Losing Vacation Club Points when the resort closes

[jd2601]

I lost use of my week last year and purchased travel insurance through Marriott with Allianz for this year. I hope they cover since we received a mandatory evacuation from Marriott.

Calling them at this point they were not clear if and what they would cover. I will need to submit a formal request but worried after talking with Rep on the phone. We will see what happens.

 

[bazzap]

But from a system standpoint they are, but above non Marriott exchangers.

Not at all MVC resorts.
In Europe anyway, II exchangers who are MVC owners are ahead of
Guests renting an apartment or using Marriott Rewards points
Guests visiting as part of a Sales Preview Package
as well as II exchangers who are not MVC owners

 

[Superchief]

I am sorry to hear that your vacation was lost to the impending hurricane. And it is true that MVCI (like DVC and other timeshare companies) downplay the fact that ownership means ownership and that we are potentially liable for all of the downsides of ownership - loss of use, lawsuits, and even the complete destruction of our property.

But MVCI has been very upfront about the importance of buying insurance. And the price is very reasonable - $169.00 covered all of my weeks and all of my points for 2018. And they have fixed the 'hole' for disruptions due to long term hurricane damage.

I thought the same thing and purchased MVC's insurance every year. However, they did not cover claims for loss of use after 30 days after the storm (several resorts had unuseable villas well past the 30 day point), nor for stays that were more than 2 years after the covered points year (I was using banked week). I will not purchase MVC sponsored insurance again and do not trust MVC management to fairly manage damaged inventory situations.

 

[Superchief]

Not at all MVC resorts.
In Europe anyway, II exchangers who are MVC owners are ahead of
Guests renting an apartment or using Marriott Rewards points
Guests visiting as part of a Sales Preview Package
as well as II exchangers who are not MVC owners

This hierarchy had also been in place at Ocean Pointe previously. However, I learned last year that II no longer provides MVC resorts any information regarding whether the exchange is from a MVC owner. Therefore, all exchangers are treated the same and are lowest in priority. This change has caused me to stop exchanging through II since all of my exchanges are internal.

 

[Debuko]

They really aren't that upfront about it. I've talked to three people in Owners Services. They can quote you the cancellation policy and the no-show policy, but they cannot seem to find in the owner's documents or on their website where the policy about uninhabitable or closed property results in owners losing their point. This includes those that are there at the time, and all of the people scheduled to arrive within 61 days of the event.

I now see the charm of the traveller's insurance, but it was NOT made clear during the sales pitches, or any subsequent encounters, that owners were totally responsible for events outside of their control. What seems obvious to some people, is not so obvious to everyone. This is especially true when you cannot find the policy spelled out anywhere.

 

[bazzap]

This hierarchy had also been in place at Ocean Pointe previously. However, I learned last year that II no longer provides MVC resorts any information regarding whether the exchange is from a MVC owner. Therefore, all exchangers are treated the same and are lowest in priority. This change has caused me to stop exchanging through II since all of my exchanges are internal.

That is interesting and worrying.
I will check whether they give the same updated story over here in Europe.
I invariably combine Interval exchanges with home weeks for extended stays, so they link the reservations with my MVC ownership anyway for unit allocation purposes.
I will take account of this now though in planning any future freestanding exchanges.

 

[Dean]

Not at all MVC resorts.
In Europe anyway, II exchangers who are MVC owners are ahead of
Guests renting an apartment or using Marriott Rewards points
Guests visiting as part of a Sales Preview Package
as well as II exchangers who are not MVC owners

Historically the direction from Marriott to the resorts has been owners, cash, Marriott exchangers, other exchangers with those who are tied to a specific category getting that category and multiple units over single. I've seen it in print from Marriott directly but it's a few years old and before the DC came on board. I know some resorts take it a step further and move things around, this doesn't change the general oversight. I would not expect MVC to do things differently because a given resort has taken liberties. From a company standpoint I'd expect them to take the same principle and ignore nuances a resort may have added. I know OP and MOC have been 2 of the more common to add in variations. With the previous HHI example I would have preferred resort by resort but I do think doing it by island was reasonable, I know some disagree.

 

[dioxide45]

This hierarchy had also been in place at Ocean Pointe previously. However, I learned last year that II no longer provides MVC resorts any information regarding whether the exchange is from a MVC owner. Therefore, all exchangers are treated the same and are lowest in priority. This change has caused me to stop exchanging through II since all of my exchanges are internal.

I am not sure that II ever provided such information. I always understood that it was up to the resort to take it upon themselves to determine your ownership status with MVC.

