MARRIOTT OWNERS: Important Update to our Guest of Owner Policy from Marriott Vacation Clubs [Related thread in the TUG Vistana forum.]

[Theseus]

This new policy places an exceptional weight on ALL owners. Life is always subject to change - the ability of an owner or their certified guest to travel at an expected time will change at the last moment, and certainly within the shortened 30 day window of opportunity. The value of ownership has been DEGRADED by such an exclusionary and mindless set of rules. How does Marriott explain this rule to any potential buyer.

Lie?

 

[billymach4]

Lie?

They don't mention unless someone raises the question. Then they Lie.

 

[davidvel]

Yes! And we paid more to own rooms with a view or use more pts to guarantee a specific unit type or view. Our kids and now grandkids have been spoiled and know what to expect

I don't think anyone said or is suggesting that a guest would not get the room code that was booked, but maybe not the best room in that view pool. That being said, I don't agree with this, as an owner's rights should freely transfer as others have posted.

 

[Hindsite]

as an owner's rights should freely transfer as others have posted.

Owners rights don't freely transfer with bookings made via Bonvoy or II, so why should they with Redweek or any other way that a non-owner stays?

 

[Love to Getaway]

That is until they have to send said lawyers to individual cases to defend the asinine rules, I tell you they bank on most people simply laying down and falling in line.

I was just about to post this also:
====

​

​ GUEST OF owner​ FORM REQUIREMENTS​

​ Our number-one priority is helping our Owners fully enjoy and use their vacation ownership. Because of this, we’re updating our procedures to identify arriving and/or unaccompanied guests to provide a reservation process that is consistent for all Owners. If a guest is utilizing an Owner’s reservation at one of the 90+ resorts and properties in Abound by Marriott Vacations, the Owner must provide the guest’s specific and accurate information no less than 30 days prior to the check-in date. This will help prevent misuse of the reservation process. It also streamlines the check-in process and villa assignment procedures and will help ensure Owner and guest satisfaction. Guests who have not completed a Guest of Owner form at least 30 days prior to arrival at a resort will not be able to check in. Can I Change a Guest’s Name At Marriott.com? The only way to add or modify a guest’s name on a reservation is to complete the Guest of Owner form available on your Owner website: Vistana.com. You may not change a name on a reservation on Marriott.com or the Marriott Bonvoy app. You will also not be able to call Owner Services or have it changed by the front desk. Who is required to provide identifying information? If a friend or family member is staying with you, in your villa or similar accommodation, you don’t need to add their name to your reservation or provide the Guest of Owner form unless they will be checking in before you. The Guest of Owner form is only required for guests who are staying in an Owner’s villa without the Owner present, or who are arriving before the Owner. How do I update my reservation with the guest’s name? Log in to Vistana.com, go to the “My Vacations” page, select “View Details” on the reservation you’d like to update, then select “ChangLe Guest Name.”V​ RB

I am thinking that this is a way to stop owners of several weeks or many points making a reservation and then putting them out for rentals. We have been at Ocean Pointe several times where folks are in the pool chatting about how they just got on RedWeek or other rental website and were able to reserve a week. And though we are owners of a week there and have other points, we have a tough time reserving a week when we want to. We are anxious to see how this all works out. Hoping this is just to slow down the renting of units to non-Marriott folks.

 

[davidvel]

Owners rights don't freely transfer with bookings made via Bonvoy or II, so why should they with Redweek or any other way that a non-owner stays?

I don't understand the Bonvoy comparison, but II should be the same. Why should a good owner week view category get passed to the developer to make money off of at the cost of "owners" trading in? And, no, these good views are not given to owners occupying their lesser view weeks.

 

[billymach4]

I am thinking that this is a way to stop owners of several weeks or many points making a reservation and then putting them out for rentals. We have been at Ocean Pointe several times where folks are in the pool chatting about how they just got on RedWeek or other rental website and were able to reserve a week. And though we are owners of a week there and have other points, we have a tough time reserving a week when we want to. We are anxious to see how this all works out. Hoping this is just to slow down the renting of units to non-Marriott folks.

Yes this will put a stop to the last minute rentals.

 

[VacationForever]

It also will increase divesting from timeshare for many of the owners who can't use all that they own. I can see us get out of MVC over the next 5 years. They keep tightening the noose around the neck.

