to move unit types mid stay. 

A problem arises where MVCI properties have fixed units and weeks where the unit has the same Marriott Unit Code. The system sees adjacent available inventory that can be booked, but it can't account for fixed units. The only way they could fix this would be to have a different Marriott Unit Code for every fixed week in the system. Sure it could be done, but it would be daunting and it could, as Greg suggests, prevent people from getting a reservation. Or at best it would require people to have two confirmation numbers for a single stay.

I would say that overall rooms control does an excellent job keeping people in the same villa for their entire stay. Even if they have many different confirmation numbers. They work hard to prevent people from having to move. But nothing is perfect and in rare cases we have situations like the OP is having. That said, I don't think the property is handling the move very well.

I have always thought that MVCI housekeeping does a pretty poor job of prioritizing units to clean. There is no reason that a guest needs to be out of a unit between 10:00 and 5:00 when a move is needed. We know that all villas need to be vacated by 10:00 (in rare cases this may not always happen). If a unit is one that someone currently at the resort is scheduled to move in to, that should be the first unit on a housekeepers manifest. The guest being moved should be in that unit by 11:30 or 12:00 tops.

The HHI properties are the best by allowing guests to stay in their current villa until the new villa is ready. There is no reason every property can't do this. I think this is the OPs main gripe. I can understand the need for a move, but to be told you will be out of the villa perhaps for many hours unnecessarily is irritating.

We have cruised many times and it seems that the cruise lines are masters at turning over rooms and guests. They ask when you during online checkin and often part way though your stay what your flight information is. They then prioritize peoples debarkation times based on that. MVCI could do something similar. Slip a card under the door a few days before checkout and ask when your anticipated checkout time will be. How many times does someone vacate a villa at 6:00am and that is perhaps the last villa that is cleaned? It probably happens more than we would want to know. This should be the first villa that is cleaned. I don't know what time housekeeping starts, but they could use this advance information to schedule housekeeping earlier. I don't usually see housekeeping in the halls until 8:00. 6:00-8:00 is one villa per housekeeper that could be cleaned.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Here is where I referenced it.  I do think you should consider the possibility that the availability is based on Room Category and not specific units.
> 
> And I think Marriott needs to add a disclaimer.
> 
> ...



Greg, I do think this is exactly the case. There is nothing in the underlying inventory record that indicates inventory comes from a fixed week fixed unit interval. The only thing that exists is the "Marriott II Unit Code". We know that isn't the best identifier because at resorts where fixed units exist, the Unit Code is the same for all the units in the same unit size and view. As I mentioned previously, they could fix this by applying a different Unit Code to every fixed week interval. Though I don't know how feasible that really is when this probably comes up with only one half of one percent of all reservations. MVCI has to decide where to allocate its resources and it has determined that this isn't important enough to spend the money on it.


----------



## bazzap (Dec 28, 2015)

Club Son Antem now do as you describe.
Housekeeping leave a note requesting your departure/flight details to enable them to effectively schedule villa cleaning between guests, along with with a helpful summary of what services are provided on which days.


----------



## spottie (Dec 28, 2015)

I talked to the General Manager this morning, he said he would look into this and talk to the owner to see if and when they are coming in, so we might avoid the move.  He said since it was the holiday week, most likely we would still need to move, he would make sure our move is as smooth as possible. He said the reason this happened was because this is a fixed week resort. We will see what they can come up with in the next few days. 

For Grand Residence Tahoe, are they fixed unit as well as fixed week? Do the owner stay in the exact unit they bought into? 




pedro47 said:


> By now the OP should have spoken with someone in management  and rec'd an answer.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue,
> 
> These were experimental reservations that I made for May 2016, where I booked reservations with a Friday check-in that crossed Saturday.  I did not use the reservations so I can not confirm the room change.
> 
> ...



The reason I don't think the II unit code is the only metric in play is because I've seen these segmented reservations happen where all same-configuration units in a single resort have the same II code, i.e. at the Hilton Head resorts where I own.  That's why I believe that, 1.) the system takes into account at the time of booking ALL metrics including the II code but also any other variables that result in Weeks breakage, such as enrolled Weeks being exchanged for DC Points and thus available to be booked by DC Members as single nights, and 2.) that the system will not allow requested intervals to be booked as a single reservation with a single confirmation number if multiple-unit breakage is necessary to fulfill the request.

There's no way that this is a case of overbooking the same exact unit for the same exact night.  That would jeopardize MVW's licenses faster than my head could spin, and there has never been a verified report to TUG of Marriott or MVW overbooking any inventory.  It doesn't happen.

I really think this is a situation similar to the one you detailed in your 6206 experiment thread in which you were the Fixed Week owner requesting that you be allowed to stay in the unit for your consecutive DC Points stay, but the rooms controller required you to move because 6206 was the only unit that would be available for a guest coming in the next day with a single DC Points reservation for the entirety of his multiple nights.  Except in this case, the onsite rooms controller appears to be satisfying the request of the guest/owner who is in a position similar to the one you were in, i.e. s/he's holding multiple reservations involving breakage inventory for multiple nights, and thus displacing the OP from the unit which was showing as available at the time of booking.  I didn't think the request you proposed in your situation was correct and I don't think this one is either.

Even if Mr. Marriott himself were checking in last-minute and the rooms controller was put in the unfortunate position of moving another guest to accommodate Mr. Marriott's desired stay, there's no way it would happen the way that it's happening to this OP with the guest being told at check-in by a rep who's in no position to justify it.  The displaced guest would be told as far in advance by someone in a position of authority, it would be presented as a favor being requested rather than a demand, and more-than-suitable compensation would be offered without the guest having to ask.

Something is wrong with the process being used here and the OP has every right to demand an explanation as well as compensation.  There is no good excuse.


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 28, 2015)

spottie said:


> For Grand Residence Tahoe, are they fixed unit as well as fixed week? Do the owner stay in the exact unit they bought into?



One of the things that caused me to sell my Floating Weeks many years ago was the uncertainty factor.  After I sold I bought  Fixed Week, Fixed Unit Weeks at 6 different Resorts.  It was great.  For years I knew exactly where and when I would be staying.  Never did I get assigned to a Unit that wasn't mine.

George


----------



## tschwa2 (Dec 28, 2015)

> Originally Posted by spottie
> For Grand Residence Tahoe, are they fixed unit as well as fixed week? Do the owner stay in the exact unit they bought into?



Per Frank in post #10.  Units were sold as fixed week/ fixed units and owners stay in their deeded unit.


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 28, 2015)

*What if someone refused to Move!*

What would go down if the resort manager ran into a snot nosed, self centered, self entitled SOB that absolutely refused to vacate the unit? 

How do you think the Manager of the resort would handle this?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 28, 2015)

billymach4 said:


> What would go down if the resort manager ran into a snot nosed, self centered, self entitled SOB that absolutely refused to vacate the unit?
> 
> How do you think the Manager of the resort would handle this?



In this particular situation the OP is, in my opinion, completely entitled to the belief that s/he shouldn't be required to change units.  Not because s/he's any of the derogatory terms you used but because the governing docs of the system s/he used to book the reservation appear to support the entitlement.  

As far as what the resort manager will do if s/he refuses to comply?  I have no idea, but it's not the OP's problem to solve.

As an aside, it seems I've seen the same self-entitled jerks that you have at the check-in counters and maddeningly, the reps are usually forced to placate them at the expense of other guests.  In fact I'm thinking that's what actually happened to cause this OP's current situation.


