• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Marriott’s Response to My Letter on Our Cancelled Exchange & How They View Exchanges

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,922
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
I don't see how it would apply as that's related to offering the exchange option. All in question I believe were already enrolled in a property noticed exchange program meeting those guidelines.
My point is that by moving owners between resorts, Marriott setup an undisclosed exchange company.
 

Superchief

TUG Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
2,843
Points
448
Location
Cincinnati, OH
T It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW/MI-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory. What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.
I'm not sure that this is true. We know that there is a lot of exchange deposit activity at older resorts because there are several owners who never joined the VC program. I also believe that there aren't a lot of owners who deposit their weeks for points due to the deflated value of MR points. VC point deposits should equal VC points reservations. Currently, MVC is cancelling all II exchanges into Ocean Pointe. How can this be justified when a substantial portion of the inventory is due to Ocean Pointe exchange deposits. We have no visibility to MVW/MI controlled inventory. Are they truly taking their fair share? I no longer trust them.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
That's the thing, though, Dean, it IS a big stretch to treat all HHI resorts as a single unit! I think you're giving MVW too much power here, not questioning enough whatever rights they actually have. It may be that they can move owners/guests among the resorts at will which I'm questioning because I don't see anything in the docs that support it. So if there's nothing to say that they have the right, there's also nothing to say that they must limit that right to only the HHI resorts, meaning nothing to say that they can't do it among the entire portfolio. As far as any of us know it's never been done before, and now they've proven themselves unwilling to explain the reasoning and process to Jim when he inquired. Simply, if MVW was in the right then they have nothing to hide but they sure didn't respond to Jim as if that's the case.

I'd be okay with the hierarchy that they established for this event if they'd enacted it within the individual resorts. It makes sense to me that they'd prioritize Weeks Owners, DC Trust Members and DC Exchange Members in that order as "internal users" because those reservations are confirmed directly through MVW. It makes sense that II exchangers (whether owners or not) are considered "external users" with the lowest priority if mass cancellations have to occur due to such events, because those reservations are confirmed through an external entity. It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory. What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.

Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...

1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable IF they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket."

2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving within different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control. I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket. But, what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me?

Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.
 

Superchief

TUG Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
2,843
Points
448
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I've been a MVC owner since the early years with my first purchases of Royal Palms, shortly followed by Newport Coast. I always trusted the company and appreciated their respect for owners. Until recently, the individual resorts were the primary decision makers regarding inventory and villa assignments. This control seems to have shifted to corporate, which really concerns me. This reminds me of the transfer of customer contacts at banks from the local branch to an 800 number in corporate. Has anyone experiences improved customer experience with a corporate customer service person compared to previously being able to call a local branch and talking to someone they've worked with for several years? Local resorts care about each individual owners. Corporate is primarily motivated by how much more profit they can make.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,582
Points
648
My point is that by moving owners between resorts, Marriott setup an undisclosed exchange company.
I think that's a stretch at best but given that the Marriott system is based in FL, I believe the FL statues would apply where they were applicable.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,922
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
I think that's a stretch at best but given that the Marriott system is based in FL, I believe the FL statues would apply where they were applicable.
Not necessarily a stretch at all. It is a timeshare system and they were working with timeshare components, not hotel reservations.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,582
Points
648
Not necessarily a stretch at all. It is a timeshare system and they were working with timeshare components, not hotel reservations.
As the statute reads it's related to the act of offering an exchange company not the performance of an exchange itself. But if one is so inclined, I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be happy to take the case though likely not on contingency.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,355
Reaction score
18,922
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
As the statute reads it's related to the act of offering an exchange company not the performance of an exchange itself. But if one is so inclined, I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be happy to take the case though likely not on contingency.
I would expect the class would also be so small since it would only impact those with cancelled reservations, it wouldn't be worth the effort.
 

vacationhopeful

TUG Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
12,760
Reaction score
1,699
Points
498
Location
Northeast USA
I view an exchanger as having a contract via II (or RCI) to a stay for x number of night in a y size unit. Marriott deposited a week in the exchange company and the exchange company "SOLD/rented/assigned" the unit Marriott provided for a like-kind of cash payment and item of value .. called the "deposited week" plus CASH paid for the exchange fee.

The resort did NOT close nor were units placed out of service. The resort DID NOT call any or ALL inbound guests to OFFER a bribe to "NOT COME". They chose the weakest guests (the exchangers) and just declared "It is the WEATHER who cancelled your pre-paid and booked vacation stay at our (OPEN to use, but closed to YOU) resort."

Next time .. will Marriott decide anyone who booked first or had higher member status or who was old or who was just plain old & ugly?

