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

[Fasttr]

I just got the email and I am MVC only….no Vistana. Seems the emails are going out in batches. My email mentions it applies to both points and weeks resys

 

[Wanderlustgrl]

H

So I just had a problem with an Abound reservation that I made last night. It was an added night for tonight and it was for my daughter who was already checked in at the resort. No way, no how could I put her name on the reservation when I was booking it. It got stuck on the state box. So I booked the reservation in my name. I called Bonvoy and they said that I had to talk to MVC. I called them and it was a battle but they did put her name on it since she was already at the resort but I had to physically fill out that form even though she will be well checked out by the time that form is processed.

So if this is how this will play out, do I have to add all of my children's names to all of my contracts?

Hae this same problem the the state both on phone and computer in changing primary. Terrible

 

[DeniseM]

Vistana owners got it too, but the instructions that they sent to us are EXACTLY what we've been doing for years.

 

[bizaro86]

Even if I'm the first to say it in this thread, I know I'm not the only TUG outlier who is happy that Marriott is at least making an attempt to fix the problem of owner reservations being used by people without the owners' knowledge or consent. We all know it happens, right, with the easiest method (and the one that TUGgers swear by) being via the marriott.com portal? So if MVW is FINALLY doing something about it, good on them. As an owner who sometimes gifts usage to family AND rents usage to strangers, I want my intended usage of my owner reservations to be protected.

That said, I fully expect that Marriott will be behind TUGgers in finding all the possible legitimate Guest name changes that won't be served by this new policy. We'll be inconvenienced for a while, which admittedly is and generally has been par for our Marriott course, but picking up the phone or emailing Customer Advocacy with these concerns will go a lot further in ironing out the wrinkles than any posts here. (from owners.marriottvacationclub.com Contact Us: Call 407-206-6000 or 800-860-9384 / Text 407-358-3745 / Email customer.advocacy@mvwc.com)

Again, I'm not saying this because it doesn't affect me. Today I'll be on the phone because our daughter and her family will be joining us on Hilton Head for two weeks a few weeks from now, and as a gift to our grandkids we used points to book Barony for a night for them. Our grandkids LOVE that gardenside pool and the last time we were there 6YO Caden was shocked to learn that the buildings are like hotels with people sleeping/eating above the pool. We usually use Day Passes to spend time there and at SurfWatch but two full days at the property plus a night on their own is well worth the points. So, I'll be on the phone today to figure out if it's enough that I'll be with them checking them in, and if not what's the procedure with the check-in inside of 30 days.

I mean, closing some weird IT loophole could be done without requiring 30 days notice for name changes. It's not like they're hand delivering a piece of paper with the guest's name on it to the resort in 2024 - there's no customer-friendly reason for the 30 day requirement.

 

[DeniseM]

People usually know what forum they are posting in, but once in awhile we all post in the wrong thread in error. No biggie.

 

[SueDonJ]

Well as everyone always says here, MVC can do whatever they want regardless of the deeded rights in the CC&Rs and we all have to live with it because they have expensive lawyers and there is no way to do anything about it.

But just because owners are allowed to gift/rent their usage to others (which neither MVC nor MVW have ever claimed is not the case,) doesn't mean that it's an unrestricted entitlement.

from the Barony Beach Club POS:
>>APPENDIX "A" TO BY-LAWS
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR BARONY BEACH CLUB OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
...
17. GUESTS Owners shall notify the Management Agent in advance by written notice of the arrival and departure dates of guests or other Authorized Users who have permission to occupy the Unit in their absence for Units subject to the Time Sharing Declaration and part of the Time Sharing Plan.<<

SurfWatch's POS has similar language requiring notice to the mgmt co in the event of owner reservations being gifted or rented.

Several TUGgers, me included, have had conversations with MVW about this form/process since it was first rolled out at least 16 months ago (Arriving Guest Information [merged] TUG thread.) In TUG discussions it's been mentioned that when questioned MVW has said they're now using federal/Homeland Security laws related to foreign agents to require so much more information about the owners' guests/renters. I don't even know where to begin to find the specifics of those laws (although I'm sure the TUG lawyers would,) and there's been no explanation of the impetus for implementing recent compliance, but in the SW docs there is a provision that requires MVW to be in compliance with such laws:

>>SURFWATCH
RESORT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Article XII: REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF ASSOCIATION
...
Section 12.06 Anti-Money Laundering Laws; Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Association hereby represents its compliance with all applicable anti-money laundering laws, including, without limitation, the USA Patriot Act, and the laws administered by the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, including, without limitation, Executive Order 13224.