----------



## PamMo (Dec 28, 2015)

I love my deeded fixed weeks/units at some resorts, and always use them. What dismays me (as an owner who enrolled in the DC points program) is that Marriott would book guests in a unit for part of the week, and without considering the needs of that guest and their family, make them change units without notifying them ahead of time. This should all be made entirely clear at booking.


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 28, 2015)

Sue,

I totally agree that the OP is entitled to remain in this unit for the duration of the stay. Not suggesting that the OP act unsavory at all. Agree with your assessment of other guests acting like jerks at check in. This is a very interesting situation indeed.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 28, 2015)

billymach4 said:


> Sue,
> 
> I totally agree that the OP is entitled to remain in this unit for the duration of the stay. Not suggesting that the OP act unsavory at all. Agree with your assessment of other guests acting like jerks at check in. This is a very interesting situation indeed.



I am not sure that the OP is entitled to stay in the unit they are currently in. That would infringe upon the actual fixed week fixed units deeded usage rights. The OP has no rights other than a reservation that they obtained through the MVC Exchange Company. They have no deeded rights at Grand Residence Lake Tahoe.

Perhaps they had an entitled right to a single stay in a single unit for all seven nights, but not that they are entitle to stay in the unit that they are currently in. A deed owners rights trump everything.

The property may be able to evict the guest, hotels have many more rights in evicting guests at hotels than a regular landlord would have with a tenant renting a home or an apartment long term. They don't usually have to go through the courts to evict someone.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 28, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> The reason I don't think the II unit code is the only metric in play is because I've seen these segmented reservations happen where all same-configuration units in a single resort have the same II code, i.e. at the Hilton Head resorts where I own.  That's why I believe that, 1.) the system takes into account at the time of booking ALL metrics including the II code but also any other variables that result in Weeks breakage, such as enrolled Weeks being exchanged for DC Points and thus available to be booked by DC Members as single nights, and 2.) that the system will not allow requested intervals to be booked as a single reservation with a single confirmation number if multiple-unit breakage is necessary to fulfill the request.





dioxide45 said:


> I think that we need to remember that the reservation system that MVCI is using is still the Marriott International infrastructure.
> ...
> Marriott hotels are all floating unit properties. YOu are never guaranteed a certain unit when making a Marriott.com reservation unless there is only one unit of that type at the property. It would make sense that Marriott International wouldn't program anything in to their reservation system to account for fixed weeks at MVCI properties.



While its only our (educated?) speculation without official explanation, my vote is with Sue on this. Given my experience with programming and databases,  it seems like a long stretch that the reservation systems do not track all rooms at an individual level, with a unique identifier and all sorts of fields for various characteristics. (As opposed to just broad groups of room codes, like those we see.)

Even Marriott *hotels* have broad variance in characteristics by room type, including concierge level, multiple view categories, etc. Units also have to be marked if they are down for maintenance, refurbishment, etc. Additionally, it would be impossible to do any kind of inventory tracking (or an audit thereof)  without a unique identifier for each room. 

From a programming or just data input perspective, it should not be a difficult task to label fixed week/fixed units as such (and I assume they already have), and then reserve them according to only what is actually available. 

More likely in my opinion is that they reserve for convenience reasons (as noted by Greg T), and hope that the local staff can smooth things over on a case by case basis, leading to this (relatively infrequent) problem.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 28, 2015)

davidvel said:


> While its only our (educated?) speculation without official explanation, my vote is with Sue on this. Given my experience with programming and databases,  it seems like a long stretch that the reservation systems do not track all rooms at an individual level, with a unique identifier and all sorts of fields for various characteristics. (As opposed to just broad groups of room codes, like those we see.)
> 
> Even Marriott *hotels* have broad variance in characteristics by room type, including concierge level, multiple view categories, etc. Units also have to be marked if they are down for maintenance, refurbishment, etc. Additionally, it would be impossible to do any kind of inventory tracking (or an audit thereof)  without a unique identifier for each room.
> 
> ...



I would expect there to be some type of unique inventory identifier within the reservation system. Though keep in mind that they can and do overbook hotels all the time. So just because there is a unique identifier, it doesn't mean that all reservations are tied to actual inventory, at least on the hotel side.

Just because there is a unique identifier for each record in the reservation system, it doesn't mean that there is anything there that indicates that the inventory is fixed week or fixed unit. Perhaps there is, but so far I am not seeing any proof of that. Fixed weeks make up less than .001% of all Marriott.com inventory. Would they have written something in to the system for that. Programming to something like this would not necessarily be an easy task, possible, but how much resource and money do you throw at such a small problem?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 29, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> I am not sure that the OP is entitled to stay in the unit they are currently in. That would infringe upon the actual fixed week fixed units deeded usage rights. The OP has no rights other than a reservation that they obtained through the MVC Exchange Company. They have no deeded rights at Grand Residence Lake Tahoe.
> 
> Perhaps they had an entitled right to a single stay in a single unit for all seven nights, but not that they are entitle to stay in the unit that they are currently in. A deed owners rights trump everything.
> 
> The property may be able to evict the guest, hotels have many more rights in evicting guests at hotels than a regular landlord would have with a tenant renting a home or an apartment long term. They don't usually have to go through the courts to evict someone.



I agree with you that at this point the resort GM has no choice but to move the OP if the Owner of the Fixed Week/Unit in which the OP has been placed shows up to use his/her ownership on the contracted check-in day.  Not making Fixed Week/Unit intervals available to owners of record is, no doubt, an incorrect inventory control issue that would put MVW in legal jeopardy.

But IMO the same is true of the issue that this OP is facing, in which it appears that s/he wasn't placed into the unit that the reservation system allowed him/her to book.  Like I said, I believe the situation has come about because a third person holding multiple confirmations for a multiple night stay was placed into the unit that the OP should have been placed, i.e. the unit that the OP will be moved to later this week, if the rooms controller had orchestrated unit placement correctly in conformance with the governing docs.  This isn't a case of a single night of a Fixed Week/Unit interval being double-booked; it's a case of at least two non-Owners with multi-night booked stays (one holding a single confirmation and the other(s) holding multiple confirmations) being allowed to book breakage inventory not reserved by Owners.

The fact that an error has been made doesn't supersede the incoming Fixed Week/Unit Owner's rights, not by a long shot.  But it does mean that this OP should have been advised of the ramifications of the placement error that's directly impacting him/her sooner than s/he was and by somebody higher up the food chain than a front desk rep.  And IMO it does mean that the OP is entitled to compensation as well as a complete explanation of why/how this happened from someone at the exec level.  The onsite GM explaining it simply as a result of the resort calendar being comprised of fixed weeks/units doesn't cut it, not when from all appearances the reservation system appears able to differentiate all other inventory sources according to both breakage availability and the need for separate confirmations when a unit change may be required.

Whether the system can or can't function that way I guess will be debated for all eternity on TUG unless MVW makes a public, official statement declaring exactly how the system should function.  Pretty sure we all know that won't happen unless MVW is legally forced to make it happen.  The problem I see is that if they don't do whatever needs to be done to prevent this from happening, it's a legal challenge that MVW could realistically lose.


----------



## kds4 (Dec 29, 2015)

A fixed unit/fixed week owner's usage rightfully trumps all other reservations, but an owner with a single confirmation number should be next in the room assignment pecking order. 

Another very useful discussion to me as I am interested in visiting the Grand Residence/Ritz Carlton properties with my ownership. I will definitely factor fixed week/fixed unit considerations into our reservation planning.


