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

[Fasttr]

Half the points for Friday night is quite a few. Given that it is the holiday week, here is how any DC points each unit costs;

1BR - 1,425
2BR (sleeps 6) - 2,025
2BR (sleeps 8) - 2,225
3BR - 3,575

I don't know if the OP ever indicated the unit size they booked, but at a minimum they would get 700 DC points. That is worth about $350. Perhaps they could give them dinner vouchers or something else, but at this point, I would take the points as offered.

I think the OP stated that they paid the 20% points premium to book greater than 12 months out. I would make sure the 20% premium points associated with that half a Friday points refund were given back as well.

 

[dioxide45]

I know that I would not leave that room until they have another one to put me in.

This should be standard procedure across all resorts. It so easy to do and goes a long way to make the move easier. HHI properties can do this, why can't the others?

 

[SueDonJ]

Half the points for Friday night is quite a few. Given that it is the holiday week, here is how any DC points each unit costs;

1BR - 1,425
2BR (sleeps 6) - 2,025
2BR (sleeps 8) - 2,225
3BR - 3,575

I don't know if the OP ever indicated the unit size they booked, but at a minimum they would get 700 DC points. That is worth about $350. Perhaps they could give them dinner vouchers or something else, but at this points, I would take the points as offered.

Not me!

Based on the info posted as the OP I'd start with, "I'm no stranger to the Destination Club program having used Points for other stays. During a MountainSide stay we were required to change units but I fully expected that move because for that stay we were issued multiple confirmations, rather than the single confirmation that was issued to us for this GR Tahoe stay." Then I'd move on to, "If I'd known that we'd be required to move on the last night of this stay, effectively requiring us to pack up all of our gear two days in a row, I never would have booked the stay and I certainly wouldn't have considered using my valuable DC Points to cover a 20% premium for what should have been an uninterrupted 7-night vacation for my family. I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights, or I would have used my DC Points for any of the many other resorts that are in your system."

And then I'd get into quoting language from the docs that reference, "an Accommodation" for a single Use Period, blahblahblah, until somebody in a position of authority would at least confirm that they understand the issue as I'm presenting it, and that they have a satisfactory explanation of why the system worked or didn't work for me as designed.

But I'm now just a little bit OCD about this; others might choose not to be.

 

[spottie]

I am in a one bedroom loft. The onsite valet parking is complimentary for one car and cost $29 per day otherwise.

Q:

What size villa are you in?

How much does it cost for
Underground Valet Parking?

 

[kds4]

The GM called back today and told me that we do have to move. He said they would call us when the other room is ready to move in and said he would refund half of my Friday night points for the trouble. I asked him again how did this happen and if somebody else took our room instead? He said it was due to the fixed week at the resort and our Saturday check in days overlap the standard Friday to Friday check in.
He also told me that there were half dozen people in the same situation and had to move room this week as the resort was sold out. If that's true, Marriott really has a messed up reservation system for this resort. I wish I had known earlier and could have avoided the hassle. We actually flew in on Friday and stayed at Reno for a night. I could have booked Friday check in if I knew this problem at the time of the booking.

So, booking Friday to Friday stays at MGR properties sounds like the way to go in the future. Good to know.

 

[billymach4]

Not me!

Based on the info posted as the OP I'd start with, "I'm no stranger to the Destination Club program having used Points for other stays. During a MountainSide stay we were required to change units but I fully expected that move because for that stay we were issued multiple confirmations, rather than the single confirmation that was issued to us for this GR Tahoe stay." Then I'd move on to, "If I'd known that we'd be required to move on the last night of this stay, effectively requiring us to pack up all of our gear two days in a row, I never would have booked the stay and I certainly wouldn't have considered using my valuable DC Points to cover a 20% premium for what should have been an uninterrupted 7-night vacation for my family. I would have instead waited and taken my chances when the Reservation Window opened for the six uninterrupted nights, or I would have used my DC Points for any of the many other resorts that are in your system."

And then I'd get into quoting language from the docs that reference, "an Accommodation" for a single Use Period, blahblahblah, until somebody in a position of authority would at least confirm that they understand the issue as I'm presenting it, and that they have a satisfactory explanation of why the system worked or didn't work for me as designed.