Association represents that it complies and will comply with the laws, rules, regulations and directives of the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.<<

Given all that (and I'm sure many other related provisions/language in the docs,) I don't know how you come to the conclusion that MVW is somehow usurping the deeded rights of owners simply by asking for written notice and specific information in the event of owner gifts/rentals of usage. Granted, TUGgers are finding some obvious shortcomings with the implementation, but like anything else Marriott-related it shouldn't come as a surprise that they work on the bugs after rollouts.

 

[DeniseM]

There were a number of posts in this thread that were intended for the Vistana page and were misplaced - I deleted them and the responses to them, to reduce confusion.

If you are a Vistana owner, go to the Vistana page to discuss this, because our procedures are completely different than Marriott's: CLICK HERE FOR VISTANA DISCUSSION

 

[SueDonJ]

I mean, closing some weird IT loophole could be done without requiring 30 days notice for name changes. It's not like they're hand delivering a piece of paper with the guest's name on it to the resort in 2024 - there's no customer-friendly reason for the 30 day requirement.

I don't disagree. It just doesn't come as a surprise that they might be implementing something with bugs built in.

 

[Hindsite]

I mean, closing some weird IT loophole could be done without requiring 30 days notice for name changes.

Qwners who allow brokers to use their accounts to make Abound club points bookings at a 30 days or less for a 25% or 30% discount is going to be what gets hit by this. It just the next move after the 20k transfer restriction that drove Owners to allow brokers to use their accounts.

 

[DeniseM]

QUESTION: Is this really any different than several months ago when Marriott sent out the "Long Form" name change procedure? Didn't they say the long form needed to be filled out 30 days or more before check-in?

 

[Theiggy]

But just because owners are allowed to gift/rent their usage to others (which neither MVC nor MVW have ever claimed is not the case,) doesn't mean that it's an unrestricted entitlement.

from the Barony Beach Club POS:
>>APPENDIX "A" TO BY-LAWS
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR BARONY BEACH CLUB OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
...
17. GUESTS Owners shall notify the Management Agent in advance by written notice of the arrival and departure dates of guests or other Authorized Users who have permission to occupy the Unit in their absence for Units subject to the Time Sharing Declaration and part of the Time Sharing Plan.I]

SurfWatch's POS has similar language requiring notice to the mgmt co in the event of owner reservations being gifted or rented.

Several TUGgers, me included, have had conversations with MVW about this form/process since it was first rolled out at least 16 months ago (Arriving Guest Information [merged] TUG thread.) In TUG discussions it's been mentioned that when questioned MVW has said they're now using federal/Homeland Security laws related to foreign agents to require so much more information about the owners' guests/renters. I don't even know where to begin to find the specifics of those laws (although I'm sure the TUG lawyers would,) and there's been no explanation of the impetus for implementing recent compliance, but in the SW docs there is a provision that requires MVW to be in compliance with such laws:

>>SURFWATCH
RESORT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Article XII: REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF ASSOCIATION
...
Section 12.06 Anti-Money Laundering Laws; Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Association hereby represents its compliance with all applicable anti-money laundering laws, including, without limitation, the USA Patriot Act, and the laws administered by the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, including, without limitation, Executive Order 13224.

Association represents that it complies and will comply with the laws, rules, regulations and directives of the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.I]

Given all that (and I'm sure many other related provisions/language in the docs,) I don't know how you come to the conclusion that MVW is somehow usurping the deeded rights of owners simply by asking for written notice and specific information in the event of owner gifts/rentals of usage. Granted, TUGgers are finding some obvious shortcomings with the implementation, but like anything else Marriott-related it shouldn't come as a surprise that they work on the bugs after rollouts.

You’ve obviously done your research and I admittedly have not. I think where people feel their rights as owners are violated is where they say if you don’t fill out the form 30 day in advance your guests will not be able to check in. There has to be a process that allows a last minute change of plans so that our paid for, owned weeks won’t go to waste.
It seems as though if you call they can still check in? I have not tried this, but it makes me hesitant to rent a last minute MVC unit from someone!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dioxide45]

QUESTION: Is this really any different than several months ago when Marriott sent out the "Long Form" name change procedure? Didn't they say the long form needed to be filled out 30 days or more before check-in?