----------



## funtime (Dec 29, 2015)

*Wyndham did the same thing to us and we refused*

Wyndham screwed up and placed us in the wrong section.  They kept calling our room indicating we had to move and we said no.  This was irritating because I specifically asked for a lower level room with no stairs because of my dad's disability.  We did not get that, so I did not want to haul our stuff up and down stairs again.  

Actually if the manager had come to my room in person and asked us I would have moved. I would have asked for some type of compensation.  However management lackies kept calling and pestering us and so I said no.  Stayed in the "wrong" room the entire 7 days.


----------



## Big Matt (Dec 29, 2015)

I think people are looking at this backwards.  The owner is entitled to the unit, period, end of story.  He owns it and has a deed to prove it.  

Now, Marriott screwed up.  It doesn't really matter how or why, the simple fact is that spottie is the unlikely person who happened to be in the owner's unit for seven days with the last day being one too many.  

If I'm Marriott, I contact the owner and do whatever it takes to keep them happy.  If that doesn't work, I work with spottie to make sure they are happy.  Sounds like the GM is now starting this process.  

I would:  a) offer the owner something real valuable like show tickets, free dinner vouchers, etc., b) give spottie a free week the following year.

My guess is that the owner will be reasonable especially if they are staying for more than a week or two.  

Spottie, just stay reasonable and get as much as you can for the inconvenience.  You don't deserve this Marriott has the ability to make this right.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 29, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Whether the system can or can't function that way I guess will be debated for all eternity on TUG unless MVW makes a public, official statement declaring exactly how the system should function.  Pretty sure we all know that won't happen unless MVW is legally forced to make it happen.  The problem I see is that if they don't do whatever needs to be done to prevent this from happening, it's a legal challenge that MVW could realistically lose.



I would just be surprised that Marriott has somehow been able to solve for something that most every other points overlay system has been plagued with. It seems that other overlay systems have a disclaimer about mid week moves when a reservation crosses over a traditional checkin day. We know Wyndham is one, RCI points is another. Are there any others. Are there any that guaranty you will be in the same unit for the entire stay?

We may never know one way or the other how it all works unless we see Marriott come out with some official language in the Exchange Procedures, or they add a disclaimer as Greg predicts. Of course it is always fun to discuss and debate what we don't really know.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 29, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> We may never know one way or the other how it all works unless we see Marriott come out with some official language in the Exchange Procedures, or they add a disclaimer as Greg predicts. *Of course it is always fun to discuss and debate what we don't really know.*


Now you've gone and blown my day. I was sure "we" knew it all.


----------



## GreenTea (Dec 30, 2015)

Apparently in Mexico they make you move for the owner also....didn't work out so well for the affluenza teen.....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ture-of-affluenza-teen-ethan-couch/?tid=sm_fb


----------



## SnowDogDad (Dec 30, 2015)

I have heard of one other incident at the Grand Residence Club Lake Tahoe where someone was asked to move mid-stay.  In that case, the person made the reservation and was TOLD in advance they would have to move.  But, the person that made the reservation somehow thought it would all work out and they would not have to.  But, they did.  

I know it happens there very rarely, but it does.  The GRC LT is Friday-to-Friday and Marriott's only has about 50% of the property in their rental program and about 15% of the property is in the Destinations land trust. So, at times, they are not able to accommodate the full length of the stay in a single unit.   

However, a reservation 12 months out should have been properly aligned with units they had available. 

If you have not yet had a satisfactory response from Marriott, stop by the front desk and ask to speak to the manager on duty or the property GM.  Ask them how this could have happened to you given that you made a reservation so far in advance.


----------



## spottie (Dec 31, 2015)

The GM called back today and told me that we do have to move. He said they would call us when the other room is ready to move in and said he would refund half of my Friday night points for the trouble.  I asked him again how did this happen and if somebody else took our room instead?  He said it was due to the fixed week at the resort and our Saturday check in days overlap the standard Friday to Friday check in.  
He also told me that there were half dozen people in the same situation and had to move room this week as the resort was sold out. If that's true,  Marriott really has a messed up reservation system for this resort.   I wish I had known earlier and could have avoided the hassle. We actually flew in on Friday and stayed at Reno for a night.  I could have booked Friday check in if I knew this problem at the time of the booking.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

spottie said:


> The GM called back today and told me that we do have to move. He said they would call us when the other room is ready to move in and said he would refund half of my Friday night points for the trouble.  I asked him again how did this happen and if somebody else took our room instead?  He said it was due to the fixed week at the resort and our Saturday check in days overlap the standard Friday to Friday check in.
> He also told me that there were half dozen people in the same situation and had to move room this week as the resort was sold out. If that's true,  Marriott really has a messed up reservation system for this resort.   I wish I had known earlier and could have avoided the hassle. We actually flew in on Friday and stayed at Reno for a night.  I could have booked Friday check in if I knew this problem at the time of the booking.



If what Sue suspects is true, I wouldn't expect the GM to admit that they screwed up and placed a guest with multiple reservation numbers in to a single unit that you should have been in.

You should have asked if the other half dozen people had a single confirmation number or multiple. Not sure if you would have gotten a straight answer? Is the GM calling from home or is he at the resort? I thought you indicated that the GM was off until January 4th?


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Dec 31, 2015)

I would truly hold out for more than just points, I think the GM has the ability to help you and if they do not have that authority they need to elevate this to an executive who does have that power…good luck




spottie said:


> We just checked in the Grand Residence Tahoe today. Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
> I was really upset upon hearing this.  I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.  During those 12 month, could they not have contacted me in advance to let me know this will happen? I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving.   Plus, I paid for 7 nights/days, if they do not make the unit immediately available,  then am I losing half day of what I already paid for?  Can I refuse to move? Who can I contact at Marriott to have this resolved if it can not be done locally here? (General manager won't be in till Monday. )
> If anyone has experience dealing with similar situations,  your advice is greatly appreciated!


----------



## bnoble (Dec 31, 2015)

> It seems that other overlay systems have a disclaimer about mid week moves when a reservation crosses over a traditional checkin day. We know Wyndham is one


At least with Wyndham, if you have a split reservation, it is made very obvious---including a doubling of the housekeeping credits required. Some resorts (e.g. Bonnet Creek) aren't overlaid on a regular Weeks ownership, and so at those it is relatively easy to stay in the same unit, but still not guaranteed. If you do stay in the same unit, the second set of housekeeping credits are refunded.


----------



## Miss Marty (Dec 31, 2015)

*Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe*



spottie said:


> We just checked in the Grand Residence Tahoe today. Upon check in, we were told that we have to change unit the last night of our 7 night stay, and it is not guaranteed the room is immediately available after we move out.
> I was really upset upon hearing this.  I had made the reservation for 7 nights more than 12 month in advance with 20% Destination point premium.  During those 12 month, could they not have contacted me in advance to let me know this will happen? I have no desire to spend my New Year's day packing/unpacking and moving.   Plus, I paid for 7 nights/days, if they do not make the unit immediately available,  then am I losing half day of what I already paid for?  Can I refuse to move? Who can I contact at Marriott to have this resolved if it can not be done locally here? (General manager won't be in till Monday. )
> If anyone has experience dealing with similar situations,  your advice is greatly appreciated!



http://www.marriottvacationclub.com/vacation-resorts/grand-residence-club-tahoe/overview.shtml


----------



## Miss Marty (Dec 31, 2015)

*Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe*



spottie said:


> This is a single 7-night reservation and
> we were told an owner would be moving in.
> 
> We had booked reservations before at Mountainside when single 7-nights were not available and we had to make do with 2 reservations.  When we checked in we requested to stay in the same room and they were not able to accommodate that. In that case, I did not mind the move as much because at the time of the reservation,  I knew that was a possibility.
> ...