But I'm now just a little bit OCD about this; others might choose not to be.

Sue, I totally agree with you on this.

Spottie in all honesty how do you feel about this position? If I were in your shoes I would not want to move. You have been put in a very awkward position here, and Mother Marriott is trying to put 10 lbs of potatoes in a 5 lb
bag at your expense.

You should be relaxing on your vacation and not having to duke it out with Marriott.

 

[kds4]

I think the OP stated that they paid the 20% points premium to book greater than 12 months out. I would make sure the 20% premium points associated with that half a Friday points refund were given back as well.

That's right. I agree with Fasttr. At a minimum that would bring the OP's points refund up to almost 850 points, no?

 

[SueDonJ]

That's right. I agree with Fasttr. At a minimum that would bring the OP's points refund up to almost 850 points, no?

Not for me. At a minimum I'd want a refund of the entire last night plus the 20% premium for every night. But in addition, I'd want an exec to explain how the system is supposed to work and what went wrong as far as this single reservation.

 

[BocaBoy]

Sue,

These were experimental reservations that I made for May 2016, where I booked reservations with a Friday check-in that crossed Saturday. I did not use the reservations so I can not confirm the room change.

However, there were three weekends in May that all showed that availability pattern (Friday check-in, across a Saturday) and yet the Trust only has 5 3BR weeks in it for May, none of which connect Week 1 to Week 2.

What is the probability that all three of those reservations were for connecting units?

Greg, I understand your comments if the only weeks that could be involved were from the trust. However, the reservation could have also been with any of the legacy weeks that could have been exchanged that year for DC points.

 

[GregT]

Greg, I understand your comments if the only weeks that could be involved were from the trust. However, the reservation could have also been with any of the legacy weeks that could have been exchanged that year for DC points.

BocaBoy,

I agree -- the reservation must have been from legacy weeks exchanged that year for DC points -- total agreement.

My (poorly stated) point is what is the probability that the same legacy week units were redeemed that were have to occur to allow a connecting reservation in the same unit.

As an example, if the system was operating the way Sue believes it does, then in order for my example to happen, the owner of [4206] for Week 19 must redeem for points, and the owner of [4206] for Week 20 must also redeem points -- and both units must be redeemed early enough for the reservation to be there in mid-June 2015.

Since there are 22 3BR units, the probability of any individual unit be redeemed is 1/22. So the probability of [4206/19] is 1/22 and the probability of [4206/20] being redeemed is 1/22. The probability of both units being redeemed is 1/484 (ie, 1/22 X 1/22).

And it happened three times in May. So three times in May the 1/484 happened? I think it is far far more likely that the 3BR in Week 19 and the 3BR in Week 20 are in different units and the system doesn't recognize that these are different units because it is a points overlay over a fixed week system.

I wish I could state it more clearly. Marriott needs to solve this with a disclosure both at the time of the reservation and on the confirmation, so that the the person making the reservation understands the risk they are taking at the time of the reservation, and can choose to/to not complete the reservation.

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

BocaBoy,

I agree -- the reservation must have been from legacy weeks exchanged that year for DC points -- total agreement.

My (poorly stated) point is what is the probability that the same legacy week units were redeemed that were have to occur to allow a connecting reservation in the same unit.

As an example, if the system was operating the way Sue believes it does, then in order for my example to happen, the owner of [4206] for Week 19 must redeem for points, and the owner of [4206] for Week 20 must also redeem points -- and both units must be redeemed early enough for the reservation to be there in mid-June 2015.

Since there are 22 3BR units, the probability of any individual unit be redeemed is 1/22. So the probability of [4206/19] is 1/22 and the probability of [4206/20] being redeemed is 1/22. The probability of both units being redeemed is 1/484 (ie, 1/22 X 1/22).

And it happened three times in May. So three times in May the 1/484 happened? I think it is far far more likely that the 3BR in Week 19 and the 3BR in Week 20 are in different units and the system doesn't recognize that these are different units because it is a points overlay over a fixed week system.

I wish I could state it more clearly. Marriott needs to solve this with a disclosure both at the time of the reservation and on the confirmation, so that the the person making the reservation understands the risk they are taking at the time of the reservation, and can choose to/to not complete the reservation.