Should have offered a BRIDE/reward for a "DO NO COME" to all inbound guest or onsite guests ... just like SWA does for overbooked flights.

WAIT ... do Marriott managers/executives fly SWA?

SWA is Southwest Airlines.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I view an exchanger as having a contract via II (or RCI) to a stay for x number of night in a y size unit. Marriott deposited a week in the exchange company and the exchange company "SOLD/rented/assigned" the unit Marriott provided for a like-kind of cash payment and item of value .. called the "deposited week" plus CASH paid for the exchange fee.

The resort did NOT close nor were units placed out of service. The resort DID NOT call any or ALL inbound guests to OFFER a bribe to "NOT COME". They chose the weakest guests (the exchangers) and just declared "It is the WEATHER who cancelled your pre-paid and booked vacation stay at our (OPEN to use, but closed to YOU) resort."

Next time .. will Marriott decide anyone who booked first or had higher member status or who was old or who was just plain old & ugly?

Should have offered a BRIDE/reward for a "DO NO COME" to all inbound guest or onsite guests ... just like SWA does for overbooked flights.

WAIT ... do Marriott managers/executives fly SWA?

SWA is Southwest Airlines.

Linda, there were some units at Grande Ocean that were out of service due to water intrusion - I think the number Fasttr was told was 15 (out of 290) - and the resort was closed for one day of our scheduled stay (the first one). But my understanding is all II exchanges for that weekend were cancelled, which I presume accounted for more than 15 reservations (but I don't know for sure).
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
We don't really. I am mainly concerned with Marriott creating mini exchange systems on the fly to suit their needs at a given time with no disclosure. What is really preventing them from prioritizing owner stays at any HHI resort in to the prime beach properties and moving all II exchanges to the non beach resorts? While I doubt they would do this and in this situation it was because of the extreme circumstances, it is hypothetically possible.

Marriott needs to remember that these aren't simply hotel reservations when owners are using their ownership rights, whether it be an owner week or an exchange. Owners are using their owned real estate interests. If they did move owners from other resorts on HHI and displace II exchanges, I do feel that they violated ownership rights and also possible the law as it relates to timeshare ownership and exchange programs. Perhaps that is why they are being mum on that specific subject?

I can't think of an instance where I saw the type of behavior displayed with the HHI resorts before what happened to Jim. I agree that this could be the start of a 'slippery slope' with the potential for additional 'as needed adjustments as determined exclusively by MVW corporate' occurring at will until there is ultimately litigation.
 
Last edited:

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...

1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable IF they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket."

2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving within different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control. I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket. But, what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me?

Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.

I agree with your Point 1 (based on your IF). In looking at your Point 2, I have no doubt that MVW probably put this level of thought into coming up with their plans to cancel/displace/reassign/accomodate. However, I am skeptical they would have invested this level of thought into 'how to keep it fair'...
 

frank808

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2,333
Points
448
Location
Marriott Ko Olina Beach Club
Resorts Owned
Disney Vacation Club (Aulani,SSR,VGC,VGF) Hilton Grand Vacation Club(Bay Club, Kohala Suites, The District) Marriott Vacation Club (Aruba Surf Club, Grand Residence, Grand Chateau, Grand Vista,Harbour Lake, KoOlina,Willow Ridge & DC points)
Shouldn't most of the exchange inventory in II come from owners of those weeks depositing their weeks for trade to other resorts? I don't see how mvw can now take those weeks that were deposited by owners and say so sad it is too bad since you exchanged in.

Then take those weeks and give it to their "internal" customers. Remember all these exchange weeks started as owner weeks being deposited with II.

Why is it an owner using their week or renting it out be given preference over owners that deposit their week for exchange? So when i deposit my platinum weeks and someone else exchanges in for it they get the short end of the stick? Why is renting my week or exchanging it any different as both are going to non owners?

I believe it has to do with the fact they can do this to exchangers because they can. With owners and renters (of owner units) they will face more backlash and complaints. But exchanged units, the owners that deposited them will not complain because it does not affect them. And if an exchanger complains mvw says you are not the owner of the unit and puts blame on interval.

Remember, mvw do not own the units deposited for exchange, the owners do. Mvw is saying since you gave them up for II exchange it is now our inventory and we can do whatever we wish with it. Dangerous precedence to set up. Lets mvw play owner instead of being manager. I know mvw owns their own units and they are free to do whatever it is they want with their units. Seems like they are placing themselves ahead of everyone else. Analogy of the fox watching the henhouse.

More logical and fair way to deny access would be by date units were reserved by owners. Does not matter if owner is using them, renting them or depositing to exchange company.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...