Heavenly Properties, LLC is the developer of 
Marriott's Grand Residence Club, Lake Tahoe.


----------



## Miss Marty (Dec 31, 2015)

*Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe - Owners & Guests*



spottie said:


> I talked to the General Manager this morning, he said he would look into this and talk to the owner to see if and when they are coming in, so we might avoid the move.  He said since it was the holiday week, most likely we would still need to move, he would make sure our move is as smooth as possible. He said the reason this happened was because this is a fixed week resort. We will see what they can come up with in the next few days.
> 
> For Grand Residence Tahoe, are they fixed unit as well as fixed week? Do the owner stay in the exact unit they bought into?



The 199 residences at Marriott Grand Residence Club, Lake Tahoe feature a selection of studios, one, two and three bedroom and penthouses floor plans ranging from 360 to 2,496 square feet of living space and sleeping up to 12 guests. 

Q: 

What size villa are you in?

How much does it cost for 
Underground Valet Parking?


----------



## Miss Marty (Dec 31, 2015)

*Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe*



spottie said:


> _The GM called back today and told me
> that we do have to move. _
> 
> He said they would call us when the other room is ready to move in and said he would refund half of my Friday night points for the trouble.  I asked him again how did this happen and if somebody else took our room instead?
> ...




Be sure to submit your comments regarding 
Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe to Trip Advisor 
to inform others that it is possible they may 
have to change villas in the middle of their stay
and to verify that they will not have to move.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

If this isn't a matter of the onsite rooms controller mis-allocating guests according to who is holding single- and multi-confirmations for multi-night reservations, i.e. if it's actually the IT system that isn't recognizing at the time of booking every Use Period which will require unit changes and as a result issuing separate confirmations for each segment, then this is a serious inventory control problem and not simply an inconvenience to guests.

Spottie, no doubt you've called enough attention to this that the GM is doing what he can for you (and hopefully, any of the other six guests who have to move and are also holding single confirmation numbers for their stays.)  But in your shoes I'd say that his refund offer of a half-night's stay isn't enough, nevermind that it does nothing to involve executive level representatives in fixing the issue.

I appreciate that you've taken the time out of your vacation to let us know what's happening, and I hope that you'll take this further up the chain after you've returned home.  Good luck.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I would truly hold out for more than just points, I think the GM has the ability to help you and if they do not have that authority they need to elevate this to an executive who does have that power…good luck





SueDonJ said:


> But in your shoes I'd say that his refund offer of a half-night's stay isn't enough, nevermind that it does nothing to involve executive level representatives in fixing the issue.



Half the points for Friday night is quite a few. Given that it is the holiday week, here is how any DC points each unit costs;

1BR - 1,425
2BR (sleeps 6) - 2,025
2BR (sleeps 8) - 2,225
3BR - 3,575

I don't know if the OP ever indicated the unit size they booked, but at a minimum they would get 700 DC points. That is worth about $350. Perhaps they could give them dinner vouchers or something else, but at this point, I would take the points as offered.


----------



## spottie (Dec 31, 2015)

I will definitely submit a review to Trip Advisor. There was already an 1 star review from couple of days ago from someone who was also forced to move.



Miss Marty said:


> Be sure to submit your comments regarding
> Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe to Trip Advisor
> to inform others that it is possible they may
> have to change villas in the middle of their stay
> and to verify that they will not have to move.


----------



## vikingsholm (Dec 31, 2015)

The answer to this should be pretty simple. The system should only allow any multiday points reservation, starting on any day of the week, to show availability until the upcoming Friday checkout day automatically. 

Any desired reservations that extend beyond a Friday checkout should supply a note on the website reservations page prior to confirmation that warn the user that they may have to move rooms on Friday if staying beyond then (may have to, not will have to, because during low periods the room may easily remain available the following week).  Then they can decide to whether to confirm under those conditions or change their dates.  Marriott programmers need to get on this.


----------



## Southerngirl528 (Dec 31, 2015)

kds4 said:


> A fixed unit/fixed week owner's usage rightfully trumps all other reservations, but an owner with a single confirmation number should be next in the room assignment pecking order.
> 
> Another very useful discussion to me as I am interested in visiting the Grand Residence/Ritz Carlton properties with my ownership. I will definitely factor fixed week/fixed unit considerations into our reservation planning.



Absolutely agree with your first statement here, Kds4. Though I think it is very important to keep anyone with one rez number for their entire stay in one unit continuously, and much effort should be given to ensure this, someone that has laid down big bucks to purchase at that same resort, and had a deed to prove it should take precedent over non-owners IMHO. 

I agree that more should be done to streamline the system since DC has changed the weeks only format. I know this much, I would NOT want to be the poor soul(s) that are the room assigners. That has to be a tough job...


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

spottie said:


> I will definitely submit a review to Trip Advisor. There was already an 1 star review from couple of days ago from someone who was also forced to move.



The resort management seems to be pretty active in following up and responding to reviews on Trip Advisor. It will be interesting to see how they respond to that one star review.


----------



## csxjohn (Dec 31, 2015)

I know that I would not leave that room until they have another one to put me in.


----------



## Fasttr (Dec 31, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> Half the points for Friday night is quite a few. Given that it is the holiday week, here is how any DC points each unit costs;
> 
> 1BR - 1,425
> 2BR (sleeps 6) - 2,025
> ...



I think the OP stated that they paid the 20% points premium to book greater than 12 months out.  I would make sure the 20% premium points associated with that half a Friday points refund were given back as well.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

csxjohn said:


> I know that I would not leave that room until they have another one to put me in.



This should be standard procedure across all resorts. It so easy to do and goes a long way to make the move easier. HHI properties can do this, why can't the others?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> Half the points for Friday night is quite a few. Given that it is the holiday week, here is how any DC points each unit costs;
> 
> 1BR - 1,425
> 2BR (sleeps 6) - 2,025
> ...



Not me! 

Based on the info posted as the OP I'd start with, _"I'm no stranger to the Destination Club program having used Points for other stays.  During a MountainSide stay we were required to change units but I fully expected that move because for that stay we were issued multiple confirmations, rather than the single confirmation that was issued to us for this GR Tahoe stay."_  Then I'd move on to, _"If I'd known that we'd be required to move on the last night of this stay, effectively requiring us to pack up all of our gear two days in a row, I never would have booked the stay and I certainly wouldn't have considered using my valuable DC Points to cover a 20% premium for what should have been an uninterrupted 7-night vacation for my family.  I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights, or I would have used my DC Points for any of the many other resorts that are in your system."_

And then I'd get into quoting language from the docs that reference, "an Accommodation" for a single Use Period, blahblahblah, until somebody in a position of authority would at least confirm that they understand the issue as I'm presenting it, and that they have a satisfactory explanation of why the system worked or didn't work for me as designed.

But I'm now just a little bit OCD about this; others might choose not to be.


----------



## spottie (Dec 31, 2015)

I am in a one bedroom loft. The onsite valet parking is complimentary for one car and cost $29 per day otherwise. 


Miss Marty said:


> Q:
> 
> What size villa are you in?
> 
> ...


----------



## kds4 (Dec 31, 2015)

spottie said:


> The GM called back today and told me that we do have to move. He said they would call us when the other room is ready to move in and said he would refund half of my Friday night points for the trouble.  I asked him again how did this happen and if somebody else took our room instead?  He said it was due to the fixed week at the resort and our Saturday check in days overlap the standard Friday to Friday check in.
> He also told me that there were half dozen people in the same situation and had to move room this week as the resort was sold out. If that's true,  Marriott really has a messed up reservation system for this resort.   I wish I had known earlier and could have avoided the hassle. We actually flew in on Friday and stayed at Reno for a night.  I could have booked Friday check in if I knew this problem at the time of the booking.