 

[dioxide45]

Historically the direction from Marriott to the resorts has been owners, cash, Marriott exchangers, other exchangers with those who are tied to a specific category getting that category and multiple units over single. I've seen it in print from Marriott directly but it's a few years old and before the DC came on board. I know some resorts take it a step further and move things around, this doesn't change the general oversight. I would not expect MVC to do things differently because a given resort has taken liberties. From a company standpoint I'd expect them to take the same principle and ignore nuances a resort may have added. I know OP and MOC have been 2 of the more common to add in variations. With the previous HHI example I would have preferred resort by resort but I do think doing it by island was reasonable, I know some disagree.

We will forever disagree on this. The fact that they can do what they did does not mean they should do what they did. It also doesn't change the fact that they put their own interests over the interests of owners while their competitors put the interests of their owners over their own. That puts Marriott at the bottom of the customer service barel in this regard. They could have taken the high road, but they didn't. Their interests were more important than that of their owners. No ifs, ands or buts about it!

 

[bizaro86]

I don't see it that way. While I would have done it differently, I think their choices were reasonable. The main issue I had was that I would have done it resort by resort (HH) rather than looked at the resorts as a whole. But in principle I have no problem prioritizing II exchangers at the bottom after renters, it's the same priority as unit assignments.

All II exchangers are using a week owned by an owner, who gave it to II. In some ways, it would more fair for the owners of those weeks to lose their exchange than the people who exchanged in.

I'll extend my hypothetical.

How would you feel if I traded you use of my vacation home, and then a natural disaster struck in the area. My home was untouched, but the management company chose to cancel your stay (with zero compensation) based on contract fine print to accomodate their rentail guests from nearby. Would you feel you had been treated fairly and ethically in that situation?

Do you feel my hypothetical is different than what MVCI did on Hilton Head last year?

 

[Dean]

We will forever disagree on this. The fact that they can do what they did does not mean they should do what they did. It also doesn't change the fact that they put their own interests over the interests of owners while their competitors put the interests of their owners over their own. That puts Marriott at the bottom of the customer service barel in this regard. They could have taken the high road, but they didn't. Their interests were more important than that of their owners. No ifs, ands or buts about it!

We'll have to disagree, it's OK. I'd take the stance that an exchanger is not an owner for that particular stay and it appears that Marriott has long taken that stance even before the hurricane issues of last year. DVC takes this stance as well and always has.

All II exchangers are using a week owned by an owner, who gave it to II. In some ways, it would more fair for the owners of those weeks to lose their exchange than the people who exchanged in.

I'll extend my hypothetical.

How would you feel if I traded you use of my vacation home, and then a natural disaster struck in the area. My home was untouched, but the management company chose to cancel your stay (with zero compensation) based on contract fine print to accomodate their rentail guests from nearby. Would you feel you had been treated fairly and ethically in that situation?

Do you feel my hypothetical is different than what MVCI did on Hilton Head last year?

Not really the same thing, it does not change my thinking one bit. I understand the other side but what I think people fail to realize is that Marriott was in a tough spot and they had to make tough choices. Personally I disagree with their choice for HHI last year in that I felt it should have been resort by resort but I do feel their choices were understandable and reasonable.

 

[Dean]

I wouldn't be surprised if these issues remove or erode the flexibility some resort have taken beyond the corporate direction in giving owners at that resort who exchange in additional priority.

 

[bizaro86]

Not really the same thing, it does not change my thinking one bit. I understand the other side but what I think people fail to realize is that Marriott was in a tough spot and they had to make tough choices. Personally I disagree with their choice for HHI last year in that I felt it should have been resort by resort but I do feel their choices were understandable and reasonable.

Which part of it is different?

 

[dioxide45]

All II exchangers are using a week owned by an owner, who gave it to II. In some ways, it would more fair for the owners of those weeks to lose their exchange than the people who exchanged in.

I'll extend my hypothetical.

How would you feel if I traded you use of my vacation home, and then a natural disaster struck in the area. My home was untouched, but the management company chose to cancel your stay (with zero compensation) based on contract fine print to accomodate their rentail guests from nearby. Would you feel you had been treated fairly and ethically in that situation?

Do you feel my hypothetical is different than what MVCI did on Hilton Head last year?

I think this is another animal all together. There was really nothing preventing II from cancelling the original deposits of those weeks that were cancelled. Had one not already exchanged their week, they would have lost their deposit. Your week was uninhabitable and there are stipulations in the T&C that they could cancel your original deposit if it was no longer available for occupancy. Again, where II rose above for the better of their customers. They not only let owners keep use of that deposit, but they gave those that exchanged in their underlying exchange week back for future exchange. Some had flexchange restrictions, but in some cases people were able to get that restriction removed.