Best,

Greg

MVW grabs from other buckets, though, for DC Points reservations. Don't we have to consider that the system is also recognizing at the time of booking Weeks deposited to II, Weeks exchanged for MRP, Weeks in arrears, etc? I think we do, and I also think that it's sophisticated enough to recognize breakage at the individual unit level such that it knows how many intervals that cross a Fixed Week/Unit check-in day can be booked as a single stay and how many must be booked as multiple segments because a unit change will be required.

If the system isn't that sophisticated and isn't including a disclaimer on confirmations, MVW is IMO left vulnerable to inventory control/allocation challenges. I just can't believe that MVW's IT system isn't designed to protect itself from this vulnerability, that this isn't a matter of the onsite rooms controllers prioritizing placement of single-confirmation DC stays incorrectly. How else can it be explained when they've been confirming cash stays using breakage of Fixed Weeks/Units for decades without this issue presenting?

 

[NboroGirl]

Be sure to demand those refunded points BEFORE you leave. I was promised 10,000 MRP because of a snafu at a Marriott Hotel. I never got them. After a week I emailed the manager at the hotel who made the promise, and she apologized and said she'd put those points in my account right away. I never got them. I emailed her again about a week later and a week after that but I never got another reply back from her. So... don't believe it until you see it.

 

[dioxide45]

How else can it be explained when they've been confirming cash stays using breakage of Fixed Weeks/Units for decades without this issue presenting?

I suspect that cash stays are often for a shorter period of time and not week long stays. So the likelihood of this issue is lessened. People may also be making the cash stay on the end of a weeks stay or points stay. So a move is perhaps almost expected and they wouldn't report it.

Another possibility is that cash stays of longer duration usually aren't made by Tuggers. So those making such reservation are likely to stroll in here to bring up the issue. They post is on Trip Advisor, like the review mentioned earlier.

This doesn't seem to be a rare event. The OP indicated that the GM stated that there are about a half dozen people that have this problem this week. With the resort at maximum occupancy, rooms control doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps with lower occupancy or weeks deposited in to II or DC, they have more flexibility to move people around. It is only when someone is staying on an owner stay does this opportunity present itself.

 

[GregT]

MVW grabs from other buckets, though, for DC Points reservations. Don't we have to consider that the system is also recognizing at the time of booking Weeks deposited to II, Weeks exchanged for MRP, Weeks in arrears, etc? I think we do, and I also think that it's sophisticated enough to recognize breakage at the individual unit level such that it knows how many intervals that cross a Fixed Week/Unit check-in day can be booked as a single stay and how many must be booked as multiple segments because a unit change will be required.

Sue,

Marriott can't assume [4206/19] and [4206/20] will both be redeemed in the future and therefore allow a connecting reservation. They can only do this which weeks already redeemed. So you are back at the 1/484 odds, irrespective of how Marriott got the weeks (redeemed for points, MRPs, II trade).

It's still incredibly low odds, and that it happened three times in the same month makes it even less likely.

Sue, I am surprised that you still unable to contemplate that the system functions as it does. I don't suggest this is the correct way nor desirable, only that it is the way it works. It may violate the Governing Docs, but Marriott doesn't think it's significant yet to resolve. I do not know. But this is how the system is currently functioning.

Best,

Greg

 

[dioxide45]

What Marriott properties actually have fixed units? Do all the Grand Residence properties have fixed units? What about the Ritz Carlton properties?

Of the non luxury brand, there are only a few. These are the ones I know of.

• Maui Ocean Club - Napili and Lahaina Towers
• Harbour Pointe
• Streamside
• Monarch

Resorts with fixed holiday weeks are probably immune since they are all still floating unit, plus they have the floating checkin day which may give more flexibility to rooms control.

 

[SueDonJ]

I suspect that cash stays are often for a shorter period of time and not week long stays. So the likelihood of this issue is lessened. People may also be making the cash stay on the end of a weeks stay or points stay. So a move is perhaps almost expected and they wouldn't report it.

Another possibility is that cash stays of longer duration usually aren't made by Tuggers. So those making such reservation are likely to stroll in here to bring up the issue. They post is on Trip Advisor, like the review mentioned earlier.

