Koala warns Wyndham is cancelling reservations based on Wyndham's "updated policy" Anyone know what's up?

[HitchHiker71]

So I guess the question is, will there be a general notification letting people know and get their accounts in order before this deploys for real? While the policy hasn't changed, owners had obviously become accustomed to the system not properly enforcing it and deserve a chance to get things right with their reservations before this hits again. And then once it's deployed for real, at least the policy and system will be in agreement going forward.

Not sure - I've made the follow up ask to see if we can get more explicit guidance.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Not sure - I've made the follow up ask to see if we can get more explicit guidance.

Follow up guidance as requested:

Reservations booked as of April 14th the system will enforce the existing rule that the guest must be added within 48 hours. All reservations booked prior to the 14th that were inadvertently cancelled, will be reinstated. While we have always cancelled reservations that were not following this rule, there have been delays in our process, but the website now properly enforces the rule.

 

[Eric B]

Follow up guidance as requested:

IIRC, the real rule is that guest confirmations have to be added within 48 hours to reservations when an overlap exists with another reservation, not in all cases when you won't be occupying the booked stay. Not to be a pain (though that's ok, too), could you confirm with your POCs that this is what they implemented rather than requiring guest confirmations be added within 48 hours in all cases. I do trust them, of course, but believe there is a lot of value to be gained through verifying....

 

[HitchHiker71]

IIRC, the real rule is that guest confirmations have to be added within 48 hours to reservations when an overlap exists with another reservation, not in all cases when you won't be occupying the booked stay. Not to be a pain (though that's ok, too), could you confirm with your POCs that this is what they implemented rather than requiring guest confirmations be added within 48 hours in all cases. I do trust them, of course, but believe there is a lot of value to be gained through verifying....

This issue explicitly deals with overlapping reservations only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eric B]

This issue explicitly deals with overlapping reservations only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okey dokey. To avoid misunderstanding, typically I don’t just quote a part of a “rule”. Doing so raises the question of what they actually implemented. If you’re ok with it, that’s fine.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Always fun to figure out Wyndham's motivation, etc.

Interestingly they aren't not acknowledging there was a bug in their code and they cancelled reservations they should not have.

Why say reservations starting April 14? The rules have always been there, they could just say moving forward we are going to enforce them.

Whatever, a lot of unnecessary angst. Just get those GC's on as soon as you can folks and everything will be okay, cha ching!

 

[HitchHiker71]

Why say reservations starting April 14? The rules have always been there, they could just say moving forward we are going to enforce them.

Likely because IT simply added a date qualifier to the code that is running to effect this change - such that any reservations made prior to 4/14/2022 won't be cancelled automatically after 48 hours with the new process. That's what I would do if I were going to update the code in question. Simple to do - and it doesn't change the core logic at all - it simply adds an if/then "don't run on any objects dated older than 4/14/2022" statement.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Likely because IT simply added a date qualifier to the code that is running to effect this change - such that any reservations made prior to 4/14/2022 won't be cancelled automatically after 48 hours with the new process. That's what I would do if I were going to update the code in question. Simple to do - and it doesn't change the core logic at all - it simply adds an if/then "don't run on any objects dated older than 4/14/2022" statement.

Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.

And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.

Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.

And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.

Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.

I think there's two core issues. One, in today's day and age - customer success principles would dictate that end users need to be informed ahead of time if a major policy initiative is going to actually be enforced. It's simply customer service best practice these days.

Two, in thinking a bit more about it - I'd bet Wyndham didn't anticipate that overlapping reservations would be cancelled that weren't actually using duplicate names. It's likely that back end data integrity is in play here. What I mean is that for the supposedly smaller subset of owners that had reservations cancelled that didn't have overlapping reservations with duplicate owner names - that the fields that the new process was executing on - actually did see duplicate names - hence there are data integrity issues in the back end systems - which we all know to be the case from the various account related issues reported on our forum frequently. Normally this would motivate me to run quite a bit of testing in a mirrored production environment in an effort to minimize data integrity related after effects. I doubt the code logic was wrong - the problem lies with data integrity in the back end. I've seen this pattern multiple times now whenever Wyndham implements a new function like this. They really need to modernize the back end database structure and resolve the data integrity issues as part of the modernization program.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Let's hope while their adding the parameter about 4/4/2022 they also fix the flawed logic that was cancelling reservations that shouldn't have been cancelled.