1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable IF they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket." ...

Yes, we're on the same page here. Considering that Preview/Encore guests can only reserve MVW-held intervals, and cash and MRP guests can only reserve MAR-held intervals, then it appears there is no wrongdoing IF displaced guests at one resort were moved into like inventory at another. So as long as the Preview/Encore/cash/MAR displaced guests from Monarch, etc. were placed into available units at GO that were designated for those types of stays, no problem.

2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving within different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control. I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket. But, what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me? ...

To me this is where MVW may have walked, if not stepped over, a very fine line with inventory management. True, MVW controls the two inventory pools, Weeks and DC Points. But regardless of whether you're talking Weeks or DC Points reservations booked via MVW's system, at some point in the reservation process the intervals were designated for use at Grande Ocean by owners/members who followed the particular Reservation Procedures rules in order to secure confirmation of those specific reservations. We all expect MVW to follow their contractual obligations with reservations, just as they expect us to follow ours. There's nothing in my governing docs, and certainly there's no historical context, that leads us to an expectation that MVW can at will substitute intervals at one resort for intervals at another in order to satisfy confirmed reservations.

Adding II reservations to the mix - I do understand why in the rare instances that mass cancellations have to be made unexpectedly, it's II exchange inventory that will be the first cancelled. II's rules state explicitly that if the resort notifies them that the inventory is unavailable, they must cancel the confirmation (after which I think each timeshare company's contractual arrangement with II determines whether and in which form replacement usage is due.) That's an awful situation but understandable if the reason is that the cancelled units are uninhabitable by anyone. Is that what happened here, though? I'd like to know definitively if/how/why MVW took the position that they could order II to cancel exchange reservations at one resort, so that they could use those now-unoccupied units to place MAR- or MVW-reserved guests displaced from uninhabitable units at another resort.

Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.

It's definitely frustrating knowing that no matter how much time and thought we give to this, we have no hope of ever getting an explanation unless we're willing to legally challenge MVW. What's disappointing, for me, is that I just can't find in the governing docs where any of this is either supported or disallowed. That's usually what puts my mind at rest, regardless of whether it hurts or helps me. This all just feels unresolved.
 
Last edited:

klpca

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
8,273
Reaction score
7,280
Points
749
Location
CA
Resorts Owned
SDO, Quarter House, Seapointe, Coronado Beach, Carlsbad Inn, Worldmark
Having Marriott both manage the properties and manage the inventory is asking for some shenanigans, imho. And as Jim found out, it appears that complaining to Marriott gets you nowhere. Their lack of transparency, plus their own sense of ownership of the units doesn't sit right with me at all. I hope that the owners get some resolution on this issue.
 

bogey21

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
9,455
Reaction score
4,662
Points
649
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
It has been a long, long time since I was a Marriott Owner but my recollection is that Marriott first designated RCI as their designated Exchange Company then switched to II and in fact had a Marriott Representative handling Marriott Exchanges at II. If my recollection is correct and if II is still their designated Exchange Company, it seems to me that Marriott to Marriott Exchanges within II should still be considered in the family. As I said it has been a long time and much has changed but if the Marriott/II relationship still is in effect, I think OP may have been treated unfairly.

George
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,582
Points
648
It's definitely frustrating knowing that no matter how much time and thought we give to this, we have no hope of ever getting an explanation unless we're willing to legally challenge MVW. What's disappointing, for me, is that I just can't find in the governing docs where any of this is either supported or disallowed. That's usually what puts my mind at rest, regardless of whether it hurts or helps me. This all just feels unresolved.
I haven't gone through the POS specifically looking for info related to this issue but a few thoughts come to mind. The complete control over the reservation system and unit assignment would cover it to a degree and there isn't going to be anything that specifically addresses the issue in question either way. As for explanation, I'm not really sure what they can say we don't already know. Basically they had a difficult situation and some difficult decisions and this was the easy way out and possibly the best one as well. The obvious answer is the answer I believe, that they had to make a decision, they made one that not everyone agrees with but they thought best and let's move on. What they are not going to do and shouldn't, is try to explain the nuances raised in these threads sufficiently to appease those who are already concerned or upset about the choices. The answer to the question of whether this creates, in the legal sense, an exchange company thus violating the laws of SC & FL by not following the other steps required is simply no.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,582
Points
648
It has been a long, long time since I was a Marriott Owner but my recollection is that Marriott first designated RCI as their designated Exchange Company then switched to II and in fact had a Marriott Representative handling Marriott Exchanges at II. If my recollection is correct and if II is still their designated Exchange Company, it seems to me that Marriott to Marriott Exchanges within II should still be considered in the family. As I said it has been a long time and much has changed but if the Marriott/II relationship still is in effect, I think OP may have been treated unfairly.