So, booking Friday to Friday stays at MGR properties sounds like the way to go in the future. Good to know.


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 31, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Not me!
> 
> Based on the info posted as the OP I'd start with, _"I'm no stranger to the Destination Club program having used Points for other stays.  During a MountainSide stay we were required to change units but I fully expected that move because for that stay we were issued multiple confirmations, rather than the single confirmation that was issued to us for this GR Tahoe stay."_  Then I'd move on to, _"If I'd known that we'd be required to move on the last night of this stay, effectively requiring us to pack up all of our gear two days in a row, I never would have booked the stay and I certainly wouldn't have considered using my valuable DC Points to cover a 20% premium for what should have been an uninterrupted 7-night vacation for my family.  I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights, or I would have used my DC Points for any of the many other resorts that are in your system."_
> 
> ...



Sue, I totally agree with you on this. 

Spottie in all honesty how do you feel about this position? If I were in your shoes I would not want to move. You have been put in a very awkward position here, and Mother Marriott is trying to put 10 lbs of potatoes in a 5 lb
bag at your expense. 

You should be relaxing on your vacation and not having to duke it out with Marriott.


----------



## kds4 (Dec 31, 2015)

Fasttr said:


> I think the OP stated that they paid the 20% points premium to book greater than 12 months out.  I would make sure the 20% premium points associated with that half a Friday points refund were given back as well.



That's right. I agree with Fasttr. At a minimum that would bring the OP's points refund up to almost 850 points, no?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

kds4 said:


> That's right. I agree with Fasttr. At a minimum that would bring the OP's points refund up to almost 850 points, no?



Not for me.  At a minimum I'd want a refund of the entire last night plus the 20% premium for every night.  But in addition, I'd want an exec to explain how the system is supposed to work and what went wrong as far as this single reservation.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 31, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue,
> 
> These were experimental reservations that I made for May 2016, where I booked reservations with a Friday check-in that crossed Saturday.  I did not use the reservations so I can not confirm the room change.
> 
> ...


Greg, I understand your comments if the only weeks that could be involved were from the trust.  However, the reservation could have also been with any of the legacy weeks that could have been exchanged that year for DC points.


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2015)

BocaBoy said:


> Greg, I understand your comments if the only weeks that could be involved were from the trust.  However, the reservation could have also been with any of the legacy weeks that could have been exchanged that year for DC points.



BocaBoy,

I agree -- the reservation must have been from legacy weeks exchanged that year for DC points -- total agreement.

My (poorly stated) point is what is the probability that the same legacy week units were redeemed that were have to occur to allow a connecting reservation in the same unit.

As an example, if the system was operating the way Sue believes it does, then in order for my example to happen, the owner of [4206] for Week 19 must redeem for points, and the owner of [4206] for Week 20 must also redeem points -- and both units must be redeemed early enough for the reservation to be there in mid-June 2015.

Since there are 22 3BR units, the probability of any individual unit be redeemed is 1/22.  So the probability of [4206/19] is 1/22 and the probability of [4206/20] being redeemed is 1/22.   The probability of both units being redeemed is 1/484 (ie, 1/22 X 1/22).  

And it happened three times in May.   So three times in May the 1/484 happened?     I think it is far far more likely that the 3BR in Week 19 and the 3BR in Week 20 are in different units and the system doesn't recognize that these are different units because it is a points overlay over a fixed week system.

I wish I could state it more clearly.   Marriott needs to solve this with a disclosure both at the time of the reservation and on the confirmation, so that the the person making the reservation understands the risk they are taking at the time of the reservation, and can choose to/to not complete the reservation.

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

GregT said:


> BocaBoy,
> 
> I agree -- the reservation must have been from legacy weeks exchanged that year for DC points -- total agreement.
> 
> ...



MVW grabs from other buckets, though, for DC Points reservations.  Don't we have to consider that the system is also recognizing at the time of booking Weeks deposited to II, Weeks exchanged for MRP, Weeks in arrears, etc?  I think we do, and I also think that it's sophisticated enough to recognize breakage at the individual unit level such that it knows how many intervals that cross a Fixed Week/Unit check-in day can be booked as a single stay and how many must be booked as multiple segments because a unit change will be required.

If the system isn't that sophisticated and isn't including a disclaimer on confirmations, MVW is IMO left vulnerable to inventory control/allocation challenges.  I just can't believe that MVW's IT system isn't designed to protect itself from this vulnerability, that this isn't a matter of the onsite rooms controllers prioritizing placement of single-confirmation DC stays incorrectly.  How else can it be explained when they've been confirming cash stays using breakage of Fixed Weeks/Units for decades without this issue presenting?


----------



## NboroGirl (Dec 31, 2015)

Be sure to demand those refunded points BEFORE you leave.  I was promised 10,000 MRP because of a snafu at a Marriott Hotel.  I never got them. After a week I emailed the manager at the hotel who made the promise, and she apologized and said she'd put those points in my account right away.  I never got them.  I emailed her again about a week later and a week after that but I  never got another reply back from her.   So... don't believe it until you see it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> How else can it be explained when they've been confirming cash stays using breakage of Fixed Weeks/Units for decades without this issue presenting?



I suspect that cash stays are often for a shorter period of time and not week long stays. So the likelihood of this issue is lessened. People may also be making the cash stay on the end of a weeks stay or points stay. So a move is perhaps almost expected and they wouldn't report it.

Another possibility is that cash stays of longer duration usually aren't made by Tuggers. So those making such reservation are likely to stroll in here to bring up the issue. They post is on Trip Advisor, like the review mentioned earlier.

This doesn't seem to be a rare event. The OP indicated that the GM stated that there are about a half dozen people that have this problem this week. With the resort at maximum occupancy, rooms control doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps with lower occupancy or weeks deposited in to II or DC, they have more flexibility to move people around. It is only when someone is staying on an owner stay does this opportunity present itself.


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> MVW grabs from other buckets, though, for DC Points reservations.  Don't we have to consider that the system is also recognizing at the time of booking Weeks deposited to II, Weeks exchanged for MRP, Weeks in arrears, etc?  I think we do, and I also think that it's sophisticated enough to recognize breakage at the individual unit level such that it knows how many intervals that cross a Fixed Week/Unit check-in day can be booked as a single stay and how many must be booked as multiple segments because a unit change will be required.



Sue,

Marriott can't assume [4206/19] and [4206/20] will both be redeemed in the future and therefore allow a connecting reservation.   They can only do this which weeks already redeemed.   So you are back at the 1/484 odds, irrespective of how Marriott got the weeks (redeemed for points, MRPs, II trade). 

It's still incredibly low odds, and that it happened three times in the same month makes it even less likely. 

Sue, I am surprised that you still unable to contemplate that the system functions as it does.   I don't suggest this is the correct way nor desirable,  only that it is the way it works.  It may violate the Governing Docs, but Marriott doesn't think it's significant yet to resolve.  I do not know. But this is how the system is currently functioning. 

Best,

Greg


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

What Marriott properties actually have fixed units? Do all the Grand Residence properties have fixed units? What about the Ritz Carlton properties?

Of the non luxury brand, there are only a few. These are the ones I know of.