And sorry, it's a policy everyone should have been aware of (overlapping reservations). Everyone should now be fully aware of it and that it will be enforced moving forward. I see your point, I would not code for it.

Seems like a Wyndham smoke screen... to hide the fact they erroneously cancelled reservations, they make it look like they are doing everyone a favor.

I agree! We had some that were flagged for cancellation. Rick called because it showed they were "cancelled" but still in our account. Lewis said they were going to be cancelled in 48 hours.

 

[Shelnscott]

I’m a newbie to TUG once again (I was a member until Facebook came out and thought it had disappeared) so please forgive me if this is out of place. We attended a “workshop” this past weekend and were told by salesperson (yes it was not a workshop), that Wyndham will now be canceling guest reservations (even outside the blackout dates) if there is demand at the resort. They were not talking about overlapping reservations but all guest reservations. The only we could actually rent out our extra points this year (first time we have ever rented) was to go through their rental program. Is this yet another salesperson lie? We’ve owned for 25 years, upgraded our membership last year and were shown all of the Margaritaville St Thomas rental prices on Airbnb to convince us to do our upgrade there.

 

[Eric B]

Is this yet another salesperson lie?

Yep. Your BS detector is working....

 

[HitchHiker71]

I’m a newbie to TUG once again (I was a member until Facebook came out and thought it had disappeared) so please forgive me if this is out of place. We attended a “workshop” this past weekend and were told by salesperson (yes it was not a workshop), that Wyndham will now be canceling guest reservations (even outside the blackout dates) if there is demand at the resort. They were not talking about overlapping reservations but all guest reservations. The only we could actually rent out our extra points this year (first time we have ever rented) was to go through their rental program. Is this yet another salesperson lie? We’ve owned for 25 years, upgraded our membership last year and were shown all of the Margaritaville St Thomas rental prices on Airbnb to convince us to do our upgrade there.

If their lips are moving it's likely a half truth at best - and oftentimes a complete fabrication. Ask them to point you to the rules that support their assertions - they never will - because they don't exist - and all membership rules must be documented. The sales team engages in "daze and confuse" FOMO tactics like this constantly - all to convince unsuspecting owners to purchase more points - this is the singular end goal for these meetings. We recommend avoiding all sales update meetings as a general rule due to these questionable tactics.

 

[chapjim]

I was not affected by the cancellation of overlapping reservations flap and certainly sympathize with those who were. I can only hope that Wyndham's attempts to remedy the situation are successful. Some here seem to treat Wyndham's statement that canceled reservations would be restored as if it were a done deal. We should know better.

I can say that it seems identification of overlapping reservations at the time of booking is a lot tighter than it has been. I've had maybe a half-dozen flagged for overlapping reservations in the last few days. Mostly they were reservations to replace one I already had and the old reservation would be canceled once the new one was booked successfully (e.g., no unexpected somethings, no no longer available, etc.). Sometimes, I forget to check whose name is on the reservation, my wife's or mine, and that triggers the alert.

I'm happy for the alerts as long as they correctly identify a problem. Otherwise, they are merely another annoyance. I am not yet convinced that the lack of an alert means there is no problem.

I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.

Additionally, it would be nice if one reservation starting on Saturday when another ends the next day are not considered to be overlapping but that's probably too much. I sometimes find myself locked in to Saturday-Saturday reservations to avoid overlaps when I might like to start a reservation on Friday or to have one end on Sunday.

 

[HitchHiker71]

For those who may not have received the email (that weren't impacted or who have email issues) here's the official Wyndham communication on the reported issue that went out last Friday:

Dear Guest,

Recently, an update was made to the Club Wyndham website to enforce an existing Overlapping Reservation rule. Under this rule, a guest confirmation must be added within 48 hours of a reservation if the dates overlap, or the second reservation will be canceled.

During this system update, reservations made prior to April 15, 2022, may have been canceled. This system update should have only affected reservations made after that date. If you haven’t already rebooked your reservation, it will be reinstated and available to view on your owner dashboard within 48-72 hours. Any points, reservation transactions, housekeeping credits, or guest confirmations owed for the reservation will be applied to your account in the next 48-72 hours following reinstatement. If there are any fees owed relating to your reservation, our Contact Center team will reach out to you for processing.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and look forward to seeing you at your Club Wyndham property for this reservation.

If you have any questions or concerns, please call 800-251-8736.

Your Club Wyndham Team

I can confirm that all reservations that were impacted have been restored.

 

[Rolltydr]

“I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”

I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.