George
I don't believe the connection is nearly as tight as it once was but even if Marriott employees had access into they system to act on II's behalf, it doesn't cause a legal connection sufficiently to use that angle IMO. They are legally and functionally separate companies. Even for the DC where Marriott provides a corporate account, I don't think one could make this point sufficiently. I think it fair to say that while Marriott is a big player and II has to be delicate in their responses, if this were truly in violation of the contract with Marriott, II would have balked and would be willing to say so to members.
 

windje2000

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
931
Reaction score
28
Points
238
Location
Cent NJ
The notion that MVW is only harming II exchangers who are 'external' is missing one somewhat hidden repercussion of the II cancellation. MVW is also harming Grand Ocean owners. Here's why.

As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this and I will delete this post), if I deposit a week into II . . . and through no fault of my own the resort is closed, . . . II comes back to me regarding that deposit and says time out - your deposit became worthless.

II cancels my deposit and I assume also cancels any occupancy that resulted from that deposit or seeks compensation for exchange occupancy already used. I basically lose my week.

The Grand Ocean owner who deposited that week in good faith with the MVW chosen exchange company got screwed by MVW's action just as much as JiminNC, perhaps more so if that owner did not have insurance. That owners occupancy was cancelled in favor of a non owner selected by MVW.

The specific Grand Ocean owner . . . who deposited the week that JiminNC exchanged for . . . is a hidden victim of the MVW cancellation of JiminNC's exchange. MVW did this for their own benefit. This is probably is the reason MVW is behaving/stonewalling the way JiminNC has described.

IANAL, but I can certainly see that particular owner having a case against MVW for an unlawful taking.
 

jerseyfinn

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
760
Reaction score
90
Points
388
Location
Sedona AZ
Resorts Owned
MMB MVO
The OP clarifies an existing policy that many folks forgot because the usual MVC booking & stay experience is almost always smooth & accommodative. Disruptive events like hurricanes & other extraordinary events require flexibility by all parties.

From day one, when you do an II trade, it's always made clear that you can't retrieve a traded unit -- an implicit (legal) acknowledgment that you've strayed outside of MVC territory & your relationship for that reservation is no longer with MVC. Same idea occurs when you declare points usage for your enrolled weeks. They tell you there's no going back to legacy usage for the points assigned to your enrolled legacy week. You're now bound by policy established between MVC & II, both of which have cancellation clauses & company algorithms for dealing with disruptive events. Under ordinary circumstance, Marriott might have some accommodative options when an MVC owner's booking needs "tweaking."

The other interesting thing the OP reminds us about is that Marriott & MVC do have small amounts of resort inventory dedicated to themselves outside of the Trust bucket & legacy weeks. These units may be used as Marriott sees fit.

I absolutely understand how frustrating it can be when these rare travel interruptions occur. In this instance, it looks to me that MVC tries hard to accommodate MVC owner reservations, but unfortunately, those MVC folks whose reservations fall outside of MVC territory can't be addressed.

It seems unfair, but taken in the larger context of events, it's the only solution available; and it follows a clear policy that's oft forgotten by most of us. Definitely not fun being one of the many left outside of MVC doors. But that's why all of those extra explanatory paragraphs exist in the documents we sign & reservations we make. Not exactly the time or place we want to be reminded of them.

I think the more important dilemma for some MVC owners is how to protect themselves from these sorts of travel disruptive events. For a multiple week owner, the answer is straight forward. Get the travel insurance. It's folks who own only one or 2 weeks who might be on the fence about whether to go with travel insurance.

All that said, it's no fun when travel plans go awry. Ordinarily our travel problems are more about delayed flights, lost bags, or dodgy weather. Hurricanes are unpredictably disruptive. Hope that disrupted travelers can coddle together some sort of trip to make up for their holiday that didn't happen.

Barry
 

Superchief

TUG Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
2,843
Points
448
Location
Cincinnati, OH
From what I've read, II exchanges have born the brunt of the impact because all II reservations are being cancelled. II should have a right to a proportion of villas at each resort. How does MVC compensate II (and exchangers) for the disproportionate number of cancellations.

MVC has also stated that it has 'no control' over II inventory. Does II truly have absolute control over this inventory and how reservations are allocated for their inventory? Can they choose their own priority for which reservations are honored and which are cancelled? Can they allow non-owners to have priority over a MVC home resort owner? MVC implies this to be the case, but I have to believe there are some standards in place to assure MVC owners would have priority. Up til now, all II exchanges are being cancelled so II isn't getting any opportunity to prioritize their reservations so that at least a few exchangers can enjoy their planned vacations. Instead, MVC thinks renters through Marriott and MR redeemers and Encore guests are more important.
 