 

[billymach4]

It also will increase divesting from timeshare for many of the owners who can't use all that they own. I can see us get out of MVC over the next 5 years. They keep tightening the noose around the neck.

There are many reasons justified or not for this enforcement. I really think MVC wants more skin in the game to get more direct rental revenue among other reasons.

 

[SunandFun83]

I don't think anyone said or is suggesting that a guest would not get the room code that was booked, but maybe not the best room in that view pool. That being said, I don't agree with this, as an owner's rights should freely transfer as others have posted.

Ocean Pointe has long had a policy of giving really bad villa location to guests and renters. They have a clique of owners with 5-10 weeks who spend all their time in the best villas. The 4th and 5th floor is reserved for the clique most of February and March. Owners rights will definitely be at risk with this form

 

[SunandFun83]

It also will increase divesting from timeshare for many of the owners who can't use all that they own. I can see us get out of MVC over the next 5 years. They keep tightening the noose around the neck.

This is another devious goal of MVC. The more they restrict owners usage, the more people give their timeshares back to MVC FOR FREE. I have spoken with several owners of Platinum Season weeks that just gave them back.

 

[Hindsite]

I don't understand the Bonvoy comparison, but II should be the same. Why should a good owner week view category get passed to the developer to make money off of at the cost of "owners" trading in? And, no, these good views are not given to owners occupying their lesser view weeks.

The Bonvoy website is just another form of exchange, you put your week in, either via the MVC rental programme or via trading for Bonvoy points and get out either cash or Bonvoy points. The week you give up has a unit size and view type attached to it and comes from your owner account that has the associated benefits relating to it and can be time stamped from when you chose to take that option. I can't see why there is a difference between using Redweek and the MVC rental programme as far as the flow of benefits should go, or even why anyone who is not an owner staying on their owned week, without the owner present, should get the benefits that an owner does.

 

[daviator]

The Bonvoy website is just another form of exchange, you put your week in, either via the MVC rental programme or via trading for Bonvoy points and get out either cash or Bonvoy points. The week you give up has a unit size and view type attached to it and comes from your owner account that has the associated benefits relating to it and can be time stamped from when you chose to take that option. I can't see why there is a difference between using Redweek and the MVC rental programme as far as the flow of benefits should go, or even why anyone who is not an owner staying on their owned week, without the owner present, should get the benefits that an owner does.

There is a difference between an exchange, in which you completely relinquish the VOI that you own, in exchange for a different currency in a different program (e.g. Bonvoy points, II exchange credit) vs. a situation where you are utilizing what you own, but are not the guest on premises.

if I reserve time at a property where I own a week (or points, or whatever) and then allow someone else to stay there in my place, I am still using my ownership. The location of the room shouldn’t change simply because the guests are not the owners. I’m not sure that there ARE any other tangible benefits that an owner receives over a non-owner on property – maybe an owner discount card. I agree that there's no reason to give such ancillary benefits to non-owners but I also wouldn’t be upset to learn that they give them to everybody. But things like free parking – of course guests of owners should receive things like that. Your ownership includes parking and that’s a benefit which accompanies the usage.

But I think when you exchange into an external program, you largely lose any special benefits you may have. The week or ownership you exchange or deposit loses its association with you and goes into a pool of week that the exchange recipient can use as they wish. And you may have to pay some xtra fees for things that would have been included at your home resort.

 

[Hindsite]

There is a difference between an exchange, in which you completely relinquish the VOI that you own, in exchange for a different currency in a different program (e.g. Bonvoy points, II exchange credit) vs. a situation where you are utilizing what you own, but are not the guest on premises.

if I reserve time at a property where I own a week (or points, or whatever) and then allow someone else to stay there in my place, I am still using my ownership.

The grey area is probably around if you gift it to someone else to use, I can see the case for that being different, but impossible to prove you didn't get any money. If you get $$ in exchange then its no different to using the MVC rental scheme, so why would owner privileges flow for one and not the other?
My guess is that the system was not set up based on the volume of arms length rental that has developed outside of the MVC rental scheme.