 

[Sandi Bo]

One of the things Wyndham does that causes me to chuckle, is that they pretty consistently will refer you to call 800-251-8736 if you have any questions or concerns.

Pretty much, you can be guaranteed that the folks answering 800-251-8736 will be pretty clueless and you can expect to spend an hour on the phone, likely needing a transfer to owner care/owner resolution to address any concerns (and maybe be able to help you).

Resonates Wyndham's insincerity to truly support (and care) about their owners.

 

[Sandi Bo]

I was not affected by the cancellation of overlapping reservations flap and certainly sympathize with those who were. I can only hope that Wyndham's attempts to remedy the situation are successful. Some here seem to treat Wyndham's statement that canceled reservations would be restored as if it were a done deal. We should know better.

I can say that it seems identification of overlapping reservations at the time of booking is a lot tighter than it has been. I've had maybe a half-dozen flagged for overlapping reservations in the last few days. Mostly they were reservations to replace one I already had and the old reservation would be canceled once the new one was booked successfully (e.g., no unexpected somethings, no no longer available, etc.). Sometimes, I forget to check whose name is on the reservation, my wife's or mine, and that triggers the alert.

I'm happy for the alerts as long as they correctly identify a problem. Otherwise, they are merely another annoyance. I am not yet convinced that the lack of an alert means there is no problem.

I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.

Additionally, it would be nice if one reservation starting on Saturday when another ends the next day are not considered to be overlapping but that's probably too much. I sometimes find myself locked in to Saturday-Saturday reservations to avoid overlaps when I might like to start a reservation on Friday or to have one end on Sunday.

Additionally, it sure would be nice if there was visibility and clarity into the owner prior rules. Starting with 1) have I used my 2 exceptions (and if so, when) 2) is a reservation 'safe', did I understand the rules and follow them, or have I accidentally put a reservation at risk of cancellation? 3) Still looking for clarity on the date specifications. Are the dates listed not valid whatsoever, or are we okay if checking in (or out) on those days. Example. If priority dates for a resort are MAY 27 - MAY 29, 2022 - Can I book May 20-27 for a guest, or does it need to be May 20-26? I've heard yes and I've heard no (and if I call 800-251-8736 and ask I'll get that VC's interpretation, not consistent answers). Same on the back end can I book May 29- June 1 or should it be May 30-June 1? Personally I would not risk booking any of the dates, but I see questions asked and it would be nice to have that clarified.

 

[Eric B]

I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.

That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties. The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.

 

[Rolltydr]

That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties. The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.

I know you’re trying but you’re just not that dumb. Extra Holidays is part of Wyndham/Travel & Leisure. I suggest you read your contract. Maybe pay special attention to what rights Wyndham has in using it’s units as opposed to what rights you have in using/renting those same units. And, please, don’t bring up “the salesman said”. It doesn’t matter. The contract matters and Wyndham has a pretty good record in court when it comes to that. Remember, even Ron Parise, who all the renters look up to as Superman, didn’t fight Wyndham in court because, as he stated on this forum, he knew he was eventually going to be caught. He cheated as long as he could get away with it, then he made a deal and ran. He still talks big on occasion, but when confronted with the facts, and the law, he quit. So, stop with the Extra Holidays bs. Wyndham uses it because they can. Wyndham is, once again, cracking down on owner renters because, legally, they can’t.

 

[HitchHiker71]

That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties. The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.

The definition is included within the underlying trust documents. It’s also replicated in the T&Cs for points protection, which is the easiest place to screenshot from:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chapjim]

“I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”

I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.

What is wrong with you?

 

[WManning]

That's not truly knowable without a definition of a commercial enterprise, presuming you mean one related to use of Wyndham managed properties. The only one you can know about is Extra Holidays because they are an admittedly commercial enterprise; I suppose that an owner depositing a stay with them is participating in running a commercial enterprise, too, as they would be liable for the actions of their agent, Extra Holidays, who is definitely running one.

Wyndham makes the rules and if they eliminate all the other renters who benefits ?

 

[WManning]

“I would like some assurance that two reservations, one ending at 10 AM on the same day the other one starts at 4 PM, are not treated as overlapping by Wyndham.”

I would like some assurance that some owners aren’t running commercial enterprises.

Wyndham knows who was running a commercial rental business and they are slowly putting a end to the abuse of the system.

 

[Rolltydr]

What is wrong with you?

I want the rules enforced for the benefit of the vast majority of owners. You think that’s wrong?