MALC9990

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
1,796
Reaction score
29
Points
259
Location
Hampshire, United Kingdom
The notion that MVW is only harming II exchangers who are 'external' is missing one somewhat hidden repercussion of the II cancellation. MVW is also harming Grand Ocean owners. Here's why.

As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this and I will delete this post), if I deposit a week into II . . . and through no fault of my own the resort is closed, . . . II comes back to me regarding that deposit and says time out - your deposit became worthless.

II cancels my deposit and I assume also cancels any occupancy that resulted from that deposit or seeks compensation for exchange occupancy already used. I basically lose my week.

The Grand Ocean owner who deposited that week in good faith with the MVW chosen exchange company got screwed by MVW's action just as much as JiminNC, perhaps more so if that owner did not have insurance. That owners occupancy was cancelled in favor of a non owner selected by MVW.

The specific Grand Ocean owner . . . who deposited the week that JiminNC exchanged for . . . is a hidden victim of the MVW cancellation of JiminNC's exchange. MVW did this for their own benefit. This is probably is the reason MVW is behaving/stonewalling the way JiminNC has described.

IANAL, but I can certainly see that particular owner having a case against MVW for an unlawful taking.
All of this tends to confirm my decision to switch away from II to using D.C. points for my exchanges. But this particulat post raises a question in my mind. If I book a week and deposit it with II 12 months out. Then I use that deposit for an exchange in 6 months time. The 6 months pass by, I take my vacation using the II exchange and all is well. Then the hurricane hits and the week I deposited with II is cancelled by MVC. The person who took my deposited week for their exchange is out of luck, their vacation week is cancelled by MVC. II cannot come back to me and say your deposit was cancelled so you lose your exchange because I took my vacation using the exchange 6 months in the past.

What compensation can II demand of me? I deposited within their rules, I exchanged within their rules, I paid my exchange fee (if any) and I used the vacation week I exchanged into.
 

VacationForever

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
10,607
Points
1,048
Location
Somewhere Out There
All of this tends to confirm my decision to switch away from II to using D.C. points for my exchanges. But this particulat post raises a question in my mind. If I book a week and deposit it with II 12 months out. Then I use that deposit for an exchange in 6 months time. The 6 months pass by, I take my vacation using the II exchange and all is well. Then the hurricane hits and the week I deposited with II is cancelled by MVC. The person who took my deposited week for their exchange is out of luck, their vacation week is cancelled by MVC. II cannot come back to me and say your deposit was cancelled so you lose your exchange because I took my vacation using the exchange 6 months in the past.

What compensation can II demand of me? I deposited within their rules, I exchanged within their rules, I paid my exchange fee (if any) and I used the vacation week I exchanged into.
I believe once your week is deposited, II cannot come back to you and tell you that since your week was damaged/cancelled due to hurricane and as a result your deposit is not good. Even if you have not used it to exchange with another resort yet, you still have a week in II. I do not believe windje2000 was correct.
 

frank808

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2,333
Points
448
Location
Marriott Ko Olina Beach Club
Resorts Owned
Disney Vacation Club (Aulani,SSR,VGC,VGF) Hilton Grand Vacation Club(Bay Club, Kohala Suites, The District) Marriott Vacation Club (Aruba Surf Club, Grand Residence, Grand Chateau, Grand Vista,Harbour Lake, KoOlina,Willow Ridge & DC points)
From what I've read, II exchanges have born the brunt of the impact because all II reservations are being cancelled. II should have a right to a proportion of villas at each resort. How does MVC compensate II (and exchangers) for the disproportionate number of cancellations.

MVC has also stated that it has 'no control' over II inventory. Does II truly have absolute control over this inventory and how reservations are allocated for their inventory? Can they choose their own priority for which reservations are honored and which are cancelled? Can they allow non-owners to have priority over a MVC home resort owner? MVC implies this to be the case, but I have to believe there are some standards in place to assure MVC owners would have priority. Up til now, all II exchanges are being cancelled so II isn't getting any opportunity to prioritize their reservations so that at least a few exchangers can enjoy their planned vacations. Instead, MVC thinks renters through Marriott and MR redeemers and Encore guests are more important.
MVC is penalizing the people that they can deflect the blame to. All the reservations they honored have a direct way of complaining to marriott. Easiest to tell II exchangers that they have to deal with II and we have no control with what II does. It is a game of deflection and misdirection sort of like selling their dc points

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Top