Maui Ocean Club - Napili and Lahaina Towers
Harbour Pointe
Streamside
Monarch

Resorts with fixed holiday weeks are probably immune since they are all still floating unit, plus they have the floating checkin day which may give more flexibility to rooms control.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> I suspect that cash stays are often for a shorter period of time and not week long stays. So the likelihood of this issue is lessened. People may also be making the cash stay on the end of a weeks stay or points stay. So a move is perhaps almost expected and they wouldn't report it.
> 
> Another possibility is that cash stays of longer duration usually aren't made by Tuggers. So those making such reservation are likely to stroll in here to bring up the issue. They post is on Trip Advisor, like the review mentioned earlier.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a rare event. The OP indicated that the GM stated that there are about a half dozen people that have this problem this week. With the resort at maximum occupancy, rooms control doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps with lower occupancy or weeks deposited in to II or DC, they have more flexibility to move people around. It is only when someone is staying on an owner stay does this opportunity present itself.



Could be.  I'm thinking that with Owners at this resort getting a boatload of DC Points when they elect individual Weeks of their fractional ownerships, they're likely to use those Points to extend their stays for several days when holiday periods fall consecutively.  This year, for example, with Christmas on a Friday quite a few of them may have used DC Points to stay at the resort until the Sunday following their contracted check-out day, thus forming the breakage that this OP and others are dealing with.

The problem then would arise if the rooms controller allowed those Owners to stay in their owned units beyond the contracted check-out day for the DC segments of their stays (which as Greg related in his other thread was a similar scenario that he requested but was denied at Maui OC.)  If the rooms controller had instead required the Owners to change units based on the reservations that were confirmed according to expected breakage, the inventory wouldn't have been as broken up needlessly resulting in this OP and apparently several others having to be moved (although we don't know if the others also have single confirmations for multiple nights.)

I know some feel as Greg does that Fixed Week/Unit Owners using DC Points should have first priority for DC inventory that falls consecutive to their owned Weeks, but it's the fact that it causes this issue that makes me disagree.  Simply, their entitlement to the Fixed Week/Units they own should come into play only when they're staying on their owned Weeks.  When they've elected DC Points or other usage options and are staying at the resort effectively as exchangers, the priority should be figured such that those exchangers holding reservations for multiple nights with a single confirmation number are placed in whichever units won't require a unit change before any other priority metrics come into play.

That's my opinion, anyway.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

GregT said:


> Sue,
> 
> Marriott can't assume [4206/19] and [4206/20] will both be redeemed in the future and therefore allow a connecting reservation.   They can only do this which weeks already redeemed.   So you are back at the 1/484 odds, irrespective of how Marriott got the weeks (redeemed for points, MRPs, II trade).
> 
> ...



I just can't fathom that they've left themselves open to this vulnerability, Greg.  It boggles my mind.  When I consider that the DC system sometimes shows segmented availability that can't be explained any other way (such as I've seen with my resorts) and that as far as we know it's never been an issue with any other type of breakage reservations, it just doesn't make sense in my mind.

I have to admit that since your thread I've thought quite a bit about it because, well, honestly, it's a little bit odd for you and I to disagree about an issue as completely as we do about this one!  But with all the thinking I haven't been able to reconcile all the nuances of the issue or the discussion as anything other than, the rooms controller at MOC handled your request correctly by denying it, and at GR Tahoe the problem is being caused by a room controller who has not.  Here the inventory appears to be mis-allocated.  Now it may be that s/he thinks it's correct to adhere to a stipulation that owners always get first priority, but in my mind MVW needs to clarify how placement should be done so that the practice conforms to the way the IT reservation system appears to be working as well as the governing docs.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 31, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> What Marriott properties actually have fixed units? Do all the Grand Residence properties have fixed units? What about the Ritz Carlton properties?
> 
> Of the non luxury brand, there are only a few. These are the ones I know of.
> 
> ...



I believe Monarch is Fixed Week/Unit with a single check-in day?


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I believe Monarch is Fixed Week/Unit with a single check-in day?



I think you are right, though I think it is only some of the units. The latter units were floating.


----------



## m61376 (Dec 31, 2015)

Make sure when they refund your points they extend the use year, since 2015 is just about over.

Happy New Year to all!


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Digging into the legalities, this is how a reservation is defined on Page 22 in the Exchange Procedures document:
> 
> _"Use Period means the time period(s) during which each Program Member has reserved the use and occupancy of an Accommodation in accordance with the provisions of these Exchange Procedures. All Use Periods shall be subject to the minimum and maximum number of evenings identified in these Exchange Procedures."_
> 
> ...



There is always the global "out clause" in just about every legal document a company creates?

This is from page 16 of the Exchange Procedures;


> *H. Intent of Rules. The intent of these Exchange Procedures and the design of the Program(s) is to facilitate broad flexibility and utilization across a broad range of varied Accommodations, Components, facilities and Affiliate Programs. These Exchange Procedures are not designed or intended to afford any specific rights in or access to any particular Accommodation or to guarantee that any variable, including Exchange Point levels, check-in days or times, or access will remain constant over time.*



Does this give them leverage in this type of situation?

This is also the definition of "Accommodation" in the Exchange Procedures, page 17.


> Accommodation means any condominium unit, apartment, cooperative unit, single family home, efficiency cabana, cottage, attached or free standing townhome or villa, fee interest, leasehold interest, unit located in a multi-unit building, and any other similar type of sleeping accommodation affiliated with or offered through the Program.



So by definition it would seem that they have fulfilled their obligation. Aren't they still providing the OP with an accommodation, even though they are having them move tomorrow?


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 31, 2015)

Dioxide, 

Just woke up from my New Years Eve nap. I always admire the depth of your research. 

Do you practice law as a profession?


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2015)

billymach4 said:


> Dioxide,
> 
> Just woke up from my New Years Eve nap. I always admire the depth of your research.
> 
> Do you practice law as a profession?



Nope, not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.


----------



## jehb2 (Dec 31, 2015)

GreenTea said:


> If it's a 7 night reservation, one confirmation, NO WAY would I move.   This is their problem.  Don't let them make it your problem.   It's not.



X2.  Absolutely not. No way would I move.  Stand firm.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 2, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> There is always the global "out clause" in just about every legal document a company creates?
> 
> This is from page 16 of the Exchange Procedures;
> 
> ...



No, I disagree, I think that the "an Accommodation" as it's used specifically in the Use Period definition leads to a reasonable expectation of placement in a single unit for the duration of a single confirmation/multiple-night stay.  Where the term is used otherwise, it appears to me as a caution that placement in any specific unit is not guaranteed with floating reservations.

I'm usually right there with you, right at the head of the pack!, in thinking that the docs contain far more protections for MVW than they do for owners/members.  But not in this situation.  It is simply not reasonable for MVW to expect that owners/members can be required to change units during a single reservation.  As far as I can see the IT system protects against it, and there is no specific wording in the docs that will protect MVW if a legal challenge is brought by a competent, qualified attorney.

If this is the allocation system that MVW is directing the resort personnel to follow, then at the least MVW needs to notify DC Members in advance of check-in the possibility of a unit change during a single confirmation.  Obviously I think what was done here is the wrong way to allocate inventory based on reasonableness as well as the governing docs and would prefer that they allocate correctly.  But I also think that this OP was treated with incredible indifference throughout the process.  In the OP's shoes I'd take this as far as it can be taken, starting with a letter to the Exec Leadership, in an effort to make the inventory allocation process much more transparent than it is.  Like I said, out of all the calls for legal action since the DC was introduced this one situation appears to me to be the one that has the highest odds of being successful.  I can understand why some wouldn't take up the challenge but the least this OP deserves is much more generous compensation than what's been offered, and it should come from Exec MVW with a satisfactory explanation.


