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

[Fairwinds]

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

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

 

[bogey21]

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

George

 

[GregT]

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

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

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

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

Best,

Greg

 

[bastroum]

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

 

[n777lt]

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

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

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

 

[SueDonJ]

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

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

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

 

[GregT]

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

Sue,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Greg

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

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

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

 

[tschwa2]

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


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

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

 

[bastroum]

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

 

[vail]

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

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

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

 

[SueDonJ]

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[klpca]

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

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

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

 

[GregT]

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

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

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

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

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

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

Best,

Greg

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

 

[tschwa2]

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




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

 

[SueDonJ]

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

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

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

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

 

[GregT]

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

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

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

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

Best,

Greg

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

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

 

[GregT]

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

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

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

 

[SueDonJ]

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

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

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

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

 

[GregT]

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

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

 

[SueDonJ]

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

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

 

[pedro47]

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

 

[Ron98GT]

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

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

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

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

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

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