 

[bizaro86]

I think this is another animal all together. There was really nothing preventing II from cancelling the original deposits of those weeks that were cancelled. Had one not already exchanged their week, they would have lost their deposit. Your week was uninhabitable and there are stipulations in the T&C that they could cancel your original deposit if it was no longer available for occupancy. Again, where II rose above for the better of their customers. They not only let owners keep use of that deposit, but they gave those that exchanged in their underlying exchange week back for future exchange. Some had flexchange restrictions, but in some cases people were able to get that restriction removed.

I would say II and Vistana treated people much better than Marriott, a point which I don't think is really disputable by anyone.

Now that II and Vistana are owned by MVCI, I'm concerned that customer unfriendly attitude will spread.

 

[Dean]

Which part of it is different?

It's different because of the Club involvement and also the II legal information. I understand that some have decided it's inherently wrong. IMO it isn't inherently wrong given the circumstances. The II exchange information is very clear that if the accommodations are not available they will lose the exchange, this isn't a legal fine print loophole. It doesn't specify the reasons for unavailability. II didn't even have to offer a replacement option but they did and they probably should have. It's a little concerning when people can't at least see the ohter side.

 

[Superchief]

I am not sure that II ever provided such information. I always understood that it was up to the resort to take it upon themselves to determine your ownership status with MVC.

II previously provided the exchange information to MVC and it was also listed on the exchange reservation form. I found some old Exchange reservations that clearly stated the resort that was used for the exchange. My exchange to Ocean Pointe last year did not include this information. When I called the resort, they informed me that it no longer receives this information as well, but had in the past. I'm not sure when this policy began because I hadn't made any exchanges for a few years.

 

[bizaro86]

It's different because of the Club involvement and also the II legal information. I understand that some have decided it's inherently wrong. IMO it isn't inherently wrong given the circumstances. The II exchange information is very clear that if the accommodations are not available they will lose the exchange, this isn't a legal fine print loophole. It doesn't specify the reasons for unavailability. II didn't even have to offer a replacement option but they did and they probably should have. It's a little concerning when people can't at least see the ohter side.

Those accommodations were available, Marriott just decided to give them to someone else. I agree II did well by its customers.

I'm not saying Marriott did anything illegal, just that their decisions were ethically wrong.

• Marriott had confirmed reservations for accommodations that were available for use.
• They chose to cancel them and give them to someone else to maximize their own profits.

Those statements are both true, and don't seem very ethical to me. YMMV.

 

[Steve Fatula]

It's different because of the Club involvement and also the II legal information. I understand that some have decided it's inherently wrong. IMO it isn't inherently wrong given the circumstances. The II exchange information is very clear that if the accommodations are not available they will lose the exchange, this isn't a legal fine print loophole. It doesn't specify the reasons for unavailability. II didn't even have to offer a replacement option but they did and they probably should have. It's a little concerning when people can't at least see the ohter side.

Actually, I can see both sides of this argument. It is not impossible that both have good points, and in this case they do. IMHO. I side more with the customer point of view, but, I do acknowledge that Dean has made some good points. Sometimes, it's hard to see the other side.

 

[Dean]

Those accommodations were available, Marriott just decided to give them to someone else. I agree II did well by its customers.

I'm not saying Marriott did anything illegal, just that their decisions were ethically wrong.

• Marriott had confirmed reservations for accommodations that were available for use.
• They chose to cancel them and give them to someone else to maximize their own profits.

Those statements are both true, and don't seem very ethical to me. YMMV.

I think you're assuming their motives, I'd give them more consideration than that, it was a tough situation and there were going to be people affected one way or another. They prioritized, nothing more or less. It's not like they took the availability and rented it out after the fact. It's always interesting when one references ethics in timeshares but acknowledges it was within their rights. Marriott prioritized at the expense of II exchangers, whether they happened to be owners also are not isn't overly pertinent in my book but I know some disagree.

 

[DannyTS]

The better analogy would be: if you own an airplane, do you have any recourse if your plane cannot take off due to hurricanes and such?

Yes, you will fly as soon as the weather permits

 

[bizaro86]

I think you're assuming their motives, I'd give them more consideration than that, it was a tough situation and there were going to be people affected one way or another. They prioritized, nothing more or less. It's not like they took the availability and rented it out after the fact. It's always interesting when one references ethics in timeshares but acknowledges it was within their rights. Marriott prioritized at the expense of II exchangers, whether they happened to be owners also are not isn't overly pertinent in my book but I know some disagree.

Fair point, I don't know their motives, which probably vary from employee to employee.

It does seem to me that they prioritized guests who would be due refunds from MVCI above guests who wouldn't, but that could be a coincidence and not profit maximizing.