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 2, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> Not for me.  At a minimum I'd want a refund of the entire last night plus the 20% premium for every night.  But in addition, I'd want an exec to explain how the system is supposed to work and what went wrong as far as this single reservation.



I get the desire to be compensated for the entire last night, but I don't understand the logic of expecting to be compensated for the 20% points premium paid for the entire stay which was paid by the OP as compensation for the ability to book in the 13 month window. If the OP had the status to book at 13 months without paying the additional 20%, are you suggesting they should receive less compensation in that situation?

I just don't get the logic of making the 20% premium paid on the other nights part of the desired compensation.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 2, 2016)

Fasttr said:


> I get the desire to be compensated for the entire last night, but I don't understand the logic of expecting to be compensated for the 20% points premium paid for the entire stay which was paid by the OP as compensation for the ability to book in the 13 month window. If the OP had the status to book at 13 months without paying the additional 20%, are you suggesting they should receive less compensation in that situation?
> 
> I just don't get the logic of making the 20% premium paid on the other nights part of the desired compensation.



Because I'd be basing it on the premise that had I known at the time of booking that an unreasonable expectation was attached to the reservation as presented, i.e. that a unit change would be required for the last night, it would have been my choice then whether to confirm or not the reservation as it was presented.  From my Post #103: _"I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights,"_ which in the OP's case wouldn't have required the 20% Points premium.

But again, that'd be my minimum.  This is about much more than just incorrect inventory allocation.  This OP was treated with indifference that should never be acceptable at a Marriott resort.


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 2, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> Because I'd be basing it on the premise that had I known at the time of booking that an unreasonable expectation was attached to the reservation as presented, i.e. that a unit change would be required for the last night, it would have been my choice then whether to confirm or not the reservation as it was presented.  From my Post #103: _"I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights,"_ which in the OP's case wouldn't have required the 20% Points premium.
> 
> But again, that'd be my minimum.  This is about much more than just incorrect inventory allocation.  This OP was treated with indifference that should never be acceptable at a Marriott resort.



Seems your logic on the 20% falls apart in that you could have booked at 12 months without paying the 20% premium and still theoretically gotten the 7 nights without paying the premium thus only being harmed for the final night. 

In my opinion asking for the 20% on all nights cheapens the argument as the OP clearly wanted to secure that particular window of time and thus chose to pay the 20% for the privilege to do so. 

I agree with your other arguments, but just felt the 20% for the other nights was a reach.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 2, 2016)

Fasttr said:


> Seems your logic on the 20% falls apart in that you could have booked at 12 months without paying the 20% premium and still theoretically gotten the 7 nights without paying the premium thus only being harmed for the final night.
> 
> In my opinion asking for the 20% on all nights cheapens the argument as the OP clearly wanted to secure that particular window of time and thus chose to pay the 20% for the privilege to do so.
> 
> I agree with your other arguments, but just felt the 20% for the other nights was a reach.



The OP says this in Post #86:  _"I wish I had known earlier and could have avoided the hassle. We actually flew in on Friday and stayed at Reno for a night. I could have booked Friday check in if I knew this problem at the time of the booking."_  In other posts s/he says that s/he understands how breakage happens and that a move might be required during a single stay with multiple confirmations, because during a previous MountainSide stay booked as a segmented reservation they'd been required to change units.

None of us knows if the OP "clearly wanted" seven nights uninterrupted or if at the time of booking s/he would have accepted the segmented reservation, although it certainly appears that s/he'd pay the 20% Points premium for the uninterrupted seven-night Friday check-in.  But regardless, the OP's known precedence is that when a move is required multiple confirmations will be issued.  In the OP's shoes I'd certainly argue that MVW has no right in hindsight to make the determination for him/her that this interrupted stay would have been accepted at the time of booking, no right to determine under what circumstances the OP would be willing to pay the 20% Points premium.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2016)

There was the chance that when the window opened up for only 6 nights, which would have been at the 10 month mark. That there wouldn't have been any availability at all. Chances are that it wouldn't even have been there at 12 months when the 20% penalty wouldn't have been in place. The option to make a 6 night reservation wouldn't have even been an option at 13 or even 12 months for the OP.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm usually right there with you, right at the head of the pack!, in thinking that the docs contain far more protections for MVW than they do for owners/members.  But not in this situation.  It is simply not reasonable for MVW to expect that owners/members can be required to change units during a single reservation.  As far as I can see the IT system protects against it, and there is no specific wording in the docs that will protect MVW if a legal challenge is brought by a competent, qualified attorney.



It might be difficult to get an attorney to take such a case. First they would have to identify the class. It could be done pretty easily, but the class would be pretty small. It is only a very small percentage of the ownership that would have had to move. Wouldn't they need to show some kind of financial hardship or loss? It seems that the owners are accepting compensation for the inconvenience, while they aren't signing rights away to sue, it doesn't look good in a lawsuit? Owners really aren't out any money other than perhaps vacation investment. In the end it may perhaps bring some transparency to the inventory allocation process, but you know MVC would fight any lawsuit tooth and nail, ultimately costing owners more money. Because the customer pays for everything.


----------



## spottie (Jan 10, 2016)

*it's been an interesting experience*

Thank you all for your advice and support during the past couple of days while we went through this issue.  Now that we are back home and finally caught up after vacation, I do have an interesting experience to report.

The move had not been very smooth.  Since we were planning to ski that day, we chose to have them help us move when we went out around noon. When we came back around 3:15 pm, the room was not ready for another 30 minutes and I found our diary/frozen food lying on the floor instead of getting put in their fridge in the storage area. 

Needless to say, I was not happy with this whole experience and was planning to write a letter as Susan suggested, but did not yet get a chance to do that.  Then last Wednesday, somebody from Marriott corporate called me and told me that he had learned about my experience and offered me full refund for the night (including the premium we paid for the night).  He said my situation was not suppose to happen and if 7 consecutive nights were not available then I should not have seen it during reservation.

The only place I had described this experience was on this board and I doubt the GM would volunteer about my situation?  So I guess somebody at Marriott corporate must have read my post then.  If so, I am impressed that they took the extra effort to locate me in real life to make things right.

Overall, I am happy with the resolution as I felt that ultimately Marriott does care about customer experience.  Marriott reaching out to me proactively makes the difference for me.  If I had not received the call and had to write my letter and get the same compensation in the end, I think I would not be as satisfied.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm happy that you're satisfied with MVW's concern and response, Spottie.  And also impressed that they apparently searched for you after reading TUG!  I know of a few other situations where the same thing happened but in those cases the TUGgers' User Names were very close to or the same as their real names so it didn't take too much effort to find them.  In your case it appears they would have had to take a few extra steps to correlate the situation as you related it here with the GR Tahoe reservation records; maybe that wasn't difficult but it does say something positive about MVW that they were concerned enough to do it.

Thanks for the follow-up post - it's appreciated very much.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 11, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> It might be difficult to get an attorney to take such a case. First they would have to identify the class. It could be done pretty easily, but the class would be pretty small. It is only a very small percentage of the ownership that would have had to move. Wouldn't they need to show some kind of financial hardship or loss? It seems that the owners are accepting compensation for the inconvenience, while they aren't signing rights away to sue, it doesn't look good in a lawsuit? Owners really aren't out any money other than perhaps vacation investment. In the end it may perhaps bring some transparency to the inventory allocation process, but you know MVC would fight any lawsuit tooth and nail, ultimately costing owners more money. Because the customer pays for everything.