 

[AlmostRetired]

It seems like every challenge one has with a Marriott change it is to address some sort of imaginary problem caused by renting. People who rent for the sake of renting do it well in advance of the 30 day window often three to six months in advance. The blame for this change falls squarely on Marriott. The owners who this really hurts are those that experience some last minute life event (good or bad) that prevents then from using their owner week. They could be renting it, allowing family members or friends to use. Because it is last minute, they have few other options. This is who this change is unfair to and the the reason to be pissed. At some point we will all likely fall in to this group sooner or later.

 

[daviator]

The grey area is probably around if you gift it to someone else to use, I can see the case for that being different, but impossible to prove you didn't get any money. If you get $$ in exchange then its no different to using the MVC rental scheme, so why would owner privileges flow for one and not the other?
My guess is that the system was not set up based on the volume of arms length rental that has developed outside of the MVC rental scheme.

I fervently disagree that there should be any difference between a gift and a rental. It's my real estate, I can rent it if I want to; what I own and the benefits of that ownership do not, and should not, change. I am a very, very infrequent renter of my ownership, but if I choose to rent it out, whether frequently or infrequently, why should that change anything? It's mine, I bought it and I own it. This elitist idea that renters should somehow be second-class citizens and get the dregs on room assignments is ridiculous. I might agree if they are renting from the developer, but if they're renting from an owner, they should get all of the privileges that owner enjoys.

I am not a fan of those who make a business out of renting their ownerships and I'm all for cracking down on that. But I am a fan of property rights, and this is a property rights issue. Other than their need to ensure that the right person or people are allowed to check into a room and that those people are charged for any incidental charges they incur, it really isn't MVC's business who is staying in the room that I own for the period of the reservation. It certainly isn't their right to provide a lesser product depending on who the guest is.

 

[dj_drf]

I fervently disagree that there should be any difference between a gift and a rental. It's my real estate, I can rent it if I want to; what I own and the benefits of that ownership do not, and should not, change. I am a very, very infrequent renter of my ownership, but if I choose to rent it out, whether frequently or infrequently, why should that change anything? It's mine, I bought it and I own it. This elitist idea that renters should somehow be second-class citizens and get the dregs on room assignments is ridiculous. I might agree if they are renting from the developer, but if they're renting from an owner, they should get all of the privileges that owner enjoys.

I am not a fan of those who make a business out of renting their ownerships and I'm all for cracking down on that. But I am a fan of property rights, and this is a property rights issue. Other than their need to ensure that the right person or people are allowed to check into a room and that those people are charged for any incidental charges they incur, it really isn't MVC's business who is staying in the room that I own for the period of the reservation. It certainly isn't their right to provide a lesser product depending on who the guest is.

I'm curious how you would feel the following situation should be handled. Let's say there are 30 arrivals coming in on the same day with reservations for the 30 1BR OF villas that are available. All reservations are associated with an ownership having rights for a 1BR OF villa; 25 of them will be occupied by owners, 5 will be occupied by non-owner Guests who acquired the reservation through a redweek rental, gifting, etc. Let's say 3 of the 30 available villas have a lesser view than the others. Who should be assigned to those 3 villas with a lesser view, though still a 1BR OF classification?

 

[Hindsite]

I fervently disagree that there should be any difference between a gift and a rental. It's my real estate, I can rent it if I want to; what I own and the benefits of that ownership do not, and should not, change. I am a very, very infrequent renter of my ownership, but if I choose to rent it out, whether frequently or infrequently, why should that change anything? It's mine, I bought it and I own it. This elitist idea that renters should somehow be second-class citizens and get the dregs on room assignments is ridiculous. I might agree if they are renting from the developer, but if they're renting from an owner, they should get all of the privileges that owner enjoys.

The benefits of ownership have changed a lot over the years and will continue to change. Most of them are discretionary and can be changed under the contract terms. Where ownership privileges are discretionary, like unit assignment within a view type for floating ownership, you haven't bought that right. If you bought a fixed unit ownership then that's different.

The developer is an owner so why do rentals they offer not have the related benefits of that assigned to them?

 

[daviator]

I'm curious how you would feel the following situation should be handled. Let's say there are 30 arrivals coming in on the same day with reservations for the 30 1BR OF villas that are available. All reservations are associated with an ownership having rights for a 1BR OF villa; 25 of them will be occupied by owners, 5 will be occupied by non-owner Guests who acquired the reservation through a redweek rental, gifting, etc. Let's say 3 of the 30 available villas have a lesser view than the others. Who should be assigned to those 3 villas with a lesser view, though still a 1BR OF classification?