I never said they were within their rights to do so, and if it had been me affected I might have litigated the matter, not sure. But I'm not accusing them of doing anything illegal either, I don't know. But it certainly does seem to me that it's unethical to cancel a reservation for available space to accomodate someone else. Your opinion may vary, and obviously does.

I doubt very much that MVCI cares what I think. Their treatment of their customers has made me less likely to buy a Marriott timeshare, but I would only have done so resale, so it's no loss to them.

 

[Dean]

Fair point, I don't know their motives, which probably vary from employee to employee.

It does seem to me that they prioritized guests who would be due refunds from MVCI above guests who wouldn't, but that could be a coincidence and not profit maximizing.

I never said they were within their rights to do so, and if it had been me affected I might have litigated the matter, not sure. But I'm not accusing them of doing anything illegal either, I don't know. But it certainly does seem to me that it's unethical to cancel a reservation for available space to accomodate someone else. Your opinion may vary, and obviously does.

I doubt very much that MVCI cares what I think. Their treatment of their customers has made me less likely to buy a Marriott timeshare, but I would only have done so resale, so it's no loss to them.

I'm very doubtful the motivation was the refund risk. Regardless of motivation, they prioritized for those who were reserved directly with Marriott in some way and away from II. I know many are looking at the fact that many of those exchangers were Marriott members also and most of those had likely used their Marriott weeks as deposits taking the stance they should be treated as owners in that instance, a position I don't personally agree with. I don't assume that companies are bad and only make decisions based on profit and I don't believe "the customer is always right" philosophy.

I do think they care what you are or I think but I doubt the opinion of an individual is going to affect bigger picture decisions in this type of situation.

I wonder what everyone's opinion would be if they had only left out exchangers that weren't Marriott owners, mine would be exactly the same. Obviously they didn't have the volume available to draw the line in that way. Did II refund exchange fees or just give replacement weeks? Even if they refunded fees they would still get the $$$ back when a new exchange was made so their only real cost was the time and aggravation dealing with it so I don't give them the high road in this situation. The real loser would be other II members. I don't know the Vistana system well enough to know how it's set up but I know DVC is set up such that the members would simply vie for available inventory if a resort were out of commission but not permanently closed, this is written into the POS.

I'd be willing to bet they looked at the resorts and units available and the volume of each group and the only single group that would allow the problem to be solved was the II exchange group. I'd be further willing to bet the only way to solve the problem by affecting only a single group was to cross resort lines. Then there's the volume of people they would have to contact in addition to all the other logistics. Maybe they took the easy way out, one that would also force II to do some of the leg work and take much of the heat. Whether this was the motivation or intentional, or even played into their thinking is hard to say, but it's what happened regardless of motivation and intent.

Regardless it was a mess for everyone and I feel for those who were affected. BTW, I also own on HHI both several Marriott weeks (GO, SW) and a condo in an OF resort.

 

[Superchief]

I think you're assuming their motives, I'd give them more consideration than that, it was a tough situation and there were going to be people affected one way or another. They prioritized, nothing more or less. It's not like they took the availability and rented it out after the fact. It's always interesting when one references ethics in timeshares but acknowledges it was within their rights. Marriott prioritized at the expense of II exchangers, whether they happened to be owners also are not isn't overly pertinent in my book but I know some disagree.

As someone who was impacted by MVC's decision to give priority to Encore Package guests over a chairman level owners, exchanging into home resort, I believe MVC's care regarding their owners has greatly declined over the past few years. I had extensive communication with Ocean Pointe management, MVC Corporate customer care, and II. It was obvious that corporate could care less and were rude and dictatorial with their replies to my concerns. Calls and emails to senior management were ignored. My conversations with Ocean Pointe managers clearly indicated that corporate was dictating how inventory would be allocated and didn't care about who would be impacted. MVC corporate could have at least had the decency to reply to my correspondence and show some concern for a long-time loyal owner. II management also tried to help, but they probably suffered more from MVC's decisions than we did. I have lost faith in MVC's management and will act accordingly in the future.

 

[Dean]

As someone who was impacted by MVC's decision to give priority to Encore Package guests over a chairman level owners, exchanging into home resort, I believe MVC's care regarding their owners has greatly declined over the past few years. I had extensive communication with Ocean Pointe management, MVC Corporate customer care, and II. It was obvious that corporate could care less and were rude and dictatorial with their replies to my concerns. Calls and emails to senior management were ignored. My conversations with Ocean Pointe managers clearly indicated that corporate was dictating how inventory would be allocated and didn't care about who would be impacted. MVC corporate could have at least had the decency to reply to my correspondence and show some concern for a long-time loyal owner. II management also tried to help, but they probably suffered more from MVC's decisions than we did. I have lost faith in MVC's management and will act accordingly in the future.

Fair enough but the decisions needed to be at the corporate level for such issues.