Don't know how I missed this before now ...

When I mention getting qualified attorneys involved I don't mean with the intent of filing a class action suit as the first step.  I'd want their professional opinion about what I'm thinking and I'd follow their lead whether they think something is worth pursuing.  If so then I'd hire them to correspond with MVC Exec on my behalf because I think a letter signed by an attorney would be taken more seriously than a letter from me as a dissatisfied owner/member, especially if I'm asking questions that I don't expect them to answer as a matter of course.  Plus you've seen how often I edit my posts - it'd take me days to put all my thoughts together for something that important!


----------



## Fasttr (Jan 11, 2016)

spottie said:


> He said my situation was not suppose to happen and if 7 consecutive nights were not available then I should not have seen it during reservation.



This goes to the root of the debate between SueDonJ and GregT....and certainly follows with my expectations when booking a ressie for consecutive nights on one Marriott ressie number.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 11, 2016)

It is known that there are Marriott employee's who visit TUG (anonymously) on a daily basis.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 11, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> It is known that there are Marriott employee's who visit TUG (anonymously) on a daily basis.



Yep.  I'd assumed for years before becoming a TUG moderator that Marriott (and any other timeshare-related companies) would have to be stupid to not follow this and other sites on a routine basis.  They're not stupid.  Since becoming a mod I know it's true because I've been contacted out of the blue on a couple occasions by PM and email.  I've also a couple of times asked a Marriott contact to take a look at certain TUG threads in order to clarify rules or provide documentation for all of us - each time I posted the response and the fact that it came directly from MVW.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 11, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> It is known that there are Marriott employee's who visit TUG (anonymously) on a daily basis.



But how would they know who spottie was? No way to attach a name to a user here unless they contact the TUG Admin. I suspect that someone at the property contacted corporate or corporate contacted the property for more information. Or perhaps there were some notes in the system that jumped out and fell on a some type of report for review.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 11, 2016)

Fasttr said:


> This goes to the root of the debate between SueDonJ and GregT....and certainly follows with my expectations when booking a ressie for consecutive nights on one Marriott ressie number.



The problem is, what a front line escalation or customer service rep knows about the back end system functionality may be limited. They may be making the same assumptions that we are?. We will probably never know for sure.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 11, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> But how would they know who spottie was? No way to attach a name to a user here unless they contact the TUG Admin. I suspect that someone at the property contacted corporate or corporate contacted the property for more information. Or perhaps there were some notes in the system that jumped out and fell on a some type of report for review.



It could have happened a lot of ways, but if someone in corporate saw the post, they could have called the resort manager, who would certainly be familiar with the issue.

I have no idea - I was just commenting that Marriott does monitor TUG.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 11, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> But how would they know who spottie was? No way to attach a name to a user here unless they contact the TUG Admin. I suspect that someone at the property contacted corporate or corporate contacted the property for more information. Or perhaps there were some notes in the system that jumped out and fell on a some type of report for review.



Unless you're talking about something extreme like a warrant issued by law enforcement which obviously isn't the case here, I don't think TUG Admin would release the name or contact info of any guests/members no matter who's asking.  At least I hope they wouldn't.  If as a mod I were asked to do it, I'd immediately forward the request to Admin without doing anything - no way would I want to be involved.

It seems as though there was some level of deductive reasoning at play here.  If Spottie asks I'm sure they'll let her/him know how they made the connection.


----------



## Passepartout (Jan 11, 2016)

SueDonJ said:


> It seems as though there was some level of deductive reasoning at play here.  If Spottie asks I'm sure they'll let her/him know how they made the connection.



*This ain't rocket science*. Spottie stated in post #1 his/her resort name and that s/he checked in that day for 7 nights- AND was assigned a room that only had 6 nights of availability. Assuming that 'Spottie' is some sort of take-off on their real name, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to narrow it down pretty close. Even if his/her real name is something totally unrelated, anyone with access to reservations and room assignments could pinpoint them in a very few keystrokes.

Jim


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 11, 2016)

Passepartout said:


> *This ain't rocket science*. Spottie stated in post #1 his/her resort name and that s/he checked in that day for 7 nights- AND was assigned a room that only had 6 nights of availability. Assuming that 'Spottie' is some sort of take-off on their real name, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to narrow it down pretty close. Even if his/her real name is something totally unrelated, anyone with access to reservations and room assignments could pinpoint them in a very few keystrokes.
> 
> Jim



:hysterical:  Sorry but that rocket science comment makes me laugh every time I hear it!  Of course it'd be simple for Marriott to put two and two together based on just the info here.  It's still interesting trying to figure out how the connection was made from here to corporate - likely it's what Denise said, that someone from Marriott read it and made sure it ended up on the correct desk for resolution.


----------



## Seaport104 (Jan 24, 2016)

Came across this thread doing research on Grand Residences in Tahoe since I just booked a 3BR there for a large family trip. 

This is making me nervous as the date I booked is Wednesday to Wednesday as this was the only availability for a week. It will be a royal pain in the $%## if we have to move 12 people to go to another unit!!!

How worried should I be? There was no mention of this possibility when I booked this wed to wed week. In fact, I told the agent that wed to wed seems weird since I thought all check in dates were friday


----------



## GregT (Jan 24, 2016)

Seaport104 said:


> Came across this thread doing research on Grand Residences in Tahoe since I just booked a 3BR there for a large family trip.
> 
> This is making me nervous as the date I booked is Wednesday to Wednesday as this was the only availability for a week. It will be a royal pain in the $%## if we have to move 12 people to go to another unit!!!
> 
> How worried should I be? There was no mention of this possibility when I booked this wed to wed week. In fact, I told the agent that wed to wed seems weird since I thought all check in dates were friday



Are you going during prime season or shoulder season?  If you are shoulder, I think you will be okay.  If prime season, where lots of owners might be using the property, then this may be an issue for you.  When are you going?

Best,

Greg


----------



## Seaport104 (Jan 24, 2016)

GregT said:


> Are you going during prime season or shoulder season?  If you are shoulder, I think you will be okay.  If prime season, where lots of owners might be using the property, then this may be an issue for you.  When are you going?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg



Hi Greg, 

I am booked for August 3-10 (wed to wed).


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 24, 2016)

Seaport104 said:


> Came across this thread doing research on Grand Residences in Tahoe since I just booked a 3BR there for a large family trip.
> 
> This is making me nervous as the date I booked is Wednesday to Wednesday as this was the only availability for a week. It will be a royal pain in the $%## if we have to move 12 people to go to another unit!!!
> 
> How worried should I be? There was no mention of this possibility when I booked this wed to wed week. In fact, I told the agent that wed to wed seems weird since I thought all check in dates were friday



There is no way I'd leave this to chance!  I'd write an email now to customer.care@vacationclub.com with a copy to the GM at Grand Residence Tahoe (call the resort for the correct email address,) saying that you know from reading on the internet that people have been forced to change units mid-stay despite having a single reservation confirmation for a multi-night stay.  Say that's unacceptable to you and you want a guarantee now, in advance of the stay, that it won't happen.  If they can't give you that guarantee, contact MVW Exec Leadership and ask them to please explain why the system is issuing single confirmation numbers for multi-night reservations which require a unit change.

I understand some people aren't as bothered by this as me, why some wouldn't choose to handle it the same way.  I'm not saying that everyone should do what I would do, but if you don't do something ahead of the stay then you should be prepared for a unit change.  That to me is unacceptable.


----------