Yeah, the form indicates right on it the 30 day requirement and I believe has done so since inception. The form however uses the term "may not be permitted".

 

[DeniseM]

OK - so is this just another threat? Or is it step 2 in that direction? (That was a rhetorical question.)

 

[Hindsite]

QUESTION: Is this really any different than several months ago when Marriott sent out the "Long Form" name change procedure? Didn't they say the long form needed to be filled out 30 days or more before check-in?

seems not, just that the email has gone out to Vistana owners and potentially to some MVC owners as well, who may not have picked up on it before.

 

[DeniseM]

Let's focus on the Marriott aspect, so as not to confuse the issues. Vistana has a very different name change procedure and no "long form."

 

[davidvel]

But just because owners are allowed to gift/rent their usage to others (which neither MVC nor MVW have ever claimed is not the case,) doesn't mean that it's an unrestricted entitlement.

from the Barony Beach Club POS:
>>APPENDIX "A" TO BY-LAWS
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR BARONY BEACH CLUB OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
...
17. GUESTS Owners shall notify the Management Agent in advance by written notice of the arrival and departure dates of guests or other Authorized Users who have permission to occupy the Unit in their absence for Units subject to the Time Sharing Declaration and part of the Time Sharing Plan.<<

SurfWatch's POS has similar language requiring notice to the mgmt co in the event of owner reservations being gifted or rented.

Several TUGgers, me included, have had conversations with MVW about this form/process since it was first rolled out at least 16 months ago (Arriving Guest Information [merged] TUG thread.) In TUG discussions it's been mentioned that when questioned MVW has said they're now using federal/Homeland Security laws related to foreign agents to require so much more information about the owners' guests/renters. I don't even know where to begin to find the specifics of those laws (although I'm sure the TUG lawyers would,) and there's been no explanation of the impetus for implementing recent compliance, but in the SW docs there is a provision that requires MVW to be in compliance with such laws:

>>SURFWATCH
RESORT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Article XII: REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF ASSOCIATION
...
Section 12.06 Anti-Money Laundering Laws; Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Association hereby represents its compliance with all applicable anti-money laundering laws, including, without limitation, the USA Patriot Act, and the laws administered by the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, including, without limitation, Executive Order 13224.

Association represents that it complies and will comply with the laws, rules, regulations and directives of the United States Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.<<

Given all that (and I'm sure many other related provisions/language in the docs,) I don't know how you come to the conclusion that MVW is somehow usurping the deeded rights of owners simply by asking for written notice and specific information in the event of owner gifts/rentals of usage. Granted, TUGgers are finding some obvious shortcomings with the implementation, but like anything else Marriott-related it shouldn't come as a surprise that they work on the bugs after rollouts.

This claim of federal compliance is such BS it shows the bad faith by Marriott. Are they not renting rooms at TSs inside of 30 days on Marriott.com to comply with this law? Of course not. They can collect the guest info at any time up to check in, assuming the law applies to such transactions at all.

 

[SueDonJ]

QUESTION: Is this really any different than several months ago when Marriott sent out the "Long Form" name change procedure? Didn't they say the long form needed to be filled out 30 days or more before check-in?

Last year I printed out the form to have it handy for TUG discussions and the very first line says "Family members or guests of Owner many not be permitted to check in if the requested information below is not received 30 days in advance of arrival date."

I just filled out the online form for my daughter's Barony reservation, just shy of 30 days out, and it's not substantially different. All I can see that's changed is the order of all the items that have to be checked off, and online the res details are auto-populated. I'll update when/if I or she is contacted, and like I said I'll be there with her at check-in.

 

[SueDonJ]

This claim of federal compliance is such BS it shows the bad faith by Marriott. Are they not renting rooms at TSs inside of 30 days on Marriott.com to comply with this law? Of course not. They can collect the guest info at any time up to check in, assuming the law applies to such transactions at all.

Are we supposed to take your word for it that their claims are "such BS"? What do the laws say?