Personally, I’d give the worst views to the units with the most recent reservations, i.e. the reservations made closest to arrival date. That’s how Vistana does it, and it has always seemed eminently fair to me. That method also allows you to allocate all of the rooms in a fair and uniform way, in order of reservation time stamp. Because the reality is that you don’t have any property with 25 identical great views and 5 identical lousy views, you have a whole continuum where you could probably rank the rooms in “view order” from best to worst. Having a uniform way to allocate those rooms by view makes things fair for everyone.

im not sure how MVC does their room allocation, my understanding is that it’s NOT by timestamp like Vistana, but I’ve never figured out whether there is a methodology to it.

 

[dioxide45]

I'm curious how you would feel the following situation should be handled. Let's say there are 30 arrivals coming in on the same day with reservations for the 30 1BR OF villas that are available. All reservations are associated with an ownership having rights for a 1BR OF villa; 25 of them will be occupied by owners, 5 will be occupied by non-owner Guests who acquired the reservation through a redweek rental, gifting, etc. Let's say 3 of the 30 available villas have a lesser view than the others. Who should be assigned to those 3 villas with a lesser view, though still a 1BR OF classification?

There are way too many variables. Is someone staying multiple weeks? Did someone reserve before someone else? Did someone call in with a villa request?

 

[Dean]

Personally I think it's too much for them to micromanage unit assignments based on who's occupying added to the variables of view, concurrent/consecutive weeks, exchanges, points exchanges. I don't see the 30 day requirement as being reasonable or workable though, esp when it doesn't apply to exchanges, you just have to get a guest cert.

 

[dj_drf]

Personally, I’d give the worst views to the units with the most recent reservations, i.e. the reservations made closest to arrival date. That’s how Vistana does it, and it has always seemed eminently fair to me. That method also allows you to allocate all of the rooms in a fair and uniform way, in order of reservation time stamp. Because the reality is that you don’t have any property with 25 identical great views and 5 identical lousy views, you have a whole continuum where you could probably rank the rooms in “view order” from best to worst. Having a uniform way to allocate those rooms by view makes things fair for everyone.

im not sure how MVC does their room allocation, my understanding is that it’s NOT by timestamp like Vistana, but I’ve never figured out whether there is a methodology to it.

The assignment prioritization process does seem to vary between resorts, but commonly the top three appear to include length of stay, date of the reservation, and owner status. I was just trying to present a simplified scenario for discussion. Personally, I feel that at some point of prioritization, after length of stay at least, an owner should receive preference over a Guest for the villa with the better location. I also feel for the person making villa assignments, as the grief surely outweighs the accolades.

 

[larryallen]

I hate to jinx myself but I made a change last week for a reservation this week at an MVC property. They made the change within about 24 hours. I have seen the reservation in my friend's name so it appears to have been completed without a problem. I did have to check off a bunch of warnings when making the change online. Things like since this is within 30 days it MAY not go through..., the guest MAY not be able to check in, etc... but I have the reservation now in their name so I think it's ok. Fingers crossed!

 

[Dean]

The assignment prioritization process does seem to vary between resorts, but commonly the top three appear to include length of stay, date of the reservation, and owner status. I was just trying to present a simplified scenario for discussion. Personally, I feel that at some point of prioritization, after length of stay at least, an owner should receive preference over a Guest for the villa with the better location. I also feel for the person making villa assignments, as the grief surely outweighs the accolades.

I don't see any reference to date of reservation nor has anyone at an MVC resort ever mentioned it. The top qualifying factors is using owned weeks. Points reservations are just an exchange whether some want to admit it or not. Personally I think they should be different but they aren't other than the fact that II doesn't transmit the information anymore. Multiple weeks or units are only a factor within that group. There certainly is variability from one resort to another such as some give priority to those who own at that resort even for weeks that they do not own. MGO for examples alternates EOY with a higher floor and middle floor for those using owned weeks.

 

[1Kflyerguy]

The 30 days "requirement" is definitely seems really long to make a name change.

Has anyone reported a late change actually impacting the check-in process?