This doesn't seem to be a rare event. The OP indicated that the GM stated that there are about a half dozen people that have this problem this week. With the resort at maximum occupancy, rooms control doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps with lower occupancy or weeks deposited in to II or DC, they have more flexibility to move people around. It is only when someone is staying on an owner stay does this opportunity present itself.

Could be. I'm thinking that with Owners at this resort getting a boatload of DC Points when they elect individual Weeks of their fractional ownerships, they're likely to use those Points to extend their stays for several days when holiday periods fall consecutively. This year, for example, with Christmas on a Friday quite a few of them may have used DC Points to stay at the resort until the Sunday following their contracted check-out day, thus forming the breakage that this OP and others are dealing with.

The problem then would arise if the rooms controller allowed those Owners to stay in their owned units beyond the contracted check-out day for the DC segments of their stays (which as Greg related in his other thread was a similar scenario that he requested but was denied at Maui OC.) If the rooms controller had instead required the Owners to change units based on the reservations that were confirmed according to expected breakage, the inventory wouldn't have been as broken up needlessly resulting in this OP and apparently several others having to be moved (although we don't know if the others also have single confirmations for multiple nights.)

I know some feel as Greg does that Fixed Week/Unit Owners using DC Points should have first priority for DC inventory that falls consecutive to their owned Weeks, but it's the fact that it causes this issue that makes me disagree. Simply, their entitlement to the Fixed Week/Units they own should come into play only when they're staying on their owned Weeks. When they've elected DC Points or other usage options and are staying at the resort effectively as exchangers, the priority should be figured such that those exchangers holding reservations for multiple nights with a single confirmation number are placed in whichever units won't require a unit change before any other priority metrics come into play.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue,

Marriott can't assume [4206/19] and [4206/20] will both be redeemed in the future and therefore allow a connecting reservation. They can only do this which weeks already redeemed. So you are back at the 1/484 odds, irrespective of how Marriott got the weeks (redeemed for points, MRPs, II trade).

It's still incredibly low odds, and that it happened three times in the same month makes it even less likely.

Sue, I am surprised that you still unable to contemplate that the system functions as it does. I don't suggest this is the correct way nor desirable, only that it is the way it works. It may violate the Governing Docs, but Marriott doesn't think it's significant yet to resolve. I do not know. But this is how the system is currently functioning.

Best,

Greg

I just can't fathom that they've left themselves open to this vulnerability, Greg. It boggles my mind. When I consider that the DC system sometimes shows segmented availability that can't be explained any other way (such as I've seen with my resorts) and that as far as we know it's never been an issue with any other type of breakage reservations, it just doesn't make sense in my mind.

I have to admit that since your thread I've thought quite a bit about it because, well, honestly, it's a little bit odd for you and I to disagree about an issue as completely as we do about this one! But with all the thinking I haven't been able to reconcile all the nuances of the issue or the discussion as anything other than, the rooms controller at MOC handled your request correctly by denying it, and at GR Tahoe the problem is being caused by a room controller who has not. Here the inventory appears to be mis-allocated. Now it may be that s/he thinks it's correct to adhere to a stipulation that owners always get first priority, but in my mind MVW needs to clarify how placement should be done so that the practice conforms to the way the IT reservation system appears to be working as well as the governing docs.

 

[SueDonJ]

What Marriott properties actually have fixed units? Do all the Grand Residence properties have fixed units? What about the Ritz Carlton properties?

Of the non luxury brand, there are only a few. These are the ones I know of.

• Maui Ocean Club - Napili and Lahaina Towers
• Harbour Pointe
• Streamside

Resorts with fixed holiday weeks are probably immune since they are all still floating unit, plus they have the floating checkin day which may give more flexibility to rooms control.

I believe Monarch is Fixed Week/Unit with a single check-in day?

 

[dioxide45]

I believe Monarch is Fixed Week/Unit with a single check-in day?

I think you are right, though I think it is only some of the units. The latter units were floating.

 

[m61376]

Make sure when they refund your points they extend the use year, since 2015 is just about over.

Happy New Year to all!

 

[dioxide45]

Digging into the legalities, this is how a reservation is defined on Page 22 in the Exchange Procedures document:

"Use Period means the time period(s) during which each Program Member has reserved the use and occupancy of an Accommodation in accordance with the provisions of these Exchange Procedures. All Use Periods shall be subject to the minimum and maximum number of evenings identified in these Exchange Procedures."

Throughout the docs there are numerous references to availability being the overriding metric, that there's no guarantee that any and all desired intervals will be available. But when a desired interval is available and the system allows it to be booked, it's classified as a "Use Period." This definition states that a single Use Period consists of (bolding mine), "occupancy of an Accommodation." "An" meaning a single, not multiples, for each interval with a specified check-in and check-out day.

I've read through the docs a number of times now and haven't found anything that says a single reservation with a single confirmation number may require a unit change, other than when maintenance or other issues prevent occupancy of a unit by anyone.

To me the "Use Period" definition combined with the lack of any language that gives them leeway to split up a single reservation into multiple accommodations isn't ambiguous at all. It would be the basis for the argument I'd take up with MVW exec level representatives, and I'd expect to prevail if represented by a qualified attorney.

There is always the global "out clause" in just about every legal document a company creates?

This is from page 16 of the Exchange Procedures;

H. Intent of Rules. The intent of these Exchange Procedures and the design of the Program(s) is to facilitate broad flexibility and utilization across a broad range of varied Accommodations, Components, facilities and Affiliate Programs. These Exchange Procedures are not designed or intended to afford any specific rights in or access to any particular Accommodation or to guarantee that any variable, including Exchange Point levels, check-in days or times, or access will remain constant over time.

Does this give them leverage in this type of situation?

This is also the definition of "Accommodation" in the Exchange Procedures, page 17.

Accommodation means any condominium unit, apartment, cooperative unit, single family home, efficiency cabana, cottage, attached or free standing townhome or villa, fee interest, leasehold interest, unit located in a multi-unit building, and any other similar type of sleeping accommodation affiliated with or offered through the Program.

So by definition it would seem that they have fulfilled their obligation. Aren't they still providing the OP with an accommodation, even though they are having them move tomorrow?

 

[billymach4]

Dioxide,

Just woke up from my New Years Eve nap. I always admire the depth of your research.

Do you practice law as a profession?

 

[dioxide45]

Dioxide,

Just woke up from my New Years Eve nap. I always admire the depth of your research.

Do you practice law as a profession?

Nope, not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.

 

[jehb2]

If it's a 7 night reservation, one confirmation, NO WAY would I move. This is their problem. Don't let them make it your problem. It's not.

X2. Absolutely not. No way would I move. Stand firm.

 

[SueDonJ]

There is always the global "out clause" in just about every legal document a company creates?

This is from page 16 of the Exchange Procedures;


Does this give them leverage in this type of situation?

This is also the definition of "Accommodation" in the Exchange Procedures, page 17.


So by definition it would seem that they have fulfilled their obligation. Aren't they still providing the OP with an accommodation, even though they are having them move tomorrow?

No, I disagree, I think that the "an Accommodation" as it's used specifically in the Use Period definition leads to a reasonable expectation of placement in a single unit for the duration of a single confirmation/multiple-night stay. Where the term is used otherwise, it appears to me as a caution that placement in any specific unit is not guaranteed with floating reservations.

I'm usually right there with you, right at the head of the pack!, in thinking that the docs contain far more protections for MVW than they do for owners/members. But not in this situation. It is simply not reasonable for MVW to expect that owners/members can be required to change units during a single reservation. As far as I can see the IT system protects against it, and there is no specific wording in the docs that will protect MVW if a legal challenge is brought by a competent, qualified attorney.

If this is the allocation system that MVW is directing the resort personnel to follow, then at the least MVW needs to notify DC Members in advance of check-in the possibility of a unit change during a single confirmation. Obviously I think what was done here is the wrong way to allocate inventory based on reasonableness as well as the governing docs and would prefer that they allocate correctly. But I also think that this OP was treated with incredible indifference throughout the process. In the OP's shoes I'd take this as far as it can be taken, starting with a letter to the Exec Leadership, in an effort to make the inventory allocation process much more transparent than it is. Like I said, out of all the calls for legal action since the DC was introduced this one situation appears to me to be the one that has the highest odds of being successful. I can understand why some wouldn't take up the challenge but the least this OP deserves is much more generous compensation than what's been offered, and it should come from Exec MVW with a satisfactory explanation.