As long as the loophole allowing Guest Names on MVW reservations to be changed via the marriott.com portal exists, it's a problem. They're two separate and distinct companies, as some TUGgers so often remind us when they want to make a point of bashing the timeshare company. Can you think of any other instance between two separate and distinct companies that so easily allows bad actors to act badly?! My question is, why won't Marriott, Int'l close the loophole so that Marriott Vacations Worldwide doesn't have to be so draconian towards its owners?

And yes, I expect that they will continue to take reservations of the inventory they hold right up until the moment of check-in. Why wouldn't they? Nobody is booking at direct rates and making money off renting those reservations for a higher price.

 

[igopogo]

QUESTION: Is this really any different than several months ago when Marriott sent out the "Long Form" name change procedure? Didn't they say the long form needed to be filled out 30 days or more before check-in?

I didn’t get the first email months ago, nor this one. But the email that is posted here seems a little heavier on the idea that the owner must be the one to check in first. Is that correct? This seems to be an initial attempt to close a different loophole with “additional guests.”

 

[dioxide45]

My question is, why won't Marriott, Int'l close the loophole so that Marriott Vacations Worldwide doesn't have to be so draconian towards its owners?

They have closed the loophole.

 

[DanCali]

Yeah, the form indicates right on it the 30 day requirement and I believe has done so since inception. The form however uses the term "may not be permitted".
View attachment 96543

Yes, it has been there from the beginning. That's why I am not sure this email (which I did not get from Vistana or MVC) represents anything new, but the language in the email is much stronger ("will not be able to check in")

I did have a rental within 30 days last year where we couldn't go due to a medical issue. Making the name change at ~20 days out was not a problem. It was a deeded week reservation.

 

[vol_90]

Used the online form on Monday to change the name on a reservation. Received a confirmation e-mail within 24 hours of the name change. Unfortunately, they put the last name as the first name and first name (misspelled) as the last name. Called MVCI to update which required 10 minutes. They had to look up the online form which was correctly filled out before they would update. I asked and Marriott confirmed it is a manual process to review the form and update the reservation. Not an efficient process that obviously can lead to errors.

 

[DanCali]

Used the online form on Monday to change the name on a reservation. Received a confirmation e-mail within 24 hours of the name change. Unfortunately, they put the last name as the first name and first name (misspelled) as the last name. Called MVCI to update which required 10 minutes. They had to look up the online form which was correctly filled out before they would update. I asked and Marriott confirmed it is a manual process to review the form and update the reservation. Not an efficient process that obviously can lead to errors.

24 hours is fast. for me it's been 2-3 days and slower on weekends.

The question is what happens if you submit a form within 30 days. Will they now decline to change the name?

 

[pchung6]

This is exactly what I've been said Marriott Vacation (MVC) will slowly and aggressively eliminate any benefits after Vistana acquisition. There will be more to come. Marriott Vacation, the evil corporation, has to make their money back from Vistana acquisition and pay their executives.

 

[davidvel]

Are we supposed to take your word for it that their claims are "such BS"? What do the laws say?

As long as the loophole allowing Guest Names on MVW reservations to be changed via the marriott.com portal exists, it's a problem. They're two separate and distinct companies, as some TUGgers so often remind us when they want to make a point of bashing the timeshare company. Can you think of any other instance between two separate and distinct companies that so easily allows bad actors to act badly?! My question is, why won't Marriott, Int'l close the loophole so that Marriott Vacations Worldwide doesn't have to be so draconian towards its owners?

And yes, I expect that they will continue to take reservations of the inventory they hold right up until the moment of check-in. Why wouldn't they? Nobody is booking at direct rates and making money off renting those reservations for a higher price.

I'm not talking about any loophole, that is your jam. I also stated "assuming the law applies..." My point is that they don't need to require a form 30 days in advance to follow any law.

What I said is the claim that they need 30 days to comply with the law is BS. You don't need to take my word, just use simple logic. The assertion is so preposterous it really doesn't need an explanation, but maybe it does for some...

If they must change name and get details of the guest more than 30 days out to comply with some law, then they couldn't rent out days on Marriott.com inside of 30 days, II couldn't give you a match inside 30 days, and II couldn't add a guest certificate inside 30 days, and II couldn't sell a getaway inside 30 days.

My guess is they simply want enough time to be able to manually process these changes, but also that they are squeezing renters (pure speculation) because they clearly don't need 30 days to make the guest name change. The fact that they cite some vague, complex law for the fact that they demand 30 days makes their